Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 94 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 62 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 61 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 48 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 21 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 54 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 22 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 107 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 100 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 93 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon#Snorlax_Merge_Discussion

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7756 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith

Request to lift topic ban

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

---

Please refer [1], regarding my topic ban on FGM. I have voluntary accepted the ban as I didn't complied to self restricted FGM editing without discussing on respective talk pages. Although there were not even one 1R issue, my editing was felt interruptive to some editors as citation provided by me were not termed as proper RS.

My further editing since then had no further similar issues and had tried to further learn on selection of proper RS.

I request for lifting topic ban on the subject. I voluntarily further restrict myself to put my views on respective talk pages only, till it is well discussed there.Md iet (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For convenience — FGM = female genital mutilation. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin opened a complaint on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44#User:Md iet, in April 2018, which led to me to impose this ban. The general issue (now, and in the past) is concern about 'whitewashing' of FGM which is a practice of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect centered in South Asia and East Africa. For that sect, FGM appears to have status as a religious practice. UN bodies regard Female genital mutilation as a human rights violation. Though User:Md iet's ban was set up as a voluntary ban, the topic of Female genital mutilation is now understood to fall under WP:ARBGG, per this October 2018 ban of Muffizainu. In that AE thread, the closing admin decided that FGM is a 'gender-related dispute or controversy'. I haven't yet decided whether to support the lifting of Md iet's ban; I suppose he should explain why the problem won't occur again. If his views are similar to those that Muffizainu expressed in his own AE discussion, it doesn't seem very promising. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please see my reply at [2].Md iet (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made my intentions very clear and understand Wikipedia importance with my limitations and difficulties/inconvenience of fellow editors in the matter. I have already faced restriction based on my earlier editing. There is no new clear instances(differences) pointed out to justify why the problem would occur again.

The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.

Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large, at Wikipedia a true fair, democratic platform where people expect all the POV fairly published. Now it is up to admins team to decide on the matter. Power is always available at Wikipedia board to ban anybody further if he is not at par. Not giving fair chance seems somewhat stringent. Whatever decision taken would happily acceptable with further desire to follow Wiki guidelines specially on RS further.Md iet (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There is opposition in the name of spreading truth. If in encyclopedia of Wikipedia fame,truth and real situation is pointed out using proper citations will definitely address NPOV better. In the name of wp:soapbox,if attempt are made to restrict published known truth seems not a proper approach I feel. Use of RS is main issue here, decision to be based on the same rather then all the others.Md iet (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Although my case is altogether different , even in the case of Muffizenu there are comments [3], [4], [5] criticizing (like supporting my cause) the way SV mixing the case of proper sourcing /NPOV and discussing at AE page.Md iet (talk)

I don't have to say any thing more on my ban but let me clear that the topic which is matter of hue and cry for hundreds of year together and steal millions are left sufferer without solution. Many of People are really worried but some (mostly journalist, politicians, publishers) are just using the case for self interests of getting easy fame. Some people who really want to get solution will never be able to point their views in fear of sharp criticism they face. If some one try to come out, they are severely suppressed, threatened and their sources termed unpopular/old/non medical so on and on,if not justified else. Users like User:Rashid Jorvee, User:Tessa Bennet, User:Music314812813478, and User:DistributorScientiae etc. were active and tried to participate in discussions. I would be thankful if they also put their views here.Md iet (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose appeal. Female genital mutilation is a featured article based on the best available sources. It faces periodic attempts to whitewash text. Unsourced boosterism such as diff (25 August 2018) indicates that the present restrictions should remain. (For background, see Talk:Female genital mutilation#NSW Australia case concerning Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Md iet (talk · contribs) and Muffizainu (talk · contribs) arrived at FGM last year within a month of each other, and engaged in advocacy on behalf of the Dawoodi Bohra. The article mentions the Bohra only in passing: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in ... India by the Dawoodi Bohra." There is more at Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation. Muffizainu's position, which contradicts the available evidence, is that the Bohra practise Type Ia FGM only (removal of the clitoral hood) and that we should call what they do "female circumcision", not FGM. He recently created a POV fork at Khafd, which is what led me to request a topic ban.
  Md iet seems to oppose FGM, but (if I've understood him correctly) wants to use Wikipedia to suggest other approaches beside passing laws against it, which he believes is counter-productive. The main problem is that they both use sources poorly. See Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16, which is mostly discussions with them from September 2017 until recently. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Having read some of the talk page archives I don't think this editor should be editing these articles. The archives of the FGM article show a few editors engaging in long arguments to prevent inappropriate material from being added to an FA. We need to help those editors, not send them more people to deal with. Hut 8.5 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• oppose appeal My impression from what I've seen of this appeal is that user believes Wikipedia is some wp:soapbox for spreading the truth. To quote, "The issue is very critical involving millions of people getting affected, and with situation prevailing, there is no significant reduction/improvement visible to me being member of victimized similar lot.

Closing door of discussion completely isolating people with some different solutions seems not be very beneficial to people in large"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal by SashiRolls

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

---

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SashiRolls has submited an unblock request after coming off of an ArbCom block. As GoldenRing is not currently active, and the block log specifies appealing to the community, I am copying it here for community discussion. The text of the appeal follows:

An Arb has suggested that I follow the template for appealing that can be found at the en.wp guide to appealing blocks as closely as possible. So here we go:

• State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration.

I do not believe I should still be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. My record of contributions at fr.wp [6], en.wikiversity [7], meta [8], and even simple.wp [9] show that I've been able to improve WMF "knowledge" products while trying to contribute or just learn from meta-reflections and how-tos in more effective places. I have even contributed to en.wp occasionally through people who thought my proposed text was a reasonable improvement and added it in their own name. I have not violated any en.wp rules during the period of my block. Concerning the rest of the accusations in the block record, I will be frank. I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". That is simply smear.

• Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).

After over a year of being blocked I have still had no further explanation from @GoldenRing: concerning the "harassment and intimidation" claims (no reply to any email in fact, so I stopped trying long ago). If he still stands by his block, I would be happy to hear why.

• Give evidence.

Let's stick to the basics of the affair I was blocked over:

1. I commented at AN/I when Crossswords drew my attention to an incident they had filed (§).
2. I followed a bot notification to an RfC on a page in American politics called "And you are lynching Negroes" which caught my attention. As a result, I was blocked by Dennis Brown on Sagecandor's request (§) for 6 months for "wiki-hounding". Dennis Brown has since defended his block as being "community-based", although I suspect they've realized the error of that (very small) "community" by now, since they've been a regular WO reader in the two years since.
3. After being blocked I learned a fair bit about the history of the en.wp editing environment by reading the critical fora and continued to observe the political sphere. It was no secret that Sagecandor had begun writing a lot of book reports in the weeks before my return, and when I noticed them adding to the en.wp Bibliography of Donald Trump, I thought it wise to try to inform the readers what was going on. I was blocked indefinitely on Sagecandor's request (§) as a result of documenting this on the talk page.
4. It has been suggested to me that a better approach would have been to start an SPI as was done when they returned to en.wp in 2018, after at least a half-dozen people had worked to compile the evidence adduced in that SPI. (§)
5. I have remained interested in Wikipedia and its problems. I wrote an article and compiled a lot of data concerning Wikipedian sourcing § while blocked.
6. In October 2018, the Arbitration Committee removed the second layer of block they had placed on me to solve the problem of the smear about "harrassment and intimidation" being broadcast to anyone who clicked on my user-name.

Again, if Goldenring (§) would like to defend the use of the words harassment & intimidation, I would listen to whatever they had to say, but I think the facts show otherwise. I remember reading in the guidelines not to leave out the background. Essential reading is Cirt's established MO of asking for action against so-called wikihounds on trumped-up charges. (§)

I would be touched if Goldenring would unblock me personally with an edit summary retracting his caricature of straightforward observation as "harassment and intimidation".

Thank you for taking the time to read this request for administrative review of the two blocks that Cirt requested be placed on my account.

— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for community input. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Some background reading here - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#SashiRolls --Calton | Talk 01:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". OK, that's an immediate non-starter: Decline unblock. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm gonna have to go with decline just because I don't see any acknowledgement of the behavior that led to the block, nor any commitment not to engage in such behavior again. I just see an editor denying that such behavior ever took place, and alleging a series of vendettas to explain why they were blocked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I saw some of the discussions at the time but forget the details. My decline is based on the flawed judgment shown in the appeal regarding the implication that GoldenRing was entirely wrong (and no one noticed), and the portrayal of Wikipediocracy as something other than a cesspool for discontents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  I hope (and expect) that whoever reviews this will discount ad hominem attacks like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Decline per Calton. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to explain the logic to Johnuniq: Sagecandor was a sock of Cirt. Cirt's appeal of their topic ban prohibiting them from editing about politicians and political culture was declined 13-1 the last time it was appealed to ArbCom [10]. Cirt , therefore, had no right to be socking to avoid scrutiny given that there were active sanctions against their account, which they were violating. By extension, they did not have the standing to prosecute anyone for noticing their highly abnormal editing patterns which -- as it turns out, again -- violated active sanctions.

As for assurances / pact of non-aggression: I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry. I'm just giving en.wp a chance to fix an embarrassing mistake it has had made for it by an absentee sysop/clerk.

So far, this thread includes no DIFFs showing any harassment or intimidation of Sagecandor whatsoever and plenty of DIFFs showing Sagecandor/Cirt falsely crying "wiki-hounding/harassment/intimidation" (the link provided above leads to dozens of examples of it). I look forward to this request being studied in depth by an uninvolved administrator here at the Administrator's Noticeboard, because I would really like someone to reply with evidence rather than just per Haps -- who provided no DIFFS -- or from half-forgotten memories of a case they never understood had been brought by a scrutiny-evading sock with quite a reputation... (i.e. quite a way to be welcomed to Wikipedia). By the way, Calton, MPants & Johnuniq, nice to see you again. ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied by request from SashiRolls' talk page [11]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Decline It’s always about other editors, including admins. That was true last year after coming off a six month block and is true after another year block. Had the editor finally come to grips with their own behavior, I might feel differently. But, this unblock request is just another list of grievances and failure to indicate any future improvement in behavior. O3000 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Question for the community: can someone provide a link to the "harassing/intimidating" behavior in question? 28bytes (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: generally, see the diffs offered in this AE request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you. I'll be honest, I'm a little uncomfortable that the AE thread was created and presented by a (now-indeffed) sock account to evade a BLP ban to (successfully) get someone who was questioning their edits silenced. But I'll look through the individual diffs now. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently per the AE request that got them indeffed, I outed them via anagram or something because I've discovered both their real name and their mother's name, which is frankly a level of conspiracy driven paranoia that makes me happy I live in a place where Google Maps can't find my house, and the banjo music from the forest mostly scares everyone away. GMG^talk 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm an admin with no prior interaction with SashiRolls and who generally stays away from AP2 topics and doesn't read Wikipediocracy at all, so everyone should be able to evaluate the neutrality of my next comments. Decline this unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM (generally) and site ban per WP:NOTHERE. SashiRolls is obviously a user with a score to settle who has a history of disrespect for Wikipedia and its editors. This request is dripping in battleground rhetoric - they themselves are the sole defender of Wikipedia, they are infallibly right and everyone with a different opinion is in their way. They were blocked for socking two years ago and have repeatedly referred to that action as a "gag order" and by their own admission are still contributing in spite of being blocked. They say they were blocked at Cirt's request, which isn't how blocking works and ignores the many other editors also supporting that action in the AE thread, and the fact that Cirt was also socking and that GoldenRing is away don't matter even one tiny bit at all. They don't acknowledge at all that their past behaviour was disruptive, they even defend it as having been in some kind of constructive interest. With the attitude displayed here there is zero reason to think they won't immediately resume their crusade if they're unblocked, and so they should not be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to reassure Ivan Vector that I have no intention of going on any crusades and bear no grudges against anyone. Contrary to what you said, I do not think I have some mission to "save" Wikipedia or that it would even be possible for one person to do such a thing. I'm not a hasten-the-day agent trying to get myself embedded in plain sight into Wikipedia. I've already told ArbCom that I have learned that the high-conflict political pages are probably best avoided entirely (not only for the peace of the project, but for my own peace of mind). There are just too many people with too many divergent viewpoints to act efficiently in that area. Some people I respect would probably consider this laziness, but such is life. I've had more than enough of wiki-drama.

On the other hand, I do have an avid interest in learning, and en.wp is a place from which I've learned a lot, on many levels. It is a tool I've used regularly for over a decade -- entirely unnoticed for about 10 years (§: the first account I lost my password to) -- prior to recent events in US politics. Not really having had the time or the competence/expertise to edit well during that period (which was much more permissive of OR than en.wp is today), it was only in 2016 that I dipped into the conflictual areas and began rigorously learning the citation templates. I sometimes have been known to just lurk in the background and help people who like to move more quickly by helping them format references properly. I generally am most interested in the reference sections of articles (since that's where all the facts come from) and like to give scholars / journalists credit by including their names in the citation templates. It's important to give credit where it is due.

I can also help the project by copy-editing (in two languages) and note that there is a lot of fr -> en.wp translation work that I could dig into. In terms of writing: I have been working on improving my synthetic skills, because I have an annoying tendency of trying to pack too much into a sentence. As a general rule, I like to think of the reader. I have not created 1000s of articles, just one in fact (in both French and English), as well as an unpretentious English phonology page at wikiversity. I am here offering to help improve en.wp in a minor way. I look forward to continuing to learn in that process.

For reference here are some of my last content edits to en.wp, written in the hours before being indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE [12]. Some other long-standing contributions can be found in this section. I appreciated the research I found on that page. I find it fascinating that Choctaw, Mobilian Jargon, Yoruba, and the Bostonian press were all probably involved in the spread of the new word OK, and had no idea of that before I started looking through the assembled documents in that en.wp entry (some of which had been deleted, others not). So, OK. I'll try not to soapbox, but I did want to acknowledge that I'd heard your concerns, I.V., and to respond to them. I am neither a crusader trying to convert "infidels", nor a creep. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:SashiRolls TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to Accept their appeal, at least procedurally: the AE case that was the immediate cause of the indef should never have been (able to be) brought, although I accept than even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn in the dark. And although WP:NOTTHEM argumnets are probably the worst arguments one can make in an appeal, I can actualy understand it in a case where, arguably, the "THEM" in question has broken as many if not more of our behavioural guidelines than the blocked editor. I suppose ultimately it may—repeat, may—have been the correct result, but its procedural deformity is writ exceeding large. ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept per SerialNumber. The idea of keeping someone blocked who was taking a close interest in an editor who was actively socking to edit in an area they were banned from is laughable. Especially since it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor. It comes across as the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault" arrogance that is rife amongst a certain type of admin. If Sashi misbehaves block them again. But complaining their unblock request is about other editors, when it was other editors bad actions that resulted in their block, is petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Decline - I understand the positions of SN54129 and OID, it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it, but I'm more convinced by the argument of Ivanvector, particularly concerning the tone of the request. I see nothing there to indicate that SashiRolls has changed their attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should accept the unblock request. These comments in particular give me the impression he plans to edit here for the right reasons. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I really admire the chutzpah of an editor who, using a sock puppet account created to avoid a topic ban, brings action against another editor, noting discretionary sanctions in very same subject area, filing an AE case on the grounds that editor is casting WP:ASPERSIONS at them that they know full well are perfectly true. All experienced editors know that you should never, ever file an AE request, because you're just as likely to get blocked yourself as the subject of your motion; but not only does the victim get indefinitely blocked, the perpetrator walks away Scott free. Well, not completely free, they took his sock away from him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• But how do the actions of the other editor, and the lack of sanctioning of that editor, justify the behavior of the appealing editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept per Messrs. 28, 54129 and OID. Sure, there's some understandable indignance in the unblock request - insufficient grovelling, one might say - but given the circumstances of the block being caused by a bad actor seeking to obscure their own misdeeds, who wouldn't feel a little aggrieved? Unblock, and let their subsequent actions speak for themselves. Anything else feels petty and punitive, and we don't do that, right? -- Begoon 21:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept - I do not subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility of the WP community and cannot help wondering that if all the facts were known at the time of the block it may have resulted in a wp:boomerang instead. Jschnur (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Some context: A bit of transparency here: I exchanged words with SashiRolls a little bit over at that "other" site where we might not be able to link: (Redacted). Let me provide a bit of context of my biases: 1) I actually think Cirt has historically done good work in content. 2) I think SashiRolls is very prototypically Wikipedian (and I include myself in this critique) having a short fuse, an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the prototypical feature of being self-involved. But, there but for the grace of WP:KETTLE go I. 3) If you people think this request is problematic, you should read the thread to see what SashiRolls had initially wanted to request. Would that we had had a few more rounds of back-and-forth for editing and counseling about what the right way to go about doing this might be. The !vote-count might be very different if we had done that. But we have the history we have, the hand we are dealth. That SashiRolls had the presence of mind not to ask for an addendum to a block log means there is someone working that account who is willing to take criticism on board.

Now for even more pontificating that y'all didn't ask for: Wikipedia is an absolutely horrible place to people like SashiRolls who lose their social capital. As soon as someone goes down, the typical response to is gang up and kick them. SashiRolls simply does not have the experience with this society to know how to say the right things to get back in right with the culture. With some time and practice, I think there is evidence that SashiRolls may get there. I have tremendous sympathy for this problem. I've been in the very same boat.

I know that people can learn and change and adapt. I only slightly hesitate to add that Wikipedia, as well, changes, and so maybe that's something to consider here with respect to some hindsight about what occurred. Wikipedia, as a community, has demonstrated a willingness to stick its neck out and let people like me back in after shitcanning. But, to the point, I think that SashiRolls exhibits the characteristics that he too might be able to adapt into that kind of editor who this website can not only accommodate but come to accept or even value.

That leaves the question as to whether to unblock this poor soul. I actually do not think it appropriate I offer an opinion on that since I coached SashiRolls over at that other evil site. I don't know whether SashiRolls has been able to, as they say here, "take enough on board" to not get back into the kind of shit that sent him packing in the first place. In fact, as we all are human, SashiRolls may fail again. But I also fail from time to time in spite of having been reaccepted into this weird and wonderful website. Each time I feel I fail better and become better at communing and navigating this place because of it. I get the impression from my brief interactions with SashiRolls that this kind of thing is a distinct possibility.

With all that in mind, I would just ask the jury here to consider whether they think this account will ultimately be a net-positive or a net-negative when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't often get people asking to be a part of it in the serious way SashiRolls is asking. I understand that some people are either so abused by the site or so congenitally unsuited to working in this environment that they should be told to go find other outlets (people have said as much about me). But I tend to believe that this is probably the minority of people who take the time to write block appeals and respond to concerns the way SashiRolls has. That's not to say that there is no risk, and while I think that eventually SashiRolls is likely one of the people that would be better to let back in, the question I cannot answer is whether it's the right time or not.

