Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}
Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts.

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|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Shortcuts

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 3.

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 the consensus is obvious.

In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.

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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. 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. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205#LLM/AI generated proposals?

(Initiated 111 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be closed. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked @Newslinger for requesting this initially, but wanted to add my support and a request that the question of WP:LLMDISCLOSE being made policy which was suggested also be considered in the close if possible. My hope is that there was enough support for that to avoid the need for a further RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:William_Penn#RFC_on_Infobox_image

(Initiated 96 days ago on 27 August 2025) No new additions for over a month, no clear cut consensus. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 2:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

GrandDuchyConti this is done. Nemov (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 492#RFC:_Reliability_of_Pirate_Wires

(Initiated 82 days ago on 10 September 2025) Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC tag has now been removed, and there's only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been archived to archive 492, please restore to the main page if you close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

(Initiated 74 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lee Kuan Yew#RfC (authoritarian in the lead)

(Initiated 56 days ago on 6 October 2025) Discussion within the RFC has died down, with the last comment posted 17 days ago. Personally I find the discussion to be very messy so I don't dare to close this myself. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#RFC on proposed buildings

(Initiated 56 days ago on 6 October 2025) -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Military–industrial_complex#RfC_two_versions_of_a_paragraph

(Initiated 49 days ago on 13 October 2025) Discussion ended a week ago. Uhoj (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)#RFC: Characterization of political views

(Initiated 46 days ago on 16 October 2025) !votes have quietened, WP:CT/AP. CNC (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Recall check-in

(Initiated 41 days ago on 21 October 2025) Decision has mostly quieted down, very split opinions. May require a bartender's close. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: New GA quick fail criterion for AI

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 October 2025) I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could close this RfC after thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Status of WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions

(Initiated 31 days ago on 31 October 2025) This RfC is ready for closure. I would be much obliged if an uninvolved editor could assess consensus and close the discussion accordingly. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't need an uninvolved editor. It's an obvious one, obvious enough to be closable by an involved editor.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done by RGloucester. CNC (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Times Now

(Initiated 31 days ago on 31 October 2025) Small discussion, but would benefit from a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limb #4 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs applies, obvious enough that it doesn't need uninvolved closure.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally agree, this does seem to contradict WP:NACINV for non-admins per For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion (original emphasis). Given it's a well-cited essay, I'd personally be following that over the information page that references even an involved editor may summarize the discussion, given it's hang wavy type suggestion. Each to their own though, and there are enough admins about at least. CNC (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done CNC (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Libel#Wikivoice on companies involved (but not convicted) in genocide

(Initiated 26 days ago on 5 November 2025) I think it's been up long enough for a close to be due. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the discussion was initiated on 6 October while the RfC began on 5 November. CNC (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NOT#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific.

(Initiated 21 days ago on 10 November 2025) This has had no activity for over 48 hours and can be closed. I did request that an uninvolved administrator close this due to issues with the previous 'WP:DESTNOT' close, however any close by an experienced uninvolved editor is welcome. Another editor stated that they believed 7 days was long enough. An involved administrator recommended letting the RfC go to archive without a formal close. I am not opposed to either, however I believe a proper close would be the better option for this RfC. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the guidance to let the RfC go to archive. I commented more in the discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✋ @11WB would still like a close so an RfC more likely to gain consensus can be opened. I think it would be appropriate for the requester to withdraw the question but I’d like a more experienced opinion on that. Dw31415 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several options were given, and editors have given their opinions on more than one option. So it appears that the nom should not withdraw. The nom should probably await closure of the RfC. Thank you very much, editor Dw31415, for calling my attention to this on my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Forspoken#RFC - CEOs comment

(Initiated 19 days ago on 12 November 2025): No activity for 10 days. Will benefit from a proper close/consensus. OceanHok (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	8	63	71
TfD	4	18	22
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	6	6
RfD	0	20	20
AfD	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19#HODL

(Initiated 141 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Rusalkii. Left guide (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025 October 13#Category:Incubi_and_succubi

(Initiated 64 days ago on 28 September 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_19#Category:Former_counties_of_Scotland

(Initiated 59 days ago on 3 