Is SashiRolls carrying a grudge? You better believe it. Is this a problem? Potentially, but there's also this principle of WP:ROPE. Still, you may all judge that the likelihood of success is too slim. Perhaps SashiRolls didn't practice enough in learning about the peculiarities of Wikipedia culture and didn't get enough help writing a decent request for unblocking to reach the appropriate tone, make the right promises, describe a future in the right way to make you all confident in a successful renaissance for the account. I get that, but the question I ask is whether such poor timing, as it were, is a good enough justification for saying, "no, you must remain an un-person".

So please ask, is it better for SashiRolls to learn the ropes of Wikipedia unblocked now, or is it better to spend some time cast in the wilderness and maybe come back with a better-formed statement that will make you feel better? I honestly don't know the answer, but I hope my stream of consciousness rambling was helpful for some of you.

TL;DR: SashiRolls shows some characteristics of being able to be a good community member here, but doesn't yet know enough Wikiculture to be able to understand what is or isn't possible in navigating a return to "good standing". It may be possible for SashiRolls to learn this by being unblocked, or you may think the risk is too great that SashiRolls will end up kicked out again.

jps (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This actually tracks some of my thoughts pretty well. I'm opposed because Sashi isn't saying the right things. If Sashi can say the right things, that would change my mind.

The need for Sash to say the right things comes from the fact that Sashi is not a pure victim here. If that were true, then it wouldn't matter whether Sashi said the right things or not, I'd support the unblock. Also, if Sashi were entirely in the wrong, it would not matter, I'd oppose the unblock. But the issues that led to this block were partially of Sashi's doing. So if Sashi recognizes that and vows to avoid that behavior, then there's literally no need to keep them blocked. Also, the suggestion that Sahsi should grovel is fucking juvenile: We are not here for justice or to assuage our own feelings. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Groveling does not contribute to building an encyclopedia, so not only is it rarely asked for, the suggestion that it's being asked for in this case is just ridiculous. The only thing being asked for is some evidence that Sashi will handle problems such as those that led to his block with more skill in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think deciding what is "groveling" and what isn't "groveling" is largely a question of semantics. Some people have found success with shamelessly groveling, but what we're ultimately talking about here is composing a written word essay that will give people the right feels. It is a bit of a "rose by any other name" sorta scenario. It's, at the very least, a hoop to jump through. jps (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I see a difference between "groveling" and what has been asked here. For example, I think it's fair to characterize a demand for an apology as groveling, or demanding that an editor requesting unblock agree to conditions that are unprecedented or which place an undue burden on them in their editing. I don't see anything like that being asked here. I see myself and several others saying "We're not sure that Sashi won't get themselves in trouble again, based on what they say".

I'd like to point out that Sashi's response to Ivan is heartening, but not quite what was asked for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely, trying to get someone who wants a certain outcome (unblocking) to produce a product that reaches a certain set of standards (evidence that you won't get in trouble again based on what you say) will ultimately cause us to wonder whether we've just coached someone into being constructive. But, as Munroe says, MISSION FUCKING ACCOMPLISHED. In any case, I don't know whether the first impulse of this website, to want to see this evidence in the unblock request itself, is the right one or not. I haven't seen the studies that show what the outcomes actually are between those who write the right things and those who do not. SashiRolls is surely reading this, so perhaps we'll get some insight from them! jps (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my outlook, too. I don't give a flying fuck how they get there, only that they get there. As far as I'm concerned, your coaching offsite is no different that on-site mentoring, and kudos to you for doing it. If it works, we're up one experienced editor. If it doesn't, we're down one disruptive editors. Win-win. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To an extent it is semantics, yes. I'm sorry my use of the term is viewed as "fucking juvenile" and "just ridiculous" - my intent was to perhaps encourage consideration of how it might feel to the blocked user who has made a good faith effort to appeal in as honest a fashion as they can. I see, as 28 does, much in Sashi's most recent statement to indicate that they want to contribute for the right reasons, and, for me, the "right things" are said there. As OID puts it, Sashi may well feel that "the usual "we are not going to admit we were wrong but to be unbanned you must still kowtow and admit you were at fault"" is in play, and I sympathise with that. Like it or not, there is a perception that getting unblocked can be less about honest self-reflection than it is about reciting the 'correct' mantra, with or without sincerity. -- Begoon 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "we" were entirely in the wrong to block Sashi. That being said, I'm not unsympathetic to their position. We've blocked one of the editors who was problematic on "our" end, and the other has stopped editing. So we've handled the problems on our end. So now if Sashi can handle the problems on their end, we're golden. The only real disagreement is whether they've said the right things to indicate that. I say no, you say yes. But I'd note that it certainly wouldn't hurt Sashi to use my standard, here, as they'd gain another supporter while simultaneously losing a detractor. And that alone might be enough to convince another detractor or two. It sure couldn't hurt. Meanwhile, sticking to his guns and refusing to admit any problems... Well, there's no consensus to unblock right now. We know what that means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m having a few problems with these arguments. 1.) First, the editor has had a year and a half to figure out how to gain approval for an unblock, and has failed this rather trivial test. That’s a very long time over which the editor could have examined unblock success rates. You can call that integrity or you can call that WP:CIR. 2.) I don’t care about the fact that some other editor was blocked who started part of the process that resulted in one of the blocks. I only care about the result and if it was based upon diffs and the editors responses. 3.) I get the feeling the editor feels they are somehow above the guidelines and policies when they are “right” and I have seen no new evidence that this has changed. 4.) I don’t like the characterization of “groveling” applied to simply admitting flaws in past behavior and explaining how one will avoid that in future. Which one of us is perfect? Seriously, saying “Sorry, I’ll work on that” is not groveling. 5.) As for rope, in this case it was played out to the level of a ship laying a transatlantic cable. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever had cause to request for an unblock after being indefinitely shitcanned? It is far from a "trivial" test, let me assure you. At least it was for me. I am sympathetic to your concern that you think the person may think themselves "above" Wikipedia law. That's kinda the issue we're grappling with in this treaded discussion. Whether we call this a call for "groveling" or whether we call it "introspection" runs into the problem of other minds. Let's just say that you want a certain thing and it may be hard to provide it. As for your final argument, my point about WP:ROPE is to say that any unblock will be subject to it as well. Leashes get shorter after each event. Some people get once bitten twice shy. I get it. But there are examples of people returning and so the question is whether we have enough data to know that this is a bad idea. As I intimated, I really don't know. jps (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Good responses. The problem of other minds is important as wikis are built upon collaboration. Yes, we only “know” that our own mind exists. (OK, I’m not even certain of that.) But, if one wishes to collaborate, one must find an effective manner whether one is playing with other sentient minds or a video game. What I’m worried about is twice bitten, third shy. I’m just not seeing any change in attitude whatsoever. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

10-4. My evidence comes purely from witnessing SashiRolls change approach in how to proceed with this request. Maybe SashiRolls will respond to this discussion directly to provide more evidence, but maybe not. In any case, I can understand where you are coming from. jps (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept I have spent a lot of time reading the evidence. I certainly recognize that SashiRolls is not blameless. For example, I would normally bristle when an editor calls another editor a "prosecutor" at AE. But in this case, Cirt/Sagecandor was, in effect, an illegitimate prosecutor. That otherwise capable editor and former administrator was topic banned from U.S. politics for dogged POV pushing among other things, and then spent a couple of years defying their topic ban with the Sagecandor sockpuppet. I was certainly fooled by this sockpuppet and gave them a barnstar shortly before they were blocked, much to my embarrassment when I found out the truth. I have never claimed to be a sockpuppet detective. Much (though not all) of the problems that SashiRolls encountered were as a result of their interaction with this lying, vindictive, driven POV pusher. It is impossible for me to re-read the evidence so meticulously presented by the Sagecandor sockpuppet without considering it to be tainted by their own deceptions and vindictiveness. On the other hand, I see no evidence that SashiRolls has engaged in any socking or disruption since their block. Accordingly, I believe that this editor deserves another chance. I encourage SashiRolls to do their best to separate the wheat from the chaff that they have received in all these conflicts, and recognize that their own behavior has been suboptimal on several occasions, as many editors other than Cirt/Sagecandor have pointed out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'll leave the unblock question to people with a clearer sense of whether Sashirolls is likely to become a worthwhile contributor if unblocked, but I'm unimpressed by the initial request which didn't acknowledge the previous misconduct amply documented by Cirt and others in those AE threads, and with some of the pro-unblock arguments. Objecting to the process based on Cirt/Sagecandor's status at the time is totally different from pretending those diffs don't exist (they are there in the revision history no matter who points them out). And the process objection is not persuasive either.

  Cirt's socking is something to possibly weigh into consideration if the overall case is iffy, but it's not dispositive. This is not a court, we don't have an exclusionary rule, talking about "standing" is obnoxious wikilawyering, and Cirt is not a prosecutor (someone entrusted with state power with a high potential for abuse). And many astute editors weighed in at those AE's and affirmed that the blocks were warranted, some of whom gave diffs of their own. A closer analogy to Cirt's AE filing might be an undocumented immigrant reporting a crime. You might call the ICE on the reporter (if that's your thing) but you should still go after the criminal. The "prosecutorial" counterpart would be something like using improperly obtained checkuser evidence, and nothing like that has been alleged here.

  BMK's "it seems wrong for someone caught up in the actions of a bad actor to suffer for it" misses the points that the "caught up" person is also a bad actor, and that the purpose of the block was to spare the rest of the community from suffering from SashiRolls' disruption. Per NOTBURO we aren't supposed to nail people on technicalities. We similarlity shouldn't let them off on technicalities. I found the initial unblock request either disingenuously ignoring or lacking awareness of the previous problems, both traditional signals for declining to unblock (plus others mentioned NOTTHEM regarding Cirt). On the other hand, maybe the diff that 28bytes linked shows some promise. So I'd decide the request primarily on that basis. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Accept per statement and Cullen328. The declines are not persuasive. Give Sashi another chance - reblocks are easy. Cirt certainly fooled a lot of us and it’s time to start making up for that. Sashi thought they were dealing with an editor with a similar experience as they had, not a former admin with 200,000+ edits to the site who was gaming our policies. Cirt was an expert at eliminating opposing viewpoints. Don’t give them one more. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Accept I would say that Cullen's comments pare this request down to their essentials. Forensic with humanity, as is usual from this colleague.I would add that I fully take O3000's points and agree that honest self-examination publicly aired but with dignity, ain't grovelling. The bottom line is that the community can revisit any further issues and use it's consensual powers accordingly to block. WP:ROPE, colleagues. So lets call rope another chance. Simon Adler (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've changed my opinion to Strong Decline based on this response to my comments to jps and Begoon, which reads to me like more denial of any wrongdoing combined with several not-so-subtle attempts to get under my skin. This diff contains a more detailed response of mine. Suffice it to say, Sashi has just convinced me that he's not going to stop over-personalizing disputes (and indeed, inventing disputes to over-personalize). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, just as I'm about to post an "Accept" !vote, and then this shit happens. Starting beef with another editor is the very definition of not saying the right things. Sigh. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's disappointing, and this why I talked about the possibility of failure and asked whether we wanted it to happen here or offsite. If the main feature of your Wikipedia career was in the context of a personality feud, the tendency is to revert to that. This is not an excuse, it's just an explanation that this is learned behavior and that getting past it is not exactly what Wikipedia is set up to accomplish. WP:MASTADONS is the cynical way to say this. jps (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Per Cullen, for instance. I think that SashiRolls can be a productive editor, despite the tone of this unblock request, if they are true to their word and refrain from sleuthing. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I think some consideration should be given to the fact that SashiRolls was actually right about the socking concerns. While being right is not justification for approaching an issue in an inappropriate way, SashiRolls was a direct victim of Cirt/Sagecandor and I think that was reprehensible behaviour by Cirt. Essentially, I see SashiRolls as an honest person with high moral standards, who just didn't approach the Cirt/Sagecandor thing very well. I have to say I'm shocked to read above that "it was well known for a long time that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor". Put me on the list of dumb admins who didn't know, and shame on any who did. I'll also add that I really don't like this "saying the right thing" requirement for unblock appeals - I prefer people who are honest about what happened and about the way forward, rather than those who are simply good at brown-nosing. Anyway, do we want back a productive editor whose ban turns out to have been tainted (at the very least), who still adhered to the ban without any sign of deception, and who clearly wants to help us build the encyclopedia? I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, and if this unblock request is successful, I strongly recommend that SashiRolls heed the sound advice of Cullen, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Note: I've just realised I lost half a sentence in editing the above, so I've added it now - in italics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I have spent some time mulling this over. I'm not happy with the WP:NOTTHEM-like attitude, but I definitely have some empathy for the situation SashiRolls is in. Ultimately, this is mostly a "per Cullen" support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock for abiding by the block. Those objecting the unblock per "WP:NOTTHEM" should understand that it was not possible to write a sensible unblock request without talking about "them". Capitals00 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Accept. First off, this was going to be a vote to decline, and then I changed my mind as I was writing my rationale. My thought process follows:

I can sympathize with Sashi's circumstances, but only to an extent. Sometimes life just sucks, and this is just as true on Wikipedia as it is off. I agree with the Stoics that your ability to accept this and optimize your own behavior within your constraints, and ultimately accept whatever fate those circumstances deign to hand you, is a valuable virtue. Experience shows its importance to any interactions involving considerable amounts of stress. Unfortunately, Sashi hasn't demonstrated the levelheadedness that I would prefer to see in someone whose time on Wikipedia has been characterized by high levels of stress. Some people, by mechanics I don't pretent to grasp, always court drama. When I see tales like this, I cannot help but worry that Sashi is one of them. Certainly, Sashi's comments here would explain why he courts so much drama: his tone is always combative. He probably doesn't even realize it. But his uncouched truth-telling (as I speculate he sees it) probably is problematic to the less patient editors among us. That is not a condemnation of anyone in particular; we all have personal strengths and weaknesses that translate onto this project, and we as a community need to be able to work with that.

This applies to Sashi too. The question for then becomes whether he is likely to cause disruption. I see two possible ways this could happen. 1) He could have an axe to grind with those who he perceives to have wronged him. 2) His tone could suck him into other incidents in the future. I dismiss the first possibility offhandedly, seeing as the principal figures that have wronged him are now gone. The second is a more serious concern, but one I ultimately find to be insufficiently weighty. Do I think he'll irritate editors in the future? Yes. He has demonstrated an ability to this already today. But do I think will be a major issue? Not really. I've observed as spats broke out on talk pages I watch. They're often caused by editors who are just a little too edgy in their tones and just a little too willing to point fingers at someone else. SashiRolls is certainly both of these things. Yet in my experience, these disputes normally just dissipate, as editors reach an understanding or decide they have better things to pursue. No real animosity is left over, and no considerable time or energy has been wasted. We have countless editors like SashiRolls on this project, being productive and doing great things for this project that more than compensate for their occassional squabbles.

I hope that SashiRolls is unblocked and does great things for this project. Regardless, I would just like to encourage him to keep in mind that sometimes, it's better to say less. Speculating about facts that other people are better positioned to contribute is generally not worth your time, as is highlighting something that's not there. If either of those things seem important to others, someone else will raise them; if not, raising them yourself will only backfire. Just say what you know and are willing to do, and let it speaks volumes for you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 08:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It is off-putting, to say the least, that SashiRolls does not seem to get that something like, this to a neutral observer would reasonably appear to be 'harassment and intimidation', playing at the borders of attempted WP:OUTING. So, caution to SashiRolls should this appeal succeed, as it seems it will, don't do things like that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Boing and Cullen. I'm sorry - but anyone that knew that Cirt was editing as Sagecandor and knew he was violating a topic ban - that's just wrong and unhelpful. That said, Sashi needs to take on board that he doesn't need to be the crusading investigative reporter for Wiki. Edit more articles, worry less about the political aspects of the behind the scenes stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I dunno. If it were just a matter of SashiRolls getting blocked for tangling with Cirt's sockpuppet account, then I'd say we should unblock SashiRolls with an apology. But that doesn't seem to be the sole issue here. Leaving aside the block that stemmed from Cirt's report, a brief glance suggests that this editor has a) abused multiple accounts, b) been topic-banned from the Jill Stein article, and c) been prohibited from commenting on WP:AE threads because of low-quality/inflammatory posts. Balanced against all of that problematic behavior, I don't see much constructive work. Even if we give him a free pass on everything Cirt-related (which seems fair), this isn't an account that screams "net-positive".

  As for the unblock request, groveling isn't necessary, but people generally are on their own personal best behavior. If someone is combative or unpleasant during an unblock request, it's fair to conclude that they'll only be more so if unblocked. If the goal of the unblock request is to convince us that SashiRolls isn't going to hold grudges or pursue petty interpersonal BS, then I don't think it's gone very well so far. I also have a pretty low tolerance for people who use Wikipedia to promote these kinds of conspiracy theories, especially in light of the events of the past 10 days or so.

  That said, I understand the arguments in favor of an unblock, and the desire to make things right in terms of the interaction with Cirt's sockpuppet. I will say that, if SashiRolls is unblocked, I'd take his commitments here quite seriously. In other words, these aren't just campaign promises; I will assume that he's being honest with us, that he will avoid grudges and crusades, will avoid politically controversial topics, and will contribute positively by copyediting, improving referencing, and so on. If he's not following through on those commitments, then I think it's fair to hold him accountable. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for their encouraging feedback. I will endeavor not to sleuth around, be defensive, turn into an annoying moralist, or even get overly involved in wiki-chat-chat at all. I'll probably take some time in obscure corners to re-acclimate myself to the environment if unblocked. I'm not in any rush to promise a mountain of contributions and deliver a molehill, though. I've been in a lot of "rooms" with different rules of late and so will need to readjust, as mentioned above and on my talk page; so I'll simply try to avoid engaging in some areas. I just thought that I would try to get the block undone now & request that it be recognized in the edit summary that Cirt's use of sockpuppets was a very important part of my block history. That will help me be more at peace with what happened. I'm sure of it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism and support. The support from those I've interacted with since being blocked is particularly appreciated, because I do believe you know me a bit better than those who have not. — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied from: User talk:SashiRolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would hope that if you are unblocked, the unblocking admin would include a permalink to this discussion in the log entry - and I think that would document it far better than a log entry summary could. It's what I'd generally do (though it obviously won't be me who closes this one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to take a position on the request, but I want to make note of something that concerns me. From time to time, I google "Tryptofish". Over the past year, the off-wiki results have been in large part SashiRolls (or a false flag, but I doubt it) posting at multiple websites about how bad I am, very grudge-y in tone. So, admins, make of that what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I was one of the admins who participated in the AE case and advocated for an extended block based on the evidence provided. Indeed, the behavior on display at the time was poor regardless of who else was involved. Whoever, I also believe that everyone aside from outright trolls and vandals should have a way forward. I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Boing! and Cullen. The Cirt/Sagecandor business (I've copyedited articles for Cirt, and had no idea about the socking either) muddied the waters enough that some AGF is in order. Miniapolis 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on the promise of commitments made by SashiRolls. They will probably need (at least pretend) to be slightly more mature/diplomatic/whatever with their tone/chatter while they are on English Wikipedia and focus on editing productively, otherwise we will probably find ourselves back to square one again. I could care less about their activities elsewhere, although I would think it is probably better if they could be a little bit less enthusiastic when it comes to speculating editor's real identities offsite. As long as these are being followed through, I think everything will be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible opposition to lifting the block. Just above, I chose not to take a position, and instead said "So, admins, make of that what you will." Clearly, I was expressing a concern about the request, but I deliberately also made it clear that I was leaving it up to others. In reaction, SashiRolls has posted the following on his talk page: [13]. If anyone thinks I'm commenting "under my breath", let me make this abundantly clear: the block should remain in place, and talk page access should be revoked. It's breathtaking the amount of assumption of bad faith that comes across in that posting, directed not only at me but also at Alex Shih, who seems to me to have made a very supportive statement here. This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor. I appreciate the number of admins who have, quite thoughtfully, given the benefit of the doubt, and I was going to defer to you on that, setting aside my personal reservations on the assumption that my personal views might be skewed by past experience. But now, I have to say that you are being played. Indefinite block, no talk page access. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the second (and third) time he's pulled the same childish move in the course of this discussion (see my revised !vote above). But sure, he's willing to change his ways. I mean he even promised (read: implied) he would not engage in the same behavior (read: a very small and hardly relevant subset of the same behavior) that got him blocked in the first place. The editors claiming they will hold him to his word seem willfully ignorant of the fact that Sashi never gave his word, and what he's implied he would not do is not the behavior that got him blocked. Every single person supporting this unblock is being played like a violin, and by a musician hardly worthy of the name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I never supported the unblock, so I guess I'm free from your opprobrium (tee hee, that's a joke), but I'm of the opinion that the reason he never gave his word is that he doesn't know that this is something you can do in this process. And this is the kind of ego-bruising "let it go" stuff that is very hard for the typical (let alone combative) Wikipedian to do. So he's kinda at home. Look, this guy has been dealing with seedy underbellies of Wikipedia and nothing else. Yeah, maybe he won't learn. He may get blocked again. He might get indeffed. I dunno. All I know is that he really got the short end of a stick once and that wasn't fair. But life isn't fair. Sorry, I still don't know what you guys should do. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't know how you can be so certain you're right about this. jps (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I greatly respect you as an editor but I can't agree with the statement "This is someone who has zero intention of coming back and being a productive editor." My support of the unblock is predicated on my belief that he has something to offer, as an editor. What he intends to do will be immediately in evidence if he does get unblocked. I won't hesitate to reinstate it, though, if that evidence points to trouble. --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and I respect you very much too. It's true, I'm not a mind reader, so I take your point about that. I think you are right about the emerging consensus that (I expect) there will be an unblock with a very short WP:ROPE, and that's OK. At User talk:Tryptofish#I am still confused, and maybe you're confused about me too, there's more discussion about this, and anyone who is interested can see more of my thinking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Accept. My own experience of SashiRolls on and off site is a bit... chequered. But I find jps's arguments convincing, and am impressed that he has gone to so much trouble, and gone so deep. Cirt's role in the trouble Sashi got into really sticks in my throat. If Sashi doesn't follow through on the commitments he has made here, then, as MastCell says, it will be time to hold him accountable. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
• I don't care if you unblock or not, but they'll be blocked again in under a year. I'd put money on it. GMG^talk 00:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Three days ago, I recommended accepting this unblock request, but after reading that combative stuff that SashiRolls wrote on their talk page about Tryptofish and others in recent days, I am having second thoughts. It is really surprising to see their battleground mentality displayed so overtly at this stage of the process. I expect a convincing explanation from SashiRolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• The blocked editor has responded at User talk:SashiRolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Decline unblock. This user has been, frankly, a net negative to the project, and I do not have fond memories of this user following me around and battlegrounding. And I'm seeing very little, if any acceptance of responsibility in the unblock request. Decline. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Accept They have not been an issue during their block and seem to be trying to put a good faith effort to return. If something should happen it would not be a long or hard issue to reinstate the block. Plenty of people I am sure will have their eyes on them. PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• i have been reading what people have written here and reviewing the history... some thoughts
  • why is Cirt not indefinitely blocked, and why is there nothing in their block log or user page showing the egregious socking even to the point of going to AE? (I just checked their global contribs and they've edited wiktionary, the commons, and wikidata as recently as Oct 2018.) They really should be WMF banned for what they did but the least we can do is indef them. Any admin can do this.
  • So accept unblock, symbolically to acknowledge the bad acting of Cirt/SageCandor.
  • in addition, we should immediately indef again for the same reasons as the initial block, which the unblock request fails to address. This person has 4300 edits to enWP; 3350 of them were made from Aug to Dec 2016 with a bit more in June 2016 when their 6 month block expired. Almost all of that is run-up to the 2016 election, very politicized, focus on promoting Green Party candidates and lots about conspiracy theories of various kinds (Russian interference, Democratic party/Clinton corruption, especially). It is not at all strange that the conspiracy-theorizing extended to their claims of conflicted cabals editing against them (e.g the thread at NeilN's page here), their bizarre claim that GMG (then editing as Timothyjosephwood) knew who they were, and of course their conviction that SageCandor was some kind of bad-faith actor. (that SageCandor happened to be a sock, is a broken clock being right twice a day). All of this crap -- the conspiracy-theorizing about other editors, the ban from commenting at AE for making unhelpful comments there (which is a very serious thing, and no one has discussed here) the block log, the socking (sock account is here), all stemmed from that brief burst and the grudges that they fell into during it.

Their style of talking (perhaps made more difficult by second language issues?) is oblique and often freighted with all kinds of negative things (e.g this completely weird post at WT:ARBN) - that style continues up to the present, with the comments that drew strong reactions from Trypto.

I also find their presentation of links to contributions at other WMF projects to be not at all what they state. Their contribution to Wikiversity was copy/pasting something they wrote elsewhere, over a couple days and ca twenty edits. Their contributions at fr-WP were about the same topics they edited here, the same way, with equivalent amounts of drama-board activity. Their edits at meta were mostly also a continuation of what they did here e.g this, about a consulting firm employed by the WMF with connections to the Clinton Foundation.

I suppose as an alt, unblock with TBAN from AP and from commenting at all about the behavior of other editors might allow them to show they are here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Go with, Per Jytdog's analysis It's in depth and rather well explains the complicated issues that have extended this appeal matter out (although probably the user rather 'knew' sage candor/cirt was a bad actor because sage candor/cirt was a bad actor, obnoxiously bad as it turns out). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Close?

This has been open for the better part of a week and we seem to have heard a broad range of views. There seems to be roughly 2-1 support for unblocking, if my math is correct. Could an uninvolved admin please review and close this thread? 28bytes (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Colorectal cancer - Lifestyle

• Colorectal cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24.8.207.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorectal_cancer#Lifestyle?

This all began when I fixed what I thought was a simple error, after I noticed a sentence did not agree with an existing reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865715475&oldid=864008094

Someone without explanation undid my change. But I was then able to make the change again by adding this comment: "World Cancer Research Fund International actually said it's "convincing", not even just "probable", in the cited report. The original sentence is wrong." I also noted on this person's Talk page.

But then, one user exhibited this behavior: (1) deleting existing reference(s) when the exiting reference(s) do not serve his biased view, (2) citing new reference(s) (which may be less accessible) only partially and/or misconstruing the partial cite, to serve his biased view, and (3) after the new reference(s) are more fully examined and no longer serve his biased view, he goes back to either (1) or (2).

At first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865723136&oldid=865717987

(1) He deleted both existing references (one is from the WCRF, please note this for later).

(2) He cited one from the WHO. The WHO reference is harder to access, but it's actually the first link from Google search "World Cancer Report 2014 pdf". The WHO never said the evidence is "not strong". When I corrected his edit, I commented: "Rather, the WHO said "an inverse relation was seen". The EPIC study cited by the WHO said "strengthen the evidence", so it was made stronger. Stronger is very different from "not strong"."

He then did several things: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865733039&oldid=865729356

In order of appearance:

(2) He added a citation from the Fruits section (the existing citation is from the Fiber section), but only did it partially, and misconstrued even the partial sentence. This was discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Fruits

(2) He added a new reference ("Ma and Zhou"). Here, the reference said 14% to 21% lower risk, but he only wrote 14%.

(2) He again misconstrued the citation from the Fiber section. When I corrected his edit, I commented: "The WHO did not say "unclear" nor "not ... benefit". The WHO cited the old study first, and the new study later. Please stop making up your own words with negative connotation, and switching the order of conclusion."

More specifically, the WHO's sentence referenced: "Year 2005 study [7], although year 2012 study [8]", as in: "Several large prospective cohort studies of dietary fibre and colon cancer risk have not supported an association [7], although an inverse relation was seen in the large European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and a recent meta-analysis [8]."

But he change it to: "[8]. [Ma and Zhou]. Although [7]."

Then: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865877362&oldid=865770477

(1) He deleted the WHO reference.

(2) He added a new reference ("Song and Chan"). This reference is even less accessible, but it was found on Sci-Hub. He made the "Song and Chan" reference into two sentence. When I corrected the misleading sentences, I commented: "Fixing two sentences that made it look as if the "2018 review" is based on later evidence. In fact the quote (now more fully quoted) is from the same paragraph that ended with the 2017 conclusion."

Note that the 2017 conclusion is actually from the WCRF, which he had deleted earlier (albeit the WCRF's 2011 version). In Talk, he had said "The World Cancer Report [by the WHO] is a better source. A charity [WCRF noted above] is not the best source for medical content." But this is what happened: he deleted WCRF, added WHO, deleted WHO, added WCRF.

(2) He added a reference from the NCI, and the NCI cited a study from year 2000, about cancer recurrence (not new incidence).

Another user then added statements that are entirely made up. I corrected the errors, but he then undid my corrections, and "warned" me on my Talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.8.207.91

I admit I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions, but I think people generally can tell right from wrong.

His changes are more easily seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=866160603&oldid=866137689

I also noted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Simplify_paragraph_on_dietary_factors

Including the portion that he deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AColorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=866158407&oldid=866158329

This is before his deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866158329

The WHO said the animal studies suggested prospective studies, and yes there are challenges, and despite the challenges, the conclusions are based on the prospective studies. His "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies." sentence is false. His next sentence is also entirely made up.

Also, the WHO said "several" studies, not "most" studies. The WHO said the benefit was seen in larger and recent studies, but he simply omitted that part. The WHO said the variations in findings need to be better understood, but he wrote "status of the science on remained unclear".

Please investigate what's going on, and please restore at least the two paragraphs to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866137689

Please also note that I have only focused on the diets/fiber section. I do not know what other changes the two users might have made on this page or other pages.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.207.91 (talk • contribs)

Comment This is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. I suggest you go to article talk and hash it out with them there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I have tried to do that in Talk. One of the users mentioned above "warned" me and deleted my comment in Talk. I sincerely hope someone looks into this.

This is more about the behavior by multiple users on a topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.207.91 (talk • contribs)

Just want to note that I am aware of this thread. The IP has been battering the talk page and article for a while now, first with Doc James and now me. They are not great at actually discussing things and seem overly fixated on recommendations by one advocacy group -- the World Cancer Research Fund International -- that fiber (especially) and fruit (perhaps) can prevent colorectal cancer. This sort of research is incredibly dicey and often based on obersvational studies that find correlations.... and when papers publish the media goes all gaga, leaving the public mostly confused if not frustrated. This person also refuses to follow basic norms of using talk pages, like indenting and signing, which has made a mess of the talk page that we have had to clean up after. The discussion is at Talk:Colorectal_cancer#Lifestyle if anybody wants to join. This will probably end at some form of DR if the IP keeps at it. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems I should respond, and it seems your dishonest and abusive behavior continues here for all to see.

I admitted above that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This is the "mess of the talk page that [you] have had to clean up after" looked like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866014205

Right after you talked about indenting, I followed the convention consistently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorectal_cancer&oldid=866095615

I never "refuses to follow basic norms", I followed as soon I learned about it. Your statement is yet another blatant lie.

I am not "overly fixated on recommendations by one advocacy group". As noted above, this started because I fixed what I thought was a simple error:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorectal_cancer&type=revision&diff=865715475&oldid=864008094

(That was on 10/25, then you started to "warn" (threaten?) me as soon as 10/28, and again here.)

I did not add any new references. I simply fixed what was already there. On Talk, I even said "One can choose to cite the WCRF as before or the WHO".

The WHO specifically said: "Consumption of red meat, particularly processed red meat, is related to modestly higher risks, and of fruits and vegetables to modestly lower risks of some forms of cancer." (page 433)

The WHO specifically said (which you deleted from Talk and "warned" me): "Higher intake of red meat, especially processed meat, has been associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer in many prospective studies and in a meta-analysis of these studies." (page 126)

They are consistent with the WCRF, and the WCRF is easier to access: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/colorectal-cancer

By contrast, at least these two of your sentences are entirely lies you made up: "This was based on animal studies and retrospective observational studies. However, large scale prospective studies have failed to demonstrate a significant protective effect, and due to the multiple causes of cancer and the complexity of studying correlations between diet and health, it is uncertain whether any specific dietary interventions (outside of eating a healthy diet) will have significant protective effects." I know you cited a number of pages, but the pages support the opposite of what you wrote.

I sincerely hope the administrators will look into your dishonest and abusive behavior. As noted above, I have only look at the diets/fiber section (now just two paragraphs). I do not know what other lies you have made on this page or other pages.

Haha. Calling somebody dishonest and abusive isn't going to help you. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, his behavior is not dishonest nor abusive. But could someone please look at the section to make sure Wikipedia is presenting facts, based on cited references? Thank you.

An observation When Jytdog comes here and complains that you're not following proper talk-page decorum such as signing and indenting properly, and you then respond twice without signing either comment, it's not doing your cause any favours. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN because you are upset about a content dispute. Nor is it good to complain to WP:AN and then not notify the subject of the complaint. Basically what I'm saying is that there is evidence of a behavioral problem here, but it's not Jytdog who is demonstrating it. I'd suggest spending some time at the teahouse learning how to edit Wikipedia before weighing in on challenging articles subject to WP:MEDRS would be a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I had thought indenting and signing are the same thing (he had discussed only about adding :, never about simply adding four tildes before here), and I thought the system automatically adds IP address anyway. I hope I am doing it correctly now.

He deleted my comment on Talk, and "warned" (threatened?) me. What else should one do? Sure, I was "upset", but I had no other recourse.

I never discussed a particular editor. This was about the behavior of multiple editors seemingly conspiring together. He came here himself to reveal himself, not me.

I never added new references. The WHO and the WCRF references, whether already there or in newly cited sections, agree with each other. The problems include one user kept changing references (and misconstruing them), and the other made up lies not in the reference.

I admit again that I am not well versed in Wikipedia etiquette/conventions. This all began when I fixed what I thought was a simple error. This is not my job, and I am not paid by any person or interest group. I sincerely hope the administrators will not look at my multiple failures to follow Wikipedia etiquette/conventions as lack of candor. Instead, please look at how references are actually added/deleted, and cited. Please look at facts, what the references actually said, versus lies, and who was intimidating another. Please look at the merit of the content, and not how I failed to follow the form. Thank you. 24.8.207.91 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, see here - User_talk:24.8.207.91#Using_talk_pages, which i a) posted there in the first place; b) linked at the article talk page twice, (diff ( which you posted directly under, here) and I posted a link to it at the talk page a second time (diff) to make sure you saw it; and c) and also left another note at your talk page about it (diff). And which you still have obviously not read.

You don't read what people write and just keep battering the page with your one source, flogging fiber and fruit. For pete's sake. We follow reliable sources not the one that you happen to like. The bulk of high quality sources do not support the content you are pushing and pushing and pushing for. See WP:UNDUE. See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bankster (Result: Boomerang)

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

The user may have good faith and intention, but I can't stand the user's handling of articles.

For example, Bankster removed a bulk of texts from OBS Gyeongin TV on 21 September 2018. Bankster initially did not specify a reason for removal, but after I asked, Bankster added, "Removing non-relevant. badly worded information".

I know that particular article was in need of clean up, but I felt that was an unconstructive way of cleaning an article. Bankster could have just copy-edit the article alone, or could have at least asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Additionally, Bankster could have also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea for help and advice. But Bankster didn't, and instead choose the unconstructive way.

At best, I wish Bankster was infinitely blocked from editing any article, but could fill edit requests at wish. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

From that edit history, I see them removing unreferenced/non-notable information (which is fine) and then you both edit warring to re-add/re-remove it (which is not). Any reason why you should both not be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add "History" section, but the "Name" section was needed to explain why the station was named "OBS", so I added that part after finding a relevant source. Also, the "Corporate" section was added while I was polishing infoboxes. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@JSH-alive: To quote policy, "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.. Please answer GiantSnowman's question. zchrykng (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Any reason why you should both not be blocked" The answer is that removing unsourced information, per se, is not problematic, but we have warning templates for adding unsourced information. Removing unsourced information can be vandalism, or done to create a non-neutral text, or done to make a point, etc., but if you just see a bunch of unsourced content and remove it for the sake of cleaning the article, you've done nothing wrong. Even if you get to the point of blockable edit-warring, there's much more room for editing that enforces policy, and when it's one-on-one, a block for persistent addition of unsourced content (compounded by ridiculing an appropriate warning) comes ahead of a block for the other party. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi

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

---

Just a heads up to all that I have blocked Winkelvi (talk · contribs) indefinitely for a clear violation of their interaction ban with MaranoFan on Meghan Trainor. The original restriction says "This means no commenting on the other editor, no reviewing their GAN's, no pointing out their failings. Leave each other alone and go about your regular editing business .... As both editors are well aware of what an Iban is, failing to observe it will be very quickly considered disruptive.". In my view, editing an article that the other party has queued for GAN, calling their edits "fan cruft, peacock terminology" and reverting something that appears to have consensus certainly seems to qualify as violating the interaction ban, and as this is far from Winkelvi's first trip to this noticeboard about the interaction ban or some other sanction, I really can't see any possible way of claiming innocence. I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was convinced by Winkelvi's reaction on their talk page that the violation was an honest mistake (not noticing who had nominated the article for GA review). ~Awilley (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead section was written by me. Rewording the whole thing and removing all of the chart information I added, as well as referring to my edits as fancruft sounds like interaction (and thus a violation of the IBAN) to me. Just wanted this information known since I forgot to mention it at Ritchie's talk page.--NØ 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) You know, does it make a difference that MaranoFan had a number of edits to the article until about three hours before Winkelvi's edits? This is (approximately, given some intermediary edits) all of MaranoFan's changes and this is (approximately, given some intermediary edits) all of Winkelvi's changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Winkelvi does not claim they were aware of the GA. They explicitly denied it. Their explanation for why they made such a large number of edits, sufficient to EC with Snuggums (I assume, they discussed something with Snuggums on their talk page I assume from a EC), after it was nominated for GA and a few hours after MaranoFan had last edited is on Winkelvi's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• As I pointed out at W's talk, for context, Winkelvi has 88 edits to the article since August 2014, so it's hardly surprising to find them there. And, after all, when one arrives at an article from—say—recent changes, one does not get to see the page history,and, unless one has a script to alert one to the fact that articles have been nominated for review, etc., there's no reason that they would be aware.Incidentally, before someone accuses me of cheerleading for Winkelvi, it was only relatively recently that I described them as a net negative or such like  :) I just can't find the diff... ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The most recent changes to an article at the time were by MaranoFan, so I would actually be quite concerned if that was how they arrived there. But it isn't the reason they gave. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree; r/c was the only example I could think of off the top o my head. ——SerialNumber54129 14:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi says he "saw something about her on the news yesterday" as the reason for editing the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Oh—right. Well, that's curiously vague. In other news, are they still under a 1RR restriction? ——SerialNumber54129 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm trying to extend as much AGF as I can but I just cannot believe the explanation offered. Winkelvi's last edit to the article was 3 years ago in 2015. Winkelvi says he didn't see either Maranofan's previous edits to the article or the GA nomination, meaning he just coincidentally edited the article a mere three hours after MaranoFan's edits/ GA nomination? The odds of that coincidence are pretty low, I'd say, considering the infrequency of editing by Winkelvi on the article. Notice also, that edit reverted a significant portion of this edit Maranofan made to the lead (and that's essentially all it did). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I find the timing very suspicious. Especially since the last time Winklevi and MaranoFan got into a dispute it was over a Meghan Trainor song. But OTOH, I can't figure out why Winkelvi would be so dumb. Likewise I find their 'take it to their talk page' comment suspicious, as if they knew this was an active area of dispute. And a quick look at Winkelvi's edit history shows most similar comments seem directed at someone or a group in particular. OTOH, I can't figure out how Winkelvi expected that edit to stand if they actually had seen the previous edit which introduced it not just because of the iban, but because that edit specifically mentioned a previous consensus and that was also mentioned on the talk page. So it was actually already incumbent on Winkelvi to join this discussion so I don't get what the point of their comment was if they already knew about the discussion/previous consensus. So ultimately, I feel this is one of the cases were the timing is very suspicious but we can't be confident it wasn't simply a coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi participated in the discussion that led to the consensus, so he obviously knows that there was a consensus and that it was an area of dispute; that he edited against consensus and then told people to take it to talk than reverting is disruptive in of itself. Winkelvi does have a history of suspicious supposedly coincidental following around of editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: In 2014, Lips Are Movin nominates the Trainor article for GA, ten minutes later someone starts a discussion alleging Trainor isn't a singer-songwriter and the GA is failed. In April 2015, I add a GA nomination after issue seems to be resolved. Ten minutes later the discussion suspiciously pops up again after months of silence. Fast forward to 2018 and three hours after I nominate it for GA the "issue" is brought up again despite old consensus for singer-songwriter, and this is supposed to be a coincidence?--NØ 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have anything against Winkelvi personally but I noticed this yesterday after seeing MaranoFan had edited Trainor's article and thought it was too much of a coincidence given the two's history, so chimed in (probably unnecessarily) at Ritchie333's talk page. Not that it's up to me, but I'm not convinced by the explanation that I've just read at their talk page. I've seen every user try ignorance or "I didn't look at the history" as an excuse. I have a hard time believing out of all the articles Winkelvi could have edited, they chose Meghan Trainor as a topic to edit merely coincidentally several hours after MaranoFan had been extensively editing it, and after not having edited it themselves since 2015. Not only that, but targeting much of what she had added, including the use of the term "singer-songwriter", which was changed back by MaranoFan in September of this year (and noted on the talk page) per a 2015 consensus to use the hyphenated term. Winkelvi also undid several of MaranoFan's edits to Trainor's song articles after she was unblocked in September (before both editors were reminded of the IBAN), so this just looks like a follow-up to that after a bit of a time has passed and things have died down a little. I don't think that it was intentional on Winkelvi's part to make the article "unstable" before its GAN (per what MaranoFan said), but maybe given the two's history, including Winkelvi actually reviewing an article MaranoFan nominated for GA status back in the day... I'm not 100% sure. I have removed the two sources Winkelvi added to Trainor's article that seems like an attempt to contradict the assertion in the following line that sources have called her a "singer-songwriter", because the two sources are entirely irrelevant and it makes it look like it's trying to resist what reliable sources say. It reads like a user introducing a biased tone because they feel strongly about the matter and don't agree she's a singer-hyphen-songwriter—despite what a majority of users and a consensus stated in 2015. Ss112 14:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• This is a clear IBAN violation, and Ritchie was correct to block for it. Despite the curious timing, I'm willing to AGF that it was an accidental violation on Winkelvi's part. But what that leaves us with is that Winkelvi is not being sufficiently careful to avoid such violations. When you're under an interaction ban, you are unfortunately required to do a little more due diligence (look at the recent edit history, check the talk page) before diving into an article with edits or reverts. I would support dropping the block down to a month or a few weeks with a reminder that such due diligence is needed in the future. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Mostly agreed with 28bytes here, clear violation, clear failure to do some research before editing. I'd like to see a month block with a topic-ban from all Meghan Trainor related articles for simplicity, given that's one or MarianoFan's biggest editing areas on WP, it should be clear Winkelvi has no business poking around in that topic. Courcelles (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Full disclosure: I have a history with Winkelvi (Winkelvi was temporarily blocked for stalking and harassing me). Winkelvi's explanation that this is all accidental sounds eerily familiar, as that's the same excuse he repeatedly trotted out when he stalked me to dozens of pages that he never edited before (doing so minutes/hours after I edited them) and when he systematically went through old and obscure articles I created (articles that Winkelvi should under no reasonable circumstance have just stumbled upon), only to drive-by tag them[14]. The administrator Bishonen described it as "harassment" and "obviously calculated to incommode and harass Snooganssnoogans". Despite the clear-cut evidence of harassment and stalking (evidence that was so blatant that the admins temporarily blocked him), Winkelvi brazenly claimed approximately two weeks ago, "I haven't stalked you in the past or even now."[15] Winkelvi's history of claiming to accidentally stumble onto articles, despite overwhelming evidence of an intentional effort to stalk and harass specific editors, is pertinent info as you try to evaluate whether to AGF in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with 28bytes. It's a music article, an article that Winkelvi knows MaranoFan edits in, so they better do the homework to make sure about the IBAN. I would be more assuming of good faith if this happened on a topic that MaranoFan normally does not edit, but no question that Trainor is a music-related piece. --Masem (t) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I personally agree with the block - Whilst you could argue it was an honest mistake that statement somewhat falls flat on its face when you know the person you're interaction-banned with edits that article.... Common sense would (or should) tell you to check the history before you edit it incase MaranoFan has edited it....., The fact WV edited the article hours after MaranoFan edited it makes me believe this is more than just a coincidence. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC) (Struck as not entirely happy with the woring and amount of screwing about will fix it so just going to re!vote. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC))

• Reduced block It is a violation of the IBAN as I read it, though AGF it was a mistaken. Indefinite seems like a long time for a first time violation of an IBAN that was instituted over two and a half years ago with a fair chance of it being a mistake. I am inclined to believe it is an oversight just because it would be glaringly obvious otherwise. They make a good point on their talk page to this effect if I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor which is reasonable imo. I would just ask the block be reduced. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reduced Penalty appropriate Yeah, I'd suggest letting them off with a reduced block this time. Let 'em back in after a few days for the dust to settle. AGF it appears to be a mistake. Suggest they stay away from Meghan Trainor and be aware that future breaches of the iBan are likely to get an indef in light of the conversation here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that it was an innocent mistake - this was less then three hours after MaranoFan's edits. That's too much of a coincidence. Still, though, indefinite seems excessive and I would suggest commuting to something shorter. (It should probably be a fortnight or so since the last block was for a week.) --B (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse block per everyone but reduce duration per 28bytes. I think it's reasonable to believe (AGF) that Winkelvi made a mistake here, but as I recall the issue which led to the iban being imposed in the first place was quite serious, it's reasonable to expect them to be more careful. I suggest 2 weeks as a duration, it's long enough to drive the point home that no, really, this ban is serious. And before anyone gets on me about WP:NOTPUNITIVE, there is a wide gap between punishment and deterrence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block Ridiculous block. MaranoFan has long history of disruption, indef block, socking and many of these articles Winkelvi edited prior to MaranoFan including Meghan Trainor discography, Meghan Trainor and others so why should they have to not edit there?--MONGO (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I told Winkelvi I would unblock as "time served" after 24 hours if there was no discussion here (there were no replies at the time I wrote that) - however I obviously can't do that now since multiple admins have endorsed the block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, Perhaps you're not the most unbiased person to be commenting here. [16] [17] At least read about the incident this thread is about before you bring up offtopic arguments to defend your friends.--NØ 16:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll remind MaranoFan that the interaction ban is two-way, and advise them to forget about this thread and go and edit something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan was blocked for nearly 2 years and within a week of being unblocked, resumed the same behavior that got them blocked previously. Winkelvi edited that article well before Maranofan ever started editing this website. When I see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past, expect me to show up and remove it, especially if I edited the article many times long before they did.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(In the original version of this comment, I suggest the iban meant Winkelvi was at least partly at fault. I reviewed the iban note and history and found it was explicitly no fault on either party. I've modified my comment accordingly and apologise to both MaranoFan and Winkelvi for my mischaracterisation of the iban.) I'm sure you mean well, but I don't think you're helping Winkelvi in any way shape or form. Winkelvi is under a two way interaction ban with MaranoFan. Whatever the relative faults of each side and fairly or not, the community has decided, that they both need to stay away from one another. Winkelvi should know of it, since when MaranoFan was unblocked Winkelvi quickly violated their iban with MaranoFan then following suit. (From what I understand Winkelvi doesn't deny knowing of it this time anyway.) This means Winkelvi has two choices if they see allegedly problematic editing from MaranoFan. Either they can successfully appeal their iban or they can sit on their hands and hope someone else notices it and deals with it. If the the later and no one else does, that's tough cookies. This is a moot point anyway, since Winkelvi has explicitly denied noticing MaranoFan's editing. They have instead said they edited this article after visiting it due to the subject being in the news. If this isn't the case and Winkelvi did actually "see someone adding fancruft and garbage to articles I edited in the past" and then "show up and remove it", that's a doubly whammy for Winkelvi. Not only was that someone a person they were ibanned with, but they've now blatantly lied to us. As for yourself, well as long as you are not ibanned with someone it's also a moot point. But if you are ever ibanned, you should expect yourself to be blocked in short order if you can't resist editing an article which you know was just edited by someone you are ibanned with to remove those edits, whatever faults there are with the edits. (The only examples I can see where you might have a chance of getting off are blantant copyvios or severe BLP-vios.) Actually I would expect the community may siteban straight off, if when an iban is proposed you tell us you will ignore it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm calling utter bullshit on Winkelvi's part here. AGF does not extend to people deliberately flouting their bans. You do not suddenly show up at an article you have not edited in a significant time and decide to selectively cull material that has been contributed by someone you have been banned from interacting with. You do not fail to notice the last 10-15 edits to the article were theirs unless you are completely incompetent, and you certainly do not leave snarky edit summaries deliberately worded to wind up the editor you are interacting banned with. If this was a new editor you could overlook a few things, maybe they are not aware of everything etc. Winkelvi is an experienced editor with a long history of edit warring, personal attacks and harrassment of other editors (and thats leaving aside various editing restrictions that have had to be placed Orr/1rr etc). So not only are they well aware of what you do and do not need to do to avoid interacting with someone, their frankly unbelieveable excuses on their talkpage lack any credibility whatsoever. This is winkelvi playing you for fools as usual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I simply can't extend AGF this far. This editor has taken up way too much community time, and the fact that I have to page through numerous entries at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is telling in and of itself. Even if malice wasn't intended, someone with this many restrictions on their editing needs to be paying attention and doing due diligence to ensure they aren't in violation. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question from the initial IBAN, it mentions a few things not to do, but it doesn't specifically mention editing the same articles. It is not a stretch of AGF to say that WV did not see the GAN on the talk page and was just editing the page itself. I don't think we should indef block WV in this case, perhaps time served or a shorter block as was originally discussed is more appropriate with a stern warning for the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If you mean that WV was aware that MaranoFan edited the article but didn't think it was an iban violation, I don't think it's a useful avenue to explore since WV has explicitly said that isn't what happened and has denied knowing MF recently edited the article. If WV is telling porkies about what happened, this is just going to increase the length of any block. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us a half dozen times, shame on us. Anyone opining on the block based on the assumption that this was an honest mistake is being played; you are being lied to. Support full site ban. (for context, I opposed MF's recent unblock as well). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as another victim of WV's stalking and harrassment, this pattern of behavior is very clear - it was a mistake but not an innocent one. Making a long series of edits immediately after someone who made a long series of edits with the obvious goal of reversing and mocking their work is a clear IBAN violation. Plus we have the GA issue and the IBAN specifically calls out GAs. WV remaains a net negative here. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban (which any decline to unblock would be per WP:CBAN) per Floq. The community has a long history of patience with users, but there comes a point where continued patience simply allows for more disruption that is unlikely to stop. I think we've reached that point here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support with regret. I've noticed him lately popping up on pages I edit and have generally felt that his contributions have been positive. I was hoping something like this wouldn't happen again, but sadly this is clear-cut. I would not break out in hives if the penalty was reduced, but I do agree with those above who point that there's just been too much of this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block Winkelvi's explanation strains credulity, especially given their long history of stalking, harassment and disruptive editing. I endorse Tony Ballioni's overall assessment. MaranoFan really should not be participating in this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban increased sanction per envelope-pushing in extremis and bizarre ranting on W's talk as highlighted by Cullen328; a site ban, as pointed out, requires a community consensus to unblock. I think that is best. Rope runs out somewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 19:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block for the actions taken and for thinking the community is stupid enough to believe this was an honest mistake. A lengthy block log demonstrates that nothing short of an indefinite block will have an impact. Nihlus 19:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block - An intelligent and experienced editor acting in good faith will figure out how to avoid accidental violations without our help. We are not dealing with a child here. We know Winkelvi to be intelligent and experienced, so my conclusion is that he was not acting in good faith. I know I have less-than-average patience with chronic misbehavers, but from where I sit this is two or three straws past the last straw for Winkelvi. I'm aware of the new "commitment" on his UTP and I think we're past that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block. Having see Winkelvi in action before I genuinely do believe he's acting in good faith, but this kind of thing is happening far too often. (FWIW, I actually do believe WV's "I edited the article because seeing her in the news reminded me" explanation—she's just announced that she's getting married this winter, and made some high-profile TV appearances—but that doesn't discount from the fact that WV was well aware this was a topic on which he needed to be careful.) Whether someone's disregarding our rules through malice or incompetence isn't relevant; someone who's continually disregarding rules on a collaborative project is no longer welcome here regardless of the reason. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. It seems apparent that they are either lying or are completely reckless in editing (and honestly I would bet on the lying), neither of which is acceptable. Enough rope has been given, the noose just gets made longer and stronger. zchrykng (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you having deja vu, Zchrykng or do you subscribe to the !vote early and !vote often philosophy? 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Was commenting here to try to make it easier for someone looking at the !votes, definitely see the problem. Have removed my previous post. zchrykng (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Floquenbeam. We've been through this many times with WV and they show no sign of "getting it". Although they are a productive editor, the same work can be done by any number of editors who don't waste our time with this crap. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 3-6 month block. WV has made regular appearances at ANI over the years that have tried the community's patience but I don't know if this mistake is so severe to get an indefinite block or site ban. I would endorse a substantial block to drive home the message that these slip-ups need to stop happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I know in principle a site ban is more 'severe', but in effect, it is basically a de facto six month block.  Swarm  talk  21:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • With the added benefit that a conversation must be had before the block is lifted, rather than an automatic lifting and going back to the same behavior without anyone noticing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indef/site ban - I agree with the interpretations that we're likely being played for fools, and given the history, there's really not that much reason to AGF here. It's not like this is a one time thing, and Floq puts it perfectly. Even if this wasn't directly intentional, it still evidences a willful disregard for the IBAN and for the recent admonishments WV received from the community in respect to this very issue in the recent AN/I thread. To be clear, this goes back years. But then MF was blocked and was away for around two years. Within 24 hours of her unblock (only in late September), WV was immediately back to harassing her on Meghan Trainor articles, and then when she stood up for herself, tried to blame her for violating an IBAN with him, in spite of the fact that it came across strongly as baiting (whether it was intended or not). He was boneheaded and obstinate when called out on his blatantly bad behavior, and relied extensively on bludgeoning the discussion with baseless misrepresentations in order to defend himself and attack MF, and proved completely incapable of being reasoned with, going so far as make bizarre claims that I was targeting him with fabricated smears due to some unspecified grudge (because I had assessed his edits relative to objective policy guidance). When it was uncovered that a two-way IBAN existed between the two all along, WV relied on this same "oops" defense, saying that he had simply forgotten about it, which in itself seemed somewhat dubious given what appeared to be an immediate resumption of quite blatant feuding after a substantial amount of time had gone by. WV was lucky to avoid sanctions at that time, but we let it slide, on the assumption that if he did forget, he has been reminded, and if given a clean slate, there would not be further issues. It has barely been a month since then, and here we are again. WV is not the only editor here with an IBAN, but he is the only one who seems to struggle with compliance. Either he's violating the IBAN intentionally and lying, he's being willfully negligent so that he can claim violations are an accident, or he lacks the competence to comply with a simple IBAN (and I don't think WV is a CIR case). Either way, the prescription is the same at this point. WV is out of rope.  Swarm  talk  21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a six month block at the least. I'm generally not in favor of indefinite blocks, but I'm leaning that way here. Pretty much my reasoning follows Floq. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others. This has been a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (documented here: [18]). Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby.- MrX 🖋 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block after reading the above. I had no idea of Winkelvi's history of harassing other editors but after reading all of this it's clear it's a pattern—they've used the same excuses, engaged in the same behaviour, been blocked several times for it and they're still trying to pull the same, this time by using the old "Do you think I'd be that stupid?" attempt at convincing users. As has been pointed out by multiple editors above, their edit summary to me indicates a clear knowledge of who had done what to the article and anticipating their reaction. Ss112 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block. Winkelvi has a very long history of longterm harassment or persecution of other editors, especially new or less experienced ones. There's no telling how many good editors he has driven off of Wikipedia or driven away from articles he monopolizes and bludgeons. He was a ringleader of the meatpuppeting team that ganged up against MaranoFan for so long that he caused her to act out until she was longterm blocked. He knows what he's doing. He knew good and well MaranoFan, once unblocked, was focused solely on Meghan Trainor and her discography. This is beyond insupportable, and by now Winkelvi is a net negative to the project. Winkelvi's stock in trade has been his charm and his how could you possibly accuse me of lying, or assume bad faith of me, but by now people are beginning to catch on that his claims of being the world's most honest/innocent/good-faith person are ludicrous. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a reasonably long block to get this editor's attention, but oppose indefinite at this time if reforms are agreed to. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support The problem here is that even if we accept Winkelvi's view of the events as they occurred, all that mean is that the world he sees and edits in is 90 degrees off of everyone else's. That's a problem. That's a competency issue. --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Unblock / Short block He claims that the overlap was accidental, and per AGF I'm going to have to accept that (even if I disbelieved it). However that does also burn this as an excuse in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: Obviously opinions differ, but I would think WP:NOTSUICIDE would apply to this situation. zchrykng (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Lift IBAN. I'm an uninvolved non-admin, and I've read everything, from Commons IBAN violations, to all the IBAN definitions. Judging from WV's talk page comments, we can definitely AGF that there won't be any more disruption towards MF. For example, I believe that WV will never ever file a SPI report against MF. On the other hand, MF seems to again accuse multiple editors of lying and meatpuppeting. I don't blame her, because she is not allowed to revert WV's edits. The IBAN complicated it. If WV is indeffed, MF might find someone else to accuse of meatpuppeting etc. If the IBAN is lifted and WV unblocked, we will see the 2016-era collaboration between WV and MF, in the best scenario. In the worst scenario, WV and MF will mostly go their own ways, crossing paths every few months, and not edit warring when they do. WV and MF are competent editors, and WV has the 1RR already in place (but I doubt that WV will be reverting MF much). I'm only saying that WV should be indeffed because of his tone on his user talk page. It's not the WV everyone seems to recall above. Of course, WV should be indeffed if he harasses people in the future, as that has been my opinion for a long time. I would support indeffing WV, right until very recently. MF is a very valuable editor who has never caused any trouble other than the blocks and socks and stuff, so I would support giving her some air. If MF starts casting lots of aspersions, unprovoked, I support escalating blocks or bans, starting from 24 hours. If MF wishes to file another AN/I report (against anyone), I suggest collecting as much evidence as possible. I think I've covered every possible future scenario. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  It seems that a lot of editors disagree with my assessment. Therefore, my second choice is lift IBAN + 6-month/indefinite 0RR, as a stop-gap between a harsh site ban, and going back to a revert a day. wumbolo ^^^ 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Been there, done that, 1.5 years ago. It didn't help. There's no need to replay the inevitable repeat of this fiasco yet again. We need to cut our losses and stop this endless cycle. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse indef/site ban - Prior to the 31st October edits Winkelvis last edit to the article was in 2015[19] so it could be plausible that they had no idea MF edited the article and it could've all been one big honest mistake .... however they would've known MaranoFans interests were and would've known what articles he edits (if they genuinely didn't know then they should've checked the articles history).....

Laziness or ignorance isn't an excuse to violate an IBAN .... Anyone with an IBAN would check the articles history that's just common sense ....,

I feel lowering the block or unblocking will just see us all here again in the near distant future, AGF only goes so far .... –Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, just a reminder that there is additional context and discussion on Winkelvi's talk page, here and here. They asked about copying over their replies to here, but I wasn't sure how to copy them over in a sane way. zchrykng (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's not a vote - but just as a public service, here are the counts I have (apologies if I missed anyone or put anyone in the wrong section):
  • Community ban / retain the indefinite block: (20) Laser brain, Floquenbeam, Legacypac, TonyBallioni, Coretheapple, Cullen328, SerialNumber54129, Nihlus, Mandruss, Iridescent, zchrykng, dlthewave, Swarm, Ealdgyth, MrX, Ss112, Softlavendar, Tarage, Davey2010
  • Unblock now (possibly with some editing restriction): (23) Awilley, MONGO, Andy Dingley
  • Something less than an indefinite block: (109) 28bytes, Courcelles, PackMecEng, SimonM223, B, Ivanvector, Liz, Jonathunder, Andy Dingley, wumboto
  • Don't accept Winkelvi's explanation but didn't express a desire for a specific block or unblock: Jo-Jo Emerus, Galobtter , Nil Einne, NØ, Snooganssnoogans, Masem, Only in death
• I'm seeing a pretty solid consensus to endorse the indefinite block (especially since just about all of the latest !votes have been in favor of endorsing the indefinite block) and unless anyone has any serious heartbreak about it, I think this can be closed as such. --B (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Er, I don't think there is an user Jo-Jo Emerus. I don't actually have an opinion on what action to take. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Oppose any unblock without a minimum 6 month break before an appeal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• If you're going to count other people on their behalf, please do it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think you can count me as a solid "indef" - I said I was leaning that way, not that I was there yet. Struck that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Close Come not between the dragon and his wrath.--MONGO (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban in the context of previous behaviour this has to be the last straw. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as implied by my comments in the next section. A long block (such as a year) could be a reasonable alternative that would give them enough distance to come back with a new approach. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indef Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I've been pondering this since it came up yesterday, and a site ban looks like it's pretty much inevitable now, but... I'm aware of the trouble Winkelvi keeps getting in to, but I have to say I do find it plausible that he responded to some news and approached the article with something of a unidirectional focus - to make the changes he thought were needed, and pretty much blind to all other considerations. I don't want to focus on personal issues, but I know people who approach things like that in all innocence, and really don't notice the elephant in the room until they tread in its dung. What I'm hoping is that there will be some way back for Winkelvi - perhaps an appeal after six months or something. One thing that might work, for example, is having a written checklist and consulting it before every editing session - check history, check whose edits they are, recheck IBANs, etc. I regularly use checklists for my various work tasks - they're tedious, but if I didn't check them, I'd occasionally omit something obvious. Anyway, I'd like to be able to think of a better solution that the community might accept, but right now I don't think there is one - but I'm hopeful for the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. At some point as a community we have to say enough is enough. He’s been blocked a dozen times before this latest infraction, so it’s fair to say he’s been given enough rope. If he feels like he can be a productive editor here, the burden is on him to prove it at this point. Calidum 16:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indef Indef block for an IBAN violation on a singer article is pretty draconian. He did genuinely improve the article by doing several edits as well, so it wasn't just a cynical suicide by cop jab for the sake of it. IBANs have a lot of critics, and although of course they should be enforced, their enforcement shouldn't be as strict as with topic bans for instance, because there are less-than-obvious ways users can interact. Lastly, it is a bit perverse that an indef block for someone who's mostly known as an AP32- editor is being !voted at AN (because for obvious reasons that's affecting perceptions even when the topic at hand isn't about it). Nevertheless, it's obvious that the community's patience is at the very end. --Pudeo (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  affecting perceptions that seems like an ad hominem attack, without any evidence. I believe that WV is a battleground-minded editor, solely per his contributions to Meghan Trainor, the very article "at hand", as you put it. wumbolo ^^^ 20:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - well, we've sold out of popcorn and beer. Bring out the next contestant and let's gage their popularity. Nobody seems to care about WP's shortage of editors, having to AGF, or the positive things an editor has done throughout their WP career. One mistake - just one...btw - what's the minimum breaking strength of that rope? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not just one mistake. It's the actions that led up to the IBAN being imposed, the previous very recent violation excused by him apparently forgetting about the IBAN, it's the harassment of Snoogansnoogans and other editors, plus the blocks for other issues like edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reading the IBAN discussion from the time it looks like they were not the main problem there. Over two and a half years ago with no issues on the IBAN is nothing to ignore either. The edit warring though again has not been an issue for about a year and a half. Given all that it more looks punitive rather than preventative. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There were several IBAN violations, most of them as recent as September 2018. They're listed here: [20]--NØ 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, in the thread you got a block from. PackMecEng (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question. Why doesn't anyone consider converting the two-way IBAN to a one-way IBAN, now after a violation by one party? That seems to follow the idea behind IBANs. Correct me if I'm wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Wumbolo: Most of us see the uselessness of kicking the can down the road. Nihlus 22:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Comment Maybe I should just let this be but I don't like if my comment is misunderstood. With reference to B's comment I'm not rejecting Winkelvi's explanation. I do find it awfully coincidental but in the absence of other evidence (and the other examples I've seen don't seem to be enough) I feel it best to AGF that Winkelvi is telling truth, in other words, this wasn't an intentional iban violation. It's correct I expressed no opinions on what this means for the block. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• I missed all the action, again. The problems between these two have been bothersome and disruptive for quite a while now, and I can't explain why they keep occurring--especially from a longtime editor like Winkelvi this is hard to fathom; for a usually serious editor this seems almost trivial. Like B, I also see a clear consensus to maintain an indefinite block, which I would have supported, and it's hardly mitigated by statements such as these, "I've long known I'm too honest, too NPOV, and too good a contributor for the cesspool that Wikipedia has become." Perhaps that's the key, though, and the animosity toward and hounding of MaranoFan (a highly problematic editor, sure) is a symptom of what Winkelvi thinks about Wikipedia, and about us, but MaranoFan appears to be an easier target than other editors. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Violation of iBan by MaranoFan?

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

---

Correct me if I'm wrong - I had to put drops in my eyes to clear what I thought was an illusion, all the while thinking to myself...no way, no one in their right mind would violate their iBan right under the noses of several admins here on AN, especially after they had been reminded it was a 2-way iBan. If I am imagining things, please accept my sincerest apologies, but first look at the diffs and judge for yourself.

• Yesterday, at 11:52, November 1, 2018, Ritchie333 reminded MaranoFan the i-Ban subject of this discussion is a 2-way interaction ban: "I'll remind MaranoFan that the interaction ban is two-way, and advise them to forget about this thread and go and edit something else."
• MaranoFan, at 11:56, November 1, 2018 MaranoFan self-reverted the edit Ritchie commented below.
• Today, at 15:18, November 2, 2018, MaranoFan made this comment despite Ritchie's reminder.
  

If my count is accurate, MaranoFan made 4 comments in this thread on Nov 1st - one of which was reverted - and 1 comment after Ritchie's reminder on Nov 2nd. This can't be happening - not if one editor is facing a site ban for violating the same iBan the other party violated with zero consequences? There is something terribly wrong with this picture. I would like to see both parties admonished with a warning to not do it again, and drop this entire case for both of them.^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Any admin can adjust up or down as they see fit. 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

---

• Motion proposed at Winkelvi's talk page to abide by 1RR and IBan and to select 5 articles or specific areas to work on over next six months in effort to bring them to GA or FA level, an ability I believe Winkelvi has.--MONGO (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I could ONLY potentially, POTENTIALLY, support this if there was also a ban from posting on the drama boards. He has to focus, and going there will not help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My fourth point at his talkpage was that he would ONLY edit the 5 articles. I already have 5 I think he would excel at.--MONGO (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort Mongo, but we both know that unless the rules are 100% ironclad, he's going to find a way around it. If you want to ban him from everything except 5 articles and their respective talk pages, it needs to be a ban from EVERYTHING else. And he need to know that if he edits on ANYTHING except those 5 articles, their talk pages, his page, and his talk page, that he instantly gets indef'ed. --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just nonsense. We don't make concessions for DE/CIR editors to only play in their own tiny walled garden. Any blocked/banned person desiring to continue "editing" should find or create a Wikia/Wiki/MediaWiki outside of Wikipedia to do so in. We've already bent over backwards for Winkelvi for many years, and only now are people catching on that that was a mistake. He has been given multiple lengths of rope numerous times, and has always showed his true colors in the end. There is no more rope. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Good grief, its not nonsense. No one is asking for a walled garden either. He would have to interact at GAN and FAC and show he can interact positively. We all know many would watch his every move like a hawk.--MONGO (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, kudos to MONGO for attempting to help Winkelvi, but Tarage is right, they are fresh out of rope, in my opinion. zchrykng (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I could support an inverse topic ban like this with some conditions. First, WV would have to agree to it. Second the topics would need to be sufficiently far from all previous areas of conflict. Third I would want to see some provision to prevent any regular content disputes from boiling over into user talk and WP space. ~Awilley (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• The proposal may be a way forward if Winkelvi agrees to it and the other restrictions are kept in place. This would be the last chance, however. Jonathunder (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Softlavender puts it well. Winkelvi has run out of last chances. I haven't interacted with him that I recall but have watched from a distance and have long been puzzled as to why the community has repeatedly bent over backward to accommodate behavior inappropriate to a collaborative project. It would be best for all concerned if we simply make a clean break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I was inclined to give this serious consideration and so I went to Winkelvi's talk page to learn more. There, I read this Winkelvi gem: "The voices at AN are loud, biased, and want certain death. It's a crowd outside the prison carrying signs that say, 'Let him fry!'" As a lifelong opponent of the death penalty and also as an opponent of unhinged hyperbole in discussions among Wikipedia editors, this seals the deal for me. I have been doing volunteer work for half a century and Wikipedia has been my favorite place for volunteering in recent years. But if the day came when I was no longer able to volunteer on this project, I would just find another place to volunteer, instead of making bizarre analogies to the electric chair. We do not need that kind of battleground mentality here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because if we need this level of specific sanctions to let someone edit, it’s a sign that person shouldn’t be editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This harassment has been going on for years and is not limited to any particular article, subject or editor. It seems to be part of his personalty. I'm not convinced that restricting him to a small set of articles would curb the behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarage, Cullen & Tony - In short they're find another way around it or will make up some great excuse for not following it, Like I said above AGF only goes so far and at this point I would say they've used the last bit of ROPE they had. –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard of a proposal to limit an editor to a single-digit range of article. If that's necessary, best to just forget about it. We're here because of repeated time-wasting arguments like this. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer to round down the number of topics to the nearest 10, ie zero. He has proven unsuited to working with other people. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  And you with your six blocks in last 2.5 years are?--MONGO (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Luis Bracamontes

As a precaution, I've semi-proected the redirect Luis Bracamontes and the page 2014 shooting of Sacramento police officers for 10 days, due to it being in the news. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46055215 Please feel free to reverse if this seems over-cautious. (And please watchlist) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit inappropriate? Something being in the news is precisely when we don't want an article protected if it's at all possible, since that's when potential new editors are most likely to want to update the article, and hopefully decide to stay around. The guy's currently been sentenced to death, so any BLP issues are presumably fairly minimal given that nothing we can throw at him is worse than he's already facing. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that articles should not be protected preemptively in most circumstances. There needs to be evidence of a problem to warrant protection. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed per the above. Anyone should feel free to restore protection in the future if disruption increases to the point where it is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I was wrong. All looks good. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Appeal to lift topic ban

So back in January, I was topic-banned from XFD as a whole. In August, it was agreed to loosen that and allow me to comment on XFDs but not initiate any, as a means of gauging my behavior in this setting.

I think that one of the biggest issues that drove me over the edge last time was an attempt to plow through the {{cleanup}} backlog, which drove me to some deep dark obscure corners where I was finding poorly-maintained articles. Far too often I was using AFD as cleanup, and getting overly argumentative and aggressive.

In the time of my topic ban, I have focused more on article creation. I have seen both Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, articles that I created many years ago, get promoted to GA. So far I have not had any noticeable issues in XFD interactions. I have also been putting articles on my watch list if I feel that they do not meet notability guidelines, in hopes of getting them nominated in good faith. One such article, Waycross (band), was nominated by someone else (without my input).

It takes a long stream of serious fuckups to get to a topic-ban, which I think I deserved, but I feel that I am not beyond at least making an appeal. I would like to have my XFD initiation ban lifted on a trial basis to see if I am fit to get back into making nominations again. I have a couple AFD nominations drafted up fo possible consideration. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume the list of AFD nominations you've drafted is here: User:TenPoundHammer/AFD? Any chance we could persuade you not to call people "dumbass" in edit summaries? 28bytes (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I like you and respect your contributions to the encyclopedia, and remember when your signature mentioned otters and a clue bat. On the other hand, you tend to lose control at deletion debates. During your successful attempt to loosen your topic ban, decided in August of this year, I asked you a series of questions about your conduct at 01:16, 27 July 2018, which you never answered. Can you please answer my questions now? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: this edit? zchrykng (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I honestly didn't notice those questions come up last time. Adding sources found by someone else shouldn't be hard, as I've added ProveIt to my edit bar which makes such edits a snap -- and which also gives a useful edit summary, since it automatically indicates that I'm adding a source to the article. Most of my vulgar edit summaries come from frustrations unrelated to AFD, such as a particular editor who is extremely overzealous in tagging and refuses to listen to my suggestions, combined with clueless noobs who seem to think that Wikipedia is a blog and that "This is incorrect because blah blah blah" is a proper thing to put in the article itself. That doesn't justify those edits, but that doesn't mean there something I should continue to watch out for. As for better google-fu, I've been ensuring that I dig deeper into the search results. If it's some obscure early 20th century biography, then the hits are likely historical websites or old books that are beyond my knowledge so I should assume good faith there unless I have major doubts (like, if the only results seem to be WP mirrors). My draft list here shows a few attempts I've made at searching for notability assertations on a few selected topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban for time served. Deletion is an unfortunately required maintenace task. It is thankless and we need good editors willing to undertake the work of identifying crud. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, topic bans or any other kinda bans, are preventative measures, not punitive. If the guy says he's cured? then give him a chance to prove it. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support- ban is no longer serving any useful purpose. Reyk _YO! 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The last ANI thread about your aggressive and incivil language was just on September 11: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive992#Grossly offensive language. Your topic ban had to do with getting riled over someone disagreeing with your concerted deletion campaign and directing incivil language towards them. Thus, it seems you have not improved on your behauvior. --Pudeo (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I also also see TPH as one of the good guys (and I also remember the otters), but I want to be sure that aggressive temper will be kept in check. So I'm waiting to hear responses to Cullen's questions too, and I'll decide after I see them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any good reason to decline this request, other than potential civility issues. You did leave an edit summary with "dumbass" in it here, but I think it's safe to assume that was not directed at anyone in particular since the cleanup tag you removed was added by an IP almost a year earlier. I'm also reserving opinion pending your response to Cullen's inquiry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I also would like to see some acknowledgement of TPH moving past the issues Cullen notes in his post above from July. There seems to be a "win or lose" battleground mentality when going in to AFD discussions, as though finding sources to save an article from deletion somehow makes TPH "lose" the discussion. I'd like to see some assurances that TPH intends to change that behavior, and that he really does understand that the goal of AFD is to improve Wikipedia, including sometimes discovering ways to keep a nominated article by making it better. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While you acknowledge that you were "getting overly argumentative and aggressive"; you're overall pattern of getting uncivil, attacking other editors, or being aggressive has not changed in other areas, per This ANI, "not what the tag's for, dumbass", or "learn to fucking edit, noob". Per Afd stats, you have only participated in ~20 afds since the topic ban was loosened. That there has only been a relatively small amount of participation (in which there was this pretty aggressive comment "And as I said, these guys don't even pass freaking WP:V, as there is LITERALLY NOTHING OUT THERE saying who was even IN THE GROUP" - and in these 20 Afds where TPH has participated, he can be presumed to be on his best behaviour to try to convince people to remove his topic ban) and that your issues were mainly with nominations, gives no indication of better behaviour at Afds.

While I could wait for TenPoundHammer's response to Cullen's question, actions speak louder than words here, and there is absolutely no indication from his actions that he will be less riled up about bad articles (cf. their reaction to a bad edit: "learn to fucking edit, noob"). Because disagreement in deletion areas appears to cause aggressiveness and incivility from TPH, I think it is better for us and for TPH that he stays away from it, even if people are needed for nominate things for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support on the condition the Ten Pound Hammer promises to be a velvet hammer in edit summaries. We all know there are plenty of willfully clueless people on this project, but edit summaries are not the place to call people idiots and variations on the word "fuck" should almost never be used. Jonathunder (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Given how recent this was, the only discussion we should be having with regards to TPH is whether he's allowed to remain on Wikipedia in any capacity, not on whether he can return to disrupting an area where he caused so many problems for virtually no benefit. (If someone genuinely doesn't know how to carry out a Google search—which was TPH's defence when it was pointed out he was falsely claiming topics to be unsourceable—why do we want them involved in Wikipedia's deletion processes?) If TPH feels he has something useful to add to Wikipedia he can do it in an area where his incompetence isn't repeatedly damaging other people's work. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Incidentally, if anyone's keeping track TPH is still using his favorite trick of using intentionally misleading edit summaries when removing content. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Oppose per Iridescent. There is no excuse for treating good-faith "noobs" like that. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iri. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iri - I was originally going to Support but seeing that edit summary has made me think otherwise, If you're the subject of a topicban then you should expect constant montiroing of your contributions and as such your contributions should realistically be squeeky-clean. Anyway oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iri. Come on, TPH. I know you can do better. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support giving TPH the opportunity to demonstrate improvement. AGF, people. -FASTILY 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer. At what point do you feel we should stop assuming good faith? ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  If we lift the topic ban, then best case we get a valuable contributor, and worst case WP:ROPE. Right now, we're somewhere in between, such that neither TPH nor the community stands to benefit. Upholding the ban defers any real resolution on this matter, and is akin to kicking the can down the road indefinitely. -FASTILY 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've had conflicts with you in the distant past I believe. That said, I hold you in pretty high regard and have found you to be a stellar resource and hard worker. Your list of things you've done since the ban is quite solid. I don't think AfD is the best place for you to work--you seem to get riled up more their than anywhere else. And frankly you seem to make a few very poor decisions wrt editing in general (e.g. Iridescent's diff). You clearly add a lot to this place and I'm glad you're here doing the work you do. I really want to support this, but you've got to avoid doing things like that. I hope that sounds as encouraging as I mean it to be. Fix the occasional "going off the rails" and Wikipedia is your oyster. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Personally, being grumpy and leaving uncivil edit summaries to presumed newbies is not a reason for me to oppose lifting this XfD topic ban; that's a discussion for another day. For this I am only looking at AfD participation since August 8, and there is nothing in particular (not even the diff provided by Galobtter) that I would flag as requiring immediate concern. Alex Shih (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I was jocularly in favour of TPH's request earlier, only holding off to await the answers to Cullen's questions. However, Iridescent and Galobterr's links would be pretty poor behaviour for any established editor; but for one who is not only already under a behavioural restriction but even at the time they left that edit summary must presumably have been planning on launching this appeal in the nearish future? Absolutely no(f*cking)way. Not just the fact that it's effectively the same behaviour they were restricted for, but it seems to demonstrate absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what the community expects from them, or deems acceptable. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I was semi supportive but wasn't planning to !vote since I couldn't be bothered to look at the evidence. Then I saw Iridescent's diff and it was enough to make me change my mind on all counts. While some may feel it's a different issue, the level of participation in XfD makes it difficult to gauge if they be okay there. I suggest TPH also takes Jayron32's comment on board. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. We're busy enough at AfD as it is. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment BTW, it's not simply about the language. Adding comments to articles is clearly wrong, but the IP did highlight a possible problem with our content [21] Now if the info was backed by a source, that would be one thing, but the only source in that article doesn't seem to give a date for when the two singers met. That means the IP could easily be completely right and our article is just plain wrong. I'm not trying to argue over content but rather point out there were lots of better ways that could have been handled e.g. moving the comment to the talk page and frankly in my opinion TPH chose close to the worst option. Initiating an XfD requires you to consider lots of issues remembering that your ultimate goal is to improve wikipedia, even if yes by deleting stuff and I'm simply not convinced TPH is there yet. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Galobtter. Will support if 3 months elapsed without any problems. Excelse (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent's diff. The "dumbass" edit summary wasn't obviously directed at a specific editor, but "learn to fucking edit" certainly was. I also suggest that if TPH can't control his impulse to attack editors over poor editing, especially noobs, admins should control it for him. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not only for the edit summaries pointed out by Iri and Galo, but because if you're only participated in 20 some AfDs since that ban was lifted, we can't begin to judge if you've really reformed. And given the edit summaries, etc. elsewhere, I'm not seeing that it's likely. Its going to take a LOT more participation in AfDs without issues before I'd be comfortable with the whole ban being lifted. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate TPH trying to answer the questions I asked back in July, but I consider their reply inadequate. Additionally, describing one editor as "extremely overzealous" and a whole class of new editors as "clueless noobs" is evidence of an ongoing battleground mentality that I find quite unsettling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• TPH, the "learn to fucking edit" also shuts this down for me. I understand frustration, believe me I do, but if you're already under scrutiny for such behavior, the optics are just terrible. Fastily, "AGF people" is fine, but it's hard to assume good faith in that one. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - (leaving in place) a ban from nominating articles for deletion seems like an odd reaction to a lack of civility, but the initial TBAN was placed largely due to civility issues in that forum. As a result, I agree that leaving the TBAN in place for at least 3 more months is the correct response to the continuing civility issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. Nihlus 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per this, this, and this just in the last few weeks. I want TPH to be able to edit, and to be able to freely nominate articles for deletion, but if he can't control himself then I'm disinclined to acquiesce to this request. TPH please try harder to maintain civility, and then perhaps this could be revisited in 2019. Fish+Karate 09:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before being allowed back into an area that has previously brought out the worst in him, TPH needs to learn how to stop being so chronically obnoxious to other people - and then be able to show a reasonable period of having put that learning into practice. The examples shown here are far too recent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose TPH is still not able to control their temper and this doesn’t give me any confidence that lifting the XFD restriction will not lead to more disruption again.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Botched round robin - history merge needed

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

---

I botched a round robin move, and now a history merge is needed. Would someone be kind enough to merge the history of Faithful World Baptist Church (a typo on my part for what should have been "Faithful Word Baptist Church") with that of Steven L. Anderson? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried but our resident expert Anthony Appleyard is going to have to take a look at this one. There are too many revisions in the article's history and I'm hitting database errors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

... or maybe Favonian is already doing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Furiously muttering Shepard's Prayer, I have attempted to do it. Someone knowledgeable better check the result! Favonian (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There's one diff (this one) that belongs on Faithful Word Baptist Church. BMK already recreated the redirect so I'm not going to try to fix it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken and Ivanvector:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone involved. Sorry to have screwed up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Was there a move discussion about this? I was pretty involved with the Faithful Word Baptist Church article a few years ago, but I'm not aware that anyone proposed moving the article to the name of the pastor [sic].- MrX 🖋 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This was completely undiscussed, and should have been. I have posted a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to move it back to its original title. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Any honest evaluation of the article will show that it is 95 67% about Steven L. Anderson, and only 5 33% about the church, which -- in and of itself -- is a completely non-notable sect. The only thing about it that is notable are Anderson's political views and his controversial public comments. Those were not comments made by the congregation, they were ex cathedra expressions by Anderson himself, and represent his personal views. The article was therefore properly moved to its actual subject matter, instead of continuing to masquerade as an article about a church congregation (which is so small it meets in an office space in a strip mall.)

I look forward to any counter arguments presented at an RM discussion, which should take place on the article's talk page, and not at WP:RM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to get consensus if you want the article moved. I disagree with your assessment that it is 95% about Steven L. Anderson (and I'm honest 95% of the time). Here you hear two editors challenging your WP:BOLD move. - MrX 🖋 00:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So as not to give anyone reading this thread the wrong impression, I have corrected my numbers based on an actual count of the sentences in the article. Any editor challenging the move is welcome to participate at the RfC I opened on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOLD. The request at WP:RM was rejected by an admin, but User:GeoffreyT2000, a non-admin page mover, went ahead and moved it anyway. I restored it to the proper title, which represents the actual subject matter of the article. If you, or anyone else, wishes to add to the article so that it is actually about the sect, please go ahead and do so -- you won't find anything about it except articles about Anderson's comments and beliefs, which, while obviously related to the church he founded, are not actually about the church -- they're about the man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Sadly, there seem to be a few admins at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests who don't understand how WP:RM works. It says "If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted." Why wasn't that done in this case? StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard:, who rejected your RM request, specializes in RM work, so your point is not well taken. He rejected your request to move it back on the basis that the article is primarily about the man, [23] so the article stays where it is until an WP:RM discussion held on the article talk page gains a consensus for a move back to the incorrect name. How in hell you can think an article which is almost completely about an individual's comments, behavior and actions should be titled under the name of an instituion I fail to comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This most recent move is a flagrant violation of the page mover rules, and grounds for removal of the right per criteria 1 and 4. Could an uninvolved administrator please review? Bradv 03:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please examine the history of the moves more carefully, since you have reached an incorrect conclusion. In actuality, the move made by the page mover GeoffreyT2000 after an RM request by StAnselm had been rejected by admin Anthony Appleyard was the improper move, and the repeat request by StAnselm (which GeoffreyT20 had responded to) after the first request had been rejected was also improper -- what should have happened at that point is the opening of an RM discussion on the article talk page, which no one as yet has seen fit to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No. What should have happened is that you filed an RM request. This is certainly a misuse of tools. Please revert your move immediately. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If Anthony Appleyard rejected the request to reverse a contested move, then he acted out of process. Perhaps someone could provide a link to this decision?- MrX 🖋 10:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Out of process"?!! "Technical" RM requests are always evaluated by an admin, who either acts on them or, for whatever reason, rejects the request. That's their job in the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment was it really too much to ask for someone to be the bigger person and open an RM or RFC rather than these repeated moves? zchrykng (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

We have a very clear policy as to which way the move request should be made in this situation. StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not accede to an unreasonable and illogical demand and move the article back, but I have started an RfC as to what the article's title should be. It can be found here, so anyone interested should make their views known there, and an uninvolved editor will close the discussion when it is appropriate to do so.

I think that with the opening of the RfC, this discussion here at AN can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that RM should be used for article titles, not RfC. My request was neither unreasonable nor illogical. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Revocation of page mover right

WP:PMRR provides criteria for a user's page mover right to be revoked. #4 is "The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes." That is clearly what has happened in this case with User:Beyond My Ken's second move here (and subsequent refusal to revert). Therefore, the user right should be revoked. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

StAnselm appears to be holding on to some sour grapes. He has so far refused to participate in the RfC I began, on the grounds that it should have been an RM, [24] despite the fact that RfCs are clearly appropriate for such discussions. [25] I chose an RfC because they generally draw a larger number of participants than RMs do, because they are more widely advertised. Regardless of whether it is as an RfC or an RM, a formal consensus discussion have been initiated, so if StAnselm is concerned about which titles is appropriate for the article, he really should participate and make his views known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I almost never agree with StAnselm, but you were out of line here. You edit warred to get you preferred version. You shouldn't have done that. Unless there is consensus to keep the title that you forced on everyone, it needs to be moved back to the title it has had for more than six years.- MrX 🖋 10:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I just wrote at the RfC, and then I think I'm done discussing this particular topic.

Your analysis is incorrect. The actual sequence of events was this: I moved the article, botching the round-robin move. A number of admins helped to fix the move (see above), merging histories which got separated. StAnselm opened a "technical" RM request (which was actually not a techical request, it was a challenge of a move already made). This request was turned down by admins on the basis that the article was primarily about the man, which is borne out by the fact that only one-third of it by actual count is about the church, per se. StAnselm then filed an inappropriate second request -- he should have proceeded to an RM or RfC -- which GeoffreyT2000 -- a non-admin page mover -- made, possibly without being aware that it had already been turned down by admins. This is the move I reverted, putting the article back to the last approved title. There was no "big no no" on my part. The only possible violations of policy were by StAnselm in filing a second request after his first had been rejected, and GT20, if he made the move knowing that it had already been rejected by an admin (one who, in fact, specializes in RMs).

In any event the consensus of this RfC can be implemented wherever the article happens to be at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. "This request was turned down by admins on the basis that the article was primarily about the man" ← That's the second problem (The first being that you moved the title without discussion). A single admin's opinion is not a substitute for consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not right. When a technical move request is filed, the admin evaluates it and either performs it or rejects it. In this case they rejected it. There's nothing abnormal or wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Here some additional guidance: Wikipedia:Page mover#Page move disputes.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of the right. Clearly misused and editor doesn't seem to be able to understand it was misused. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of the page mover right, per above. By accusing StAnselm of "holding on to some sour grapes" BMK makes it clear that he knew it was a content dispute, and is proud that he won. RM exists for a reason, which is precisely to avoid this kind of behaviour. Bradv 13:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It doesn't seem that Beyond My Ken can be trusted to use this privilege responsibly. Every opportunity was given for him to reconsider and correct the situation, but his obstinate refusal shows that he considers his opinion to carry more weight than six other editors. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It's disturbing that after moving the article for the second time, Beyond My Ken immediately added a null edit to the newly created redirect. That served no purpose other than to prevent most editors from fulfilling a request at WP:RM/TR to revert the undiscussed move. Station1 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that I've ever seen a editing right removed as the result of a single incident, but I could be wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Happens occasionally. It goes like this: Editor mis-uses user-right. Editor is explained why they cant do what they did. Editor refuses to agree and wont commit to not doing it again. User-right gets removed. To be fair, what happens is people look at their contributions and often quickly find further incidents where they have mis-used it but no one has complained. But frankly you should know better. If a page move with no prior discussion is disputed, it gets reverted to the original title until a RM discussion is had. Edit-warring it into the preferred title and then ignoring a valid technical move request is not acceptable as its Admin super-voting to avoid a discussion that is REQUIRED to be had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I do have to protest -- I did not "ignore a valid technical move request". StAnselm filed a technical move requested that was rejected by an admin -- that's the admin's role in processing these, it's not a rubber stamp situation. StAnselm then ignored that his request had been rejected, and filed another one, totally muddying the waters, especially when a non-admin page mover then acted on StAnselm's inappropriate second request.
  If anyone wants to go through my contributions and make a case that I regularly abuse the page mover right, and it is then removed on that basis, then obviously I have little to complain about, but that's not the case here. I am being virtually pilloried for one botched action, with no consideration of any past history. I agree that I could have handled things better, but the situation was unduly complicated by StAnselm's second request after his first was rejected (and the idea that an admin can't reject a technical move request is pure piffle) and the subsequent move of the article by an editor who probably was unaware that StAnselm's request to move it had been rejected. So, sure, I'll own up to my less than stellar actions, but I'm just a bit annoyed that the only stones being thrown are coming in my direction, when the other players in this Wiki-farce played their parts as well, and are busy polishing their haloes rather than coming clean about their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually I should have made it clear, I meant the admin who declined the technical move request rather than yourself for the ignore part. And yes, an admin not answering a request is fine. An admin answering a request and then flouting the rules because they have a different opinion is not. Its supervoting their own preference rather than following the relevant policies and guidelines. And as has been made clear previously, an admin using their admin status in order to prevent an admin action being taken *is* an admin action. An admin just not responding to something they do not personally want to do is not. Once the unannounced move was contested, it should have been moved back to the original title - it couldnt, so a technical move request was made. Declining that technical request because they have a preference is an abuse of admin powers as much as your repeated move was an abuse of the pagemover right. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The rejection of the request to revert an undiscussed move at WP:RM/TR was inappropriate (Requests to revert recent undiscussed controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location. – WP:RM). The restoration of a request to WP:RM/TR is unusual. The second move was wheel warring. Bottom line: those who rejected the request to revert an undiscussed move thereby contributing to this debacle should be scolded. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. The role of the admin in a technical move request is to evaluate it, and then either to do it or reject it. It's just a normal, everyday thing, there's no expectation that they should rubber stamp every request. The idea that an admin cannot reject a move request is simply wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's exactly right. You, and the admins involved failed to follow policy and standard practice. You bulldozed right over the objections of other editors. Instead of the admitting their mistakes, the admins doubled down: one giving a non-sensical response and the other saying "fucking drop it". Shame. - MrX 🖋 01:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

On reflection

Having cleared my head a bit, and slept on it, I will say that -- regardless of the possible culpability of anyone else -- I was wrong to have dug in and refused to revert my move when it became clear that there was an objection to it. I can cite reasons for my doing so, but I've covered most of them already and repeating them doesn't seem productive to me, nor have they been met with any degree of empathy.

In the future, should I retain the file mover right, I will do my best to look past my own evaluation of the merits of any move that I make, and, in the face of controversy restore the article to its previous title to allow consensus discussion to take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal to modify Template:American politics AE

The following has been copy-pasted from Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Proposal_to_remove_the_"Civility_restriction"

This template currently includes a "Civility" restriction that was added in January 2018 by User:Coffee a couple months before his retirement. It reads:

Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

I don't recall the extent to which Coffee enforced this sanction, but to my knowledge it has not been enforced since he retired. Searches I did of WP:AE archives didn't pull up anything except this in which one of the commenting users cited the Civility restriction, and where administrator User:NeilN (the primary admin patrolling the AP area at the time) commented with this: "many of these pages are already under a tightened civility restriction: [quotes the restriction] Doesn't seem to do much." The AE report was closed with a reminder/warning.

I believe this restriction should be removed for the following reasons:

• It is redundant with our current civility policy. Administrators can already block uncivil users for personal attacks, etc., without the need to cite discretionary sanctions. (The other sanctions in this template (1RR and Consensus Required) are in addition to, not restatements of, current policy.)
• The longer a template is the less likely users are to read it. Also WP:CREEP
• The template is for sanctions, not reminders. If we want to make it a template for reminders I can think of better policies to remind users about (NPOV for instance)
• The other sanctions are fairly "bright-line" sanctions with violations that can be easily and uniformly identified and enforced. It's not clear what constitutes a violation of "proper decorum during discussions and edits".

Pinging the last few administrators who have logged discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2: @EdJohnston: @Bishonen: @Drmies: @Swarm: @Seraphimblade: @Ad Orientem: ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have problems with the whole thing, and never place it on Am Pol pages, for my part. But getting rid of the civility restriction makes it a little better, so go ahead, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC).
• Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators, removing the civility restriction would require a consensus at AN, AE, or an ARCA motion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC

You're right, AE would have been a better venue. Unfortunately I already started a thread at WP:AN and my attempt to undo that got garbled somehow, and now that it's been commented on there as well I'm going to give up on trying to move it again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

End of copy-pasted material

• Support removal of civility restrictions yeah, they don't work and are virtually unenforceable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal - I don't see them as necessary. On the other hand, I'm unhappy that DS alerts dropped "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." and now only mentions policies, and might bring that up at WP:AE at some point. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point, Doug--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Doug, I'm not familiar with the dropping that you referenced. But I do notice that this template includes the sentence "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" near the end of the collapsed portion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of that text from this template. Discretionary sanctions already can be applied for poor behavior in an area subject to DS, and that's noted on the original alert an editor receives for DS. This seems rather redundant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade: the DS alert simply says "Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. " Doug Weller talk 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Civility is a general requirement for remaining in good standing. It is my understanding that admins have general discretion to call out editors who are repeatedly failing to abide by a modicum of decorum. Articles about politics are nothing special in that respect. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Y OK, I've made the change. Thank you for the input! ~Awilley (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While we're at it

In the spirit of making the template more readable I'd also propose the following changes:

1. The first sentence currently says: "The article [article name], [extra mumbo jumbo], is currently subject to discretionary sanctions..." with [extra mumbo jumbo] = "along with other pages perceived at the discretion of an administrator to have a high potential for continuous disruption and which relate to topic of post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". [Extra mumbo jumbo] is mostly redundant with stuff in the last bullet point and last paragraph of the template, and I propose removing it from the first paragraph.
2. The last bullet point beginning "This article and its editors" is not a sanction, it's another general statement about what sanctions are, and is redundant with stuff in the first and last paragraph. In fact the template uses the phrase "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" three times, and the sentence "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions." in the last bullet point is reproduced word for word in the last paragraph. I propose that the last bullet point be merged into the last paragraph.

Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this isn’t actually a sanction, you’re free to modify those to be clearer without consensus. What needs consensus is modification of any specific DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support – The simpler the better. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Y OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi - Proposal for a site ban

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

---

• Interaction ban violation discussion

Earlier today, Black Kite closed the above discussion to keep Ritchie333's block in place. Although I agree there was a consensus for an indefinite block, I believe a community site ban is a more appropriate sanction. Floquenbeam first raised and supported a site ban. There was significant support for it, but it was a bit confusing because some people supported a site ban or the original violation block as if they didn't care which and some supported an indefinite block without saying whether it should be an interaction ban block or a site ban block.

For those reasons I am proposing a site ban that is not appealable for 12 months. Winkelvi has been around a long time. They have a long block log. They have a history of disruption, wikilawyering, making promises they don't keep, and battleground editing. If such an editor were to be given another chance, it would be because they have been improving. In my view, their history shows quite the opposite: they are getting worse.

I also don't trust them anymore. I used to see their pattern as unfortunate but believed their contrition and their promises to do better. Contrition is no longer part of their pattern. They are innocent and everyone else is guilty (unless of course an editor agrees with them). Ritchie mentioned in his original post that, at least in his view, Winkelvi "does a lot of good work". Even assuming that to be true, we are not talking about site-banning a vandal. I am proposing a site ban because Winkelvi, at a minimum, is a net debit to the project, uncollaborative, and unreasonably aggressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he is already community banned per WP:CBAN: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I supported the block but don't have an opinion yet on the minimum amount of time before he can appeal. Nihlus 21:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Black Kite did not log it as a community ban. At a minimum, the closure should be clarified, as well as the appeal length.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite should fix the closure and log it correctly according to policy. Nihlus 22:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I did not comment on that discussion, but I assume that an appeal to the community would be necessary to lift the block after that discussion, and that the standard 6 month delay would apply before an appeal to the community would be considered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• I did not participate, but I read that close as a CBAN (aka, community "indefinite block"), which would be subject to a community WP:SO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I thought it already became a community ban. He again violated the IBAN he was blocked for directly here [26] by specifically mentioning the other party MF by name. And arguably again [27] by discussing that editors GA nomination again. Then he insulted the Admin that told him to stop it. [28] 6 months is too short. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Guess it just a wording issue since it already is a defacto community ban. I oppose a year though of course. I wouldn't have blocked him anyway. Instead...I would have forced him and MaranoFan to work collaborative together by ultimatum. Think that wouldn't have worked? Guess again. This website goes about these sorts of things the opposite how they could be handled....especially when dealing with long term editors.--MONGO (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting question is, whether WV would violate the IBAN by removing MF's barnstar from his userpage. wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea on the face it of it, but given I've noticed that Winkelvi has been trying to throw MaranoFan under a bus for some time, I suspect I would end up banging their heads together and just finishing the work myself. I am prepared to give MaranoFan a bit more slack because they're young and their disruption can be explained to some extent by a lack of maturity, but when Winkelvi goes off the rails and accuses me of being "full of crap" when I don't comply exactly to his demands to the letter, I've pretty much lost all hope of being able to mediate anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Winkelvi's behavior has not changed after multiple months-long blocks, and there is no sign that a longer temporary ban would further our goal of writing an encyclopedia. These comments [29] [30] [31] seal the deal and may justify removal of talk page access. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - MONGO offered up an excellent idea - that way we don't lose 2 good editors. Another thought - assign them to NPP or AfC duty for 6 mos. instead of site banning or blocking, especially considering both violated the iBan and both have excuses for doing so - belief of the excuses being dependent upon one's interpretation and as Bbb23 said, "trust". If either steps out of line, out they go. That way the project benefits, and nobody loses. The bottomline is supposed to stop disruption and we can do so by benefitting the project, it can't be all bad. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

MF did not violate the IBAN - he followed WP:BANEX. Also why would we want someone who plays so poorly with others at AfC dealing with new editors? He would never be approved for AfC. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: He's already blocked/banned and that's not changing, so I am failing to see the relevance of your comment. Nihlus 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I know, Nihlus...both are blocked - one indef and the other a month...my only purpose here is to try to save editors whose talents the Project may be able to utilize in a positive way by simply redirecting their contributions to areas where there are shortages, and the help is very much needed. Why toss out good editors if we can simply redirect them? Isn't the primary purpose here to stop disruption? Why does a block, t-ban or site ban always have to be the only remedy? If a quarterback sucks at that position, but excels at kicking field goals, why not simply change his position instead of kicking him off the team? If they screw-up again, they're out. Put them on potato peeling duty, don't throw them overboard. That's all I'm saying. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• General comment Whatever we decide here needs to take precedence over the previous discussion. Barring something truly ludicrous (e.g. "Please unblock Grawp, or he'll begin socking even more!"), an unblock discussion with banning as a possible result shouldn't end within 48 hours of being opened. I don't pay attention to Winkelvi, and if I've ever had interactions with him I've forgotten them, but we shouldn't treat a longstanding active user as having been banned by the community when the discussion went so quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh? WP:CBAN says 24 hours, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Policy disagrees with you on all counts. We are not superseding the previous discussion by any means. Nihlus 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

24 hours? That's ridiculous: people complained because PROD and XFD only ran for five days, yet we can ban a user in 24 hours? I can't complain at you two, since you're quoting the policy, but there's no way any discussion should be deemed to have the community's consensus in such a short time. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This latest is only the last installment of a discussion that has been going on as long as I've been around. We don't have to copy the entire history into each new installment in the series; it's well-established in the community consciousness and manifests in all the ill will evident in the comments. I don't know of an editor who has been more thoroughly discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that the RfC which lead to the 24 hour minimum requirement (linked on that page) is less than a year old [32]. Prior to that 24 hour minimum was recommended but not required. It was changed, IMO at least in strong part because of a specific case where a discussion was snow closed with a sanction after less than 24 hours but this was then undone after concerns were expressed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#Little fast there. More people did oppose the sanction after the early closure was reverted although it received consensus anyway, but people were less concerned it didn't receive sufficient discussion. In both discussions, some did suggest 48 hour but I presume it didn't have clear support. Actually in the case which cause the change, I think a number did feel it ended up being left open too long primarily because the early closure and reversal meant people were reluctant to close it 'too soon'. It took or is taking a while for admins to get used to the 24 hour minimum requirement as I recall either one or two instances which were closed after less than 24 hours which had to be reopened. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just put the template on the user page. WP:CBAN is clear on this point, so we don’t need another discussion. Really all that a ban means is that an unblock requires community consensus, which after the last discussion is clear would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm afraid this thread is going to be another timesink, and gives everyone on either side of the discussion an opportunity to say the same things all over again. In fact I see a couple of people are now proposing things that are even dumber than what was proposed in the previous thread. I may have used the words "site ban" first, but I'm satisfied with BK's close. Just put this to bed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the official solution to prevent the endless cycles of harassment and disruption of recurring yet again. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Floq, Snooganssnoogans, Legacypac, Cullen328, Mandruss, and others in the previous discussion, and per Bbb23 in this discussion. Winkelvi has engaged in a years-long saga of harassment of numerous editors like MaranoFan, Snooganssnoogans, Gage Skidmore, and even myself. I was subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment earlier this year (more than 20 transgressions documented here: [33]). About a year ago, Winkelvi decided to join the small group of editors who think that Wikipedia is overrun by liberals and controlled by a cabal of liberal admins. That's why a couple of like-minded editors think he should be given special projects. In truth, Winkelvi has had way too many last chances. He has proven repeatedly that he regards the project as a battleground, and is incapable of working cooperatively with far too many other editors. See, for example, his recent user page polemics, and bad faith commentary that has spilled onto article talk pages. It's time for him to accept that this project is not well-suited to his unique qualities and for him to find another hobby. He is incorrigible. If the alternative is to let the indef stand AND require community consensus to unblock, I can live with that as well. - MrX 🖋 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. WV was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. September of 2018 for harassment. Then this latest block. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. There were at least 16 other reports at WP:AN3 concerning Winkelvi where either the page was protected, he was warned or no action was taken without explanation. Here they are:July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, September 2014, October 2014,October 2014, January 2015,January 2015,January 2015,February 2015,March 2015,May 2015,May 2015,November 2015,June 2016 and September 2016. (He's also filed a number of reports himself, but I didn't take time to sort through many of them). Calidum 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural Close As I suggested earlier, I don't find the Black Kite close confusing, but the usual, common sense, and generally kind, procedure is if you think Black Kite was unclear or did something wrong in the close, go talk to him first, and surely it can wait until Black Kite responds, and clears up any confusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)(Struck - CBAN seems clear to me, that close is exactly CBAN compliant, it recites the hours (CBAN requires those hours), it says the community upholds indef, and that is what CBAN says is CBAN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC))
• Whatever it takes for the block to require a community discussion to overturn, no disrespect to Black Kite intended. If that means a formal CBAN vote, fine. If the current indef is automatically considered a CBAN, fine. The important thing is that WV's status is such that community must vote to reinstate him, and that it cannot be done by a single admin's decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Close as per Floq - I used "site ban" but either way the way I see it is they're blocked, no disruption can occur ... and maybe just maybe they can appeal in 6 months or however long it is, I know this was done in good faith (and I respect Bbb for starting this) but like Floq I feel this is just going to be another timesink, Let the dust settle and maybe we can all revisit this in 6 months to a years time. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Close The guy was just indefed a day ago. There was no reason for this. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - One month, then two months, then three months. The reason for this is the editor’s refusal to accept any responsibility in the ongoing discussion on their talk page for long-term problems. It’s still everyone else’s behavior. I didn’t !vote in the recent discussion. But, this is taking up too much community time. Indef with appeal to the community in 12 months. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Closer's comment. As far as I could see, this wasn't a discussion on a community ban; it was a posting by Ritchie333 asking for feedback on his indefinite block ("As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it.") The feedback was that the indefinite ban was correct. At no point did I see a formal request for a CBAN; therefore I didn't close it as one. There were some people that !voted for a site ban during the discussion, but there were nowhere near enough for me to close it as such. If a CBAN is to be imposed, I think it must go through a formal discussion. I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. However TonyBallioni is probably correct in that there would need to be a community discussion to unblock, so perhaps the difference is only semantic anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I'm not sure why so many admins get this wrong. It is made explicitly clear in policy at WP:CBAN: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Where does the confusion lie? Nihlus 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, yes and no. I'm quite aware of what WP:CBAN says, but there's a big difference between a discussion that says "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think they should be CBANNED?" and "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think my block was correct, or should be shortened or even vacated"? I think, as I said above, this is semantic; Winkelvi isn't getting unblocked without a community discussion, and is therefore technically CBANNED anyway because the method for removing a CBAN would be the same community discussion. As I always have on my userpage, if any other admin thinks I've f***ed this up, feel free to fix the problem without informing me. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite - CBAN states (my bold underline): In some cases the community may 'review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction. From what I gathered from some comments in the 1st discussion, this hasn't been exclusively about the iBan; rather, it has included allegations by a few editors who have interacted on the opposing side of debates with Winkelvi, so how many editors actually fit the bill of "uninvolved", and we already know MF contributed despite her iBan so how can we say that is an uninvolved editor? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point. The only one blatantly violating policy at this point are those ignoring WP:CBAN. I'm still at a loss to where there is confusion. @Black Kite: Semantics are important as it is important to explicitly tell the user what restrictions they are under. You've not done that. And trying to pawn it off to another admin to fix your error is pretty low. Nihlus 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. As I said, if another admin thinks this extends to WP:CBAN territory, they are welcome to make that formal. That's not "passing it off", that's called "doing what you think is correct, but being prepared to defer to someone who thinks you haven't". Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• So you are selectively applying policies? That's poor accountability. Nihlus 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares what you think. I've made my position clear. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, if you were referring to me when you said "Yes, we understand that you don't like MF. You've made that abundantly clear at this point." Excuse me, but where did I say I didn't like MF? I don't even know MF and I've never interacted with MF to my knowledge. My comments about both editors have always been based on factual information and expectations of fair treatment without favoritism being shown to either editor. If you were addressing me, then based on your assumption that I dislike MF, wouldn't the same apply to you disliking Winkelvi? It appears to me that you may not be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding Ritchie333's indef or why he brought it here. He notified Winkelvi on his TP about bringing the block to AN. He made the following statement after starting the original discussion here: "I appreciate such a block is likely to be controversial as Winkelvi does a lot of good work around the place, so I'd like to discuss any issues with it here, but we either have interaction bans, or we don't. As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it." This being AN and not AN/I, I expected uninvolved admins and some uninvolved editors to weigh-in but it also attracted editors who have consistently been on the opposing side of arguments with Winkelvi, not saying either side was right or wrong, but it's hardly what I'd call uninvolved editors as what our policy prescribes. Ritchie also made the following comments on Winkelvi's TP: [34], and this comment in particular. Perhaps changing things in mid-stream here, after an editor has been indef blocked by an admin (not the community), and placed at the mercy of several editors who dislike him may explain some of the confusion. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That wall of silliness from someone who "likes" Winklevi only because they share a similar POV about American politics is not helpful. Winkelvi's sneaky, combative history is very well documented. Hell, anyone can just look at his user page and talk page, and see that he is more interested in conflict than in editing the encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Wow. Just wow. Nihlus 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• All a ban banner does is let the reviewing admin know they can’t unilaterally unblock because of community consensus, which I think is the reason CBAN reads the way it does. Declining to unblock at a community noticeboard means the community needs to be consulted before taking action, which is all a ban is in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. Close this and move on. Black Kite’s original close appears correct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• I suspected BK's original closure was not a site ban. I also agree with what BK said above. Given all the comments here, the thing that seems clear to me is how unclear Winkelvi's sanction is or should be. Why argue about it 6 or 12 months from now when Winkelvi appeals? Why not resolve it now and clarify the sanction? Some think this is another timesink. Better to spend the time now when so much of this is fresh in people's minds than slog through it later. Regardless of what CBAN says and editors' interpretations of what it says, I personally prefer as much clarity as possible when an editor is sanctioned. Putting a banner on Winkelvi's Talk page, in my view, is hardly clarity. Like BK, I'll say good night and do try to keep things civil and constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone remember Kumioko/Reguyla?- MrX 🖋 11:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Contrary to statements Winkelvi has made at various times, he is not an "outsider" by any stretch of the imagination. He has been skilled at manipulating administrators to get second, third, fourth and fifth chances. A site ban appears necessary so that the community must make an unblock determination. Coretheapple (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban I called for an unblock, much as for Atsme's 'potato peeling' comment. But their talk: comments since, their unrelatedness to the issue at hand, and the sheer readiness to blame the Giant Conspiracy Against Them for everything that has happened, rather than accepting the slightest blame themselves (they did flagrantly breach an IBAN, which even if accidental did happen) – that's turned into a pit of time sink for everyone, and no-one needs that. Ring the bell, close the book, blow out the candle. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Andy, how did you get into the church? Was it, like, collect twelve crisp packets and become a priest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban I was on the fence in the previous discussion and in the end didn't express an opinion, although privately I leaning towards a short block. Partly like Andy Dingley, I've changed my mind now with the post blocking comments, especially the claim about off-Wiki gathering and conspiracies surrounding the blocking admin. I can understand blocked or banned editors are often angry and may make ill-advised comments. But when you start jumping to wacky conspiracy theories, I can only assume you must often be thinking these sort of things and so you're the sort of editor who really needs to earn back the trust of the community before coming back. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Close It's time to move on at this point, this is becoming more heat than light. The original close is plenty clear and the discussion fits with WP:CBAN. They would have to appeal to the community no sooner than 6 months subject to WP:SO. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as I see no need to impose a 12-month minimum wait before he can appeal. WV's post-block responses have not been ideal, but he's frustrated and is just venting a little - and I really don't like the idea of kicking him when he's down. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Move to close

Policy is straightforward, a consensus for an indef block is already a CBAN, a second discussion to reinforce this is not necessary, and actually creates confusion in an area where there is straightforward policy guidance rendering the issue moot. Please close so we can all move on.  Swarm  talk  06:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Close --Tarage (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Objection your honor - It needs to be made clear and recorded somewhere that Winkelvi cannot get unblocked unless there is community consensus. It should be recorded in his block log, a CBAN log, or at least in a template on his talk page that cannot be removed.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • MrX, there is no CBAN log. Our process for it is adding a banner to their userpage with a parameter linking to the discussion, which is why I’m pretty confused by this whole 2nd discussion: policy is already clear here and someone just needs to add Template:Banned user and link to the original discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni, yes Category:Banned Wikipedia users serves a similar purpose. It seems that Black Kite has read the consensus in the previous discussion differently than others. The discussion above should not be closed until this is resolved unambiguously. We're not there yet.- MrX 🖋 17:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.--MONGO (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A number users are correct here that CBAN discussion requires a separate discussion, which is more than just endorsement of an indefinite block. If that is wrong, then we are going to see people indeffing any user for sensible reason then asking here, "am I correct?" and the block will become CBAN after endorsement. There have been many "block review" threads of an indefinite block here, where the block was endorsed but it was never turned into CBAN. Now that there is enough consensus to siteban per above discussion, I would say we need to wait at least till 21:33 4 November 2018 (UTC). After that we can implement the CBAN per above section and log it into block log as well as userpage that the user is now site-banned. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• In retrospect it was probably a mistake to have added Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" to the banning policy. Bans and blocks used to have a very clear distinction, but now the waters are muddied, and every time an admin takes an indef block to a block review the explicit question "was this block correct?" has the implicit question "is the editor now community-banned?" piggybacking along with it, and editors who agree that the block was sound are now also agreeing to a community ban, whether they intend to or not. And it's unclear what effect a statement like "I support the indefinite block but I don't support a siteban" would have, given the policy equivalence of those two things. So now we have to have these post-block discussion discussions, which have to be short-circuited lest a "consensus for the indef but against a siteban" result occur, causing a "does not compute" regarding the banning policy. 28bytes (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The policy acknowledgement Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" actually seems like common sense, given that an indef block approved by the community is the same, in effect as the community cban -- as others said above the difference could at most be "symantic", not real, the user is blocked from participating indefinitely (until the community decides otherwise). And part of the policy's very purpose seems to be to prevent a single user from having to endure practically the same discussion twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And yet here we are, having a second discussion. 28bytes (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it is bizarre, or perhaps bureaucratic (which can be the same thing), cruelty. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. So, can we be clear about this? I'd especially like to know.

• if you're indefinitely blocked you can appeal after six months. So, you can be racist, misogynist, attack people however you like, you get indeffed with no controversy, you can come back in six months and say "Hey folks, I was an idiot, unblock me please".
• However, if the admin who blocked you suspects that the block is a controversial one, they can (and should) initiate a discussion about it at WP:AN which, if the community agrees that the block was OK, results in you being community banned rather than indeffed.

• Does no-one acknowledge how ridiculous that is? Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Only your portrayal sounds ridiculous, perhaps because it is reductio ad absurdum. The point remains in either case the indefinitely blocked and the banned can't edit until the community says so. Sure, at some point earlier for some, the direction will be never appeal, and then never appeal again (when the troll try to appeal, perhaps a global lock, etc) but 'never appeal' is expressly not the "standard" for blocks or bans, and there is no reason it would be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly reductio ad absurdum when the second bullet point is exactly what happened here. I'm not arguing against the block - indeed I closed it as consensus to retain - but there's obviously something wrong when you can end up community banned because your blocking admin really wasn't sure about your block. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

All the community block means is, 'you, me, he, she, they, us, we' are the block endorsers (term indef) - so, come back to US should there be an appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And the reductio ad absurdum I was referring to was the Hitlerum kind and that your argument seems based on the assertion that the community somehow can do something to those people when all it can do is say, 'no, don't edit this website, until we give the go ahead'. An administrator is not suppose to be blocking for themselves in the first place, they are to be blocking for us all, and of course the administrator may be right or wrong, sure or unsure (omniscience is not one of the tools handed out), which is precisely one of the reasons why the rest of us get to say, right or wrong, sure or unsure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Is the scenario you describe ridiculous? Yes. Is it current policy? Yes, unfortunately. Do with that info what you will. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite is right. This seems like anyone can turn indef block into community ban only by seeking a review of a block. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is that ridiculous? Someone can ask the community, "hey, do you guys think this is a good block?" and the community says "hells yeah", then it's only sensible that the community should have to be asked again before the block is lifted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The community should only really be asked if it was a bad block. Site banning after being indef'd feels like someone who's serving a life sentence is then told an extra 150 years has been added to their time inside. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you know it is a bad block before you ask? Anyway in this case his breach of the IBAN again post block and general hostility toward other editors warrent a stronger sanction that requires community approval to lift. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A good point. I guess this whole thing is moot, as the chances of Winkelvi successfully appealing anything are slim to none. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• My understanding was that a discussion about an indef block was just that, a discussion about an indef block that the community either endorsed or not. If an indef-blocked editor appealed their block, and that appeal was turned down by the community, at that point the indef block became a community ban, as the indef block has been considered by the community and the appeal of it rejected. Does anyone else recall it working that way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  I imagine its just a case of it not coming up before and the banning policy being worded badly. Usually what happens when someone is indeffed is they appeal, its rejected (or accepted) and they are thus banned or not. When an admin asks for a 2nd opinion on an indef block, it usually just results in 'yes' or 'no'. Sometimes it prompts a discussion to outright ban them, but that is usually stated explicitly by the closer. The reason why community bans have to be explicit is that it means the editor requires a discussion via the community to lift it. Rather than any admin just taking their word for it and lifting the indef. But frankly this is the fault of the "We dont need to have this (CBAN) discussion no one is going to unblock them" complainers everytime a discussion to ban was opened on blocked editors - some things need to be explicitly discussed rather than just tidied up into a speedy process - this is the end result - bad wording in policy pages because people cant be arsed to actually put some thought into if someone really needs to be banned vs blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Close – The subtleties of policy are way over my pay grade, but the sanction against Winkelvi is strong enough as is. Any appeal will need to be accepted by the community, so that adding a formal site ban or a longer appeal delay could be construed as acharnement thérapeutique… — JFG ^talk 22:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Close: The editor is already indef blocked. That does allow appeals but I don't foresee people accepting that appeal any time soon. Anyone who considers the appeal is going to review these previous discussions and be wary of a casual unblock regardless of a full community review. But, if we believe the rules are to protect vs punish (and they say as much) then what is the harm if an appeal is granted in a 6, 12 or more months? The best case is they have reformed and contribute productively to articles. Anyone who is opposed to this outcome is opposed to the idea that blocks are protective not punitive. But if the problematic behavior comes back, just block them again. People will be less likely to believe them next time. In that case what have we really lost? It's not like an ANI is that much effort and given their history they aren't going to be allowed to get away with basically anything. Sure, their recent comments don't look good but I would be willing to attribute some of that to heat of the moment. Assuming no sock/talk page issues, a standard offer should be fine in this case. Springee (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee there was nothing "heat of the moment" about the discussion at AN. He has frustrated a lot of editors over many years with a pattern of behavior. Just look at his own words on his own talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Heat of the moment refers to WV's talk page comments not the discussion here. Springee (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close per Swarm above as long as the closer makes clear that a site ban is in effect. Let's put an end to this time suck while possibly forestalling another one down the pike. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Close Regardless of the intricacies of policy (and I still maintain that it's ridiculous that you can be banned because your blocking admin was unsure about the block in the first place), no-one is going to unblock Winkelvi without a discussion anyway, so the whole thing is moot. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is the policy

I'm seeing a lot of opinions or interpretations or "understandings" being expressed above, but I'm just talking about objective policy here. This wasn't meant to be a vote or a call for opinions, I was just pointing out what the policy is. Seriously, we're not dealing with some complex "intricacies" or "subtleties" in policy that require some sort of nuanced interpretation and are up for debate. We're dealing with unambiguous policy. This is the community's mandate. 'Editors who ... remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".' This isn't a difficult-to-understand concept, and was specifically implemented by the community to avoid these kinds of unclear and confusing situations. There was an indefinite block, a community review was requested, and there was an "obvious consensus" to endorse the indefinite block, thus the user remained indefinitely blocked, and is, according to policy, "considered 'banned'". A closer not thinking the user deserves to be banned and thus not explicitly labeling the user as "banned" does not unilaterally override the policy. WV is, as a matter of policy, banned, per that discussion. Trying to wikilawyer away from a straightforward policy, or trying to neutralize the policy guidance by calling the situation "moot" distracts from the original point, which is that the wording of Black Kite's close already confirms the CBAN. Again, I'm not asking for reinforcement here, this is just objective policy. It doesn't matter whether WV's userpage is tagged or not, or if the close is explicitly labelled with the term "banned", WV is banned as a matter of policy, and will remain so until there is a consensus to overturn the indefinite block.  Swarm  talk  23:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Appeal against TBAN

Dear Admins, Kindly lift TBAN please see the discussion Here Thanks..JogiAsad  ^Talk 22:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please update your appeal with answers to these questions. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, DBigXray is correct here. The TBAN is still in force, however you may now appeal it. The link provided above contains the questions you need to answer, and you may do that in this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it appears you were told this over a month ago but never appealed it. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@JogiAsad: You need 1) (Re)Open a post here formally appealing your TBAN, 2) State clearly what your TBAN was for, 3) Provide a convincing argument why the TBAN is no longer necessary. --Blackmane (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of deletion discussion

In light of how many high-profile pages related to Wikipedia's administration currently link to it, a neutral notification of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Leadership opportunities. ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Naked Man

Would an administrator mind changing the redirect target for The Naked Man (How I Met Your Mother) to Season 4 (2008–09), please. It's permanently administrator-protected so I can't edit. Matt14451 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done ‑ Iridescent 12:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Matt14451, be aware that using "2008–09" instead of "2008–2009" is a violation of Wikipedia's house style which is to write the years in full, so someone will almost certainly change it back fairly soon, particularly if there's any intention of taking the list to WP:FLC in future. ‑ Iridescent 12:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW the guideline also says the consecutive years may be "2008-09". MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not sure when changes were made to the sub-headings, just noticed when the redirect didn't work properly. That MoS says that consecutive date ranges are allowed to be in this format. Matt14451 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Year range for two consecutive years Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the 2018 ArbCom elections are now open

Self-nominations for the 2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 4 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. SQL^{Query me!} 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Report a disruptive editor

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

---

Jjkusaf is editing the Tiger Stadium(LSU) page inappropriately. This page is a protected page and edits should be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsack (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Article is Tiger Stadium (LSU). Article has been protected by Ymblanter due to vandalism. Jjkusaf (talk · contribs) was one of several editors removing said vandalism. Looks like a mistaken report; nothing to be done here. ansh666 22:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also appears to be a misunderstanding about what different levels of page protection means. The page is just semi-protected, no need for editors who can edit the article to get approval first, especially in the case of removing obvious problems. zchrykng (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm--"It also houses the Alabama Crimson Tide for one game every other year to beat down LSU and remind them who their daddy is"--how is that vandalism? I think we should get the opinion of a more neutral editor/admin here: Tide rolls? (Cullen328 may have an opinion too, but his would be based on "policy", not on an intimate knowledge of what's really at stake after a 29-0 beatdown.) Drmies (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All I will say at this time, Drmies, is that I hope that none of your sockpuppets or your meatpuppets made that edit. Now I will return to my trout dinner. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Dealing with the R/D troll

Thanks to all for your work on the ref desks. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 131#Protection suggestion. There wasn't any response there so I'm adding the link here for wider input. During one attack last month There'sNoTime did change the protections so that the desks couldn't be hit at the same time. Thanks for your consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

There is a 35 article backlog on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - I've cleared about half the list but have to get going, if someone else has chance please could they work through the rest? Ta muchly. Fish+Karate 15:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleared for the moment: thanks to Dlohcierekim, who did a lot of the work. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Appeal topic ban

Hi. I was topic banned from cryptocurrency topics today by user MER-C. Their reason for banning me was that I allegedly posted "unreliable sources".

This ban is unfair for the following reasons:

1. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page.

2. I used the existing Cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia as a guide, and used sources of similar or better quality. Sources included Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.

3. Almost all these sources were added to the page while in draft, before it was approved. These sources were effectively approved by the administrator who subsequently approved the page for creation.

4. There was no edit war on the page. I was basically the only person working on it. So none of my edits were disruptive. I did not revert any changes made to the page by administrators or others.

5. I was not given any warning of a possible ban beforehand.

Thanks for reviewing this decision! Peak Debt (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Endorse TBAN I think there's no doubt this is a WP:SPA (substantially all their edits this year are about Skycoin, after 3 years of inactivity) and that they are trying to promote Skycoin (this diff is fairly clearly bad). The article has been tag-bombed to demonstrate the problems with the article; passing AFC (after MULTIPLE rejections) is not an endorsement of crap sourcing. I will concede that poor sourcing may be more a symptom of writing about a non-notable coin than anything else; but the topic ban was well-applied. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban is supposed to be for disruptive edits, edit wars etc. That is not the case here. Also, while the early version of the page that you linked to above may have been 'bad', the final version was much improved under the guidance of several administrators until the page was finally approved. An administrator approved almost all the references in the article, so to subsequently ban me for those same references is unfair, and you should at least try to justify how/why my edits were "disruptive" before endorsing this ban. Cheers. Peak Debt (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, you need to specify what you are endorsing. Right now bolding the single word "Endorse" seems to indicate you endorse his appeal of the topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the TBAN power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Wait and see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycoin turns out? If the article is deleted (which seems likely so far as the "Delete" comments appear to be evaluating the lack of suitable sources accurately and the "Keep" comments are not offering policy-based reasoning). If the article is deleted then the topic ban is presumably moot (unless there are other cryptocurrencies you want to write about?) And if it's kept, that would form a strong argument for lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But the admins on that page are now telling me I'm not even allowed to contribute to the deletion discussion, which seems pretty harsh... they mark my page for deletion and then ban me so I can't object to the deletion proposal. This contradicts the proposed deletion notice which said I'm welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Peak Debt, I left a message on your talk page as well. As long as your topic ban is in place, you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Only if the ban is lifted can you comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies?

When the page I created was proposed for deletion, I was told that I was welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion:

QUOTE "until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion".

Now I'm being told I can't contribute to a discussion about the deletion of the page I created? This is contradictory and goes against Wikipedia policy.

In any case, I should not have been topic banned in the first place. Topic bans are supposed to be a response to disruptive behaviour and edit wars, which I was not engaged in.

I was topic banned, without warning, for allegedly using "unreliable sources" even though those same sources had previously been approved by the administrator who approved the page for creation. This is not a valid reason for a topic ban.

There appears to be a coordinated agenda here, to propose the page for deletion and then silence me so I can't oppose that deletion, even though Wikipedia policy states that I am welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Peak Debt (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peak Debt: ...you cannot discuss cryptocurrencies anywhere, including that AfD. Nothing against policy there. Nihlus 04:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the topic ban was enacted after the AfD started and you continued to comment on a cryptocurrency at the AfD. Your comments post topic ban should be struck. Also a bunch of keep voters there should be check for SPA and tagged as such. These articles are a big promotion effort - anyone with some of the "currency" wamts to legitimize the "currency" to save their "investment". . Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So I can still contribute to the AFD page, as long as I don't talk about cryptocurrencies? Peak Debt (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Peak Debt, no. Nihlus 04:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The AFD page is about a cryptocurrency, so no. A WP:CIR block may be in your near future. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Peak Debt, I left some rather long commentary on your page. In a nutshell, you are not allowed to talk about cryptocurrencies on any page in any space. You are also not allowed to edit pages concerning cryptocurrencies, that includes articles, article talk pages, any deletion discussions or any RFC's. About the only allowance for talking about cryptocurrencies is to appeal, or clarify the terms of, your topic ban. --Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. This is clearly a promotional SPA; all of their edits this year have been on Skycoin. Not only that, they are are either socking or canvassing off-wiki on WP:Articles for deletion/Skycoin. After Peak Debt received his topic ban, the following SPA accounts with no previous edits curiously showed up to !vote "KEEP" at the AfD:
  • Joelcuthriell (talk · contribs)
  • LexMccarty (talk · contribs)
  • 1.129.110.55 (talk · contribs)
  • 96.250.36.215 (talk · contribs)
  • KonfuciousK (talk · contribs)

Also curious that the first IP geolocates to Australia, and Peak Debt (talk · contribs)'s first six edits were to Australian property bubble, and half of his edits in 2013 were to Negative gearing (Australia) and Australia. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

From the AfD we have "No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)". so he is setting up meatpuppets. Lovely. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's if we take his word for it; there is no actual guarantee that none of them are socks or that he doesn't personally know any of them or that he didn't specifically direct them to come and !vote in the AfD. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Life topic ban. Yes, Cryptospam is so frustrating that the practice of shoot from the hip with prejudice is accepted, but give the benefit of the doubt to an old account that engages in conversation. The editor is entirely plausible, and is behaving like any editor with a similar number of edits, i.e. still coming to terms with Wikipedia:Notability and the Wikipedian culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I assume you mean "Lift", not "Life". Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse this is essentially an SPA who wrote a promotional, badly sourced article about a cryptocurrency and is now canvassing for meatpuppets in an AfD on that article. The OP was given multiple notices about the applicability of general sanctions to this topic area. They also appear to be under the impression that disruptive editing only includes edit warring, which isn't the case. Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

110% clear this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia, they want to promote their favorite CC. Given the continued posting at the AfD after having the IBAN explained over and over, block time? Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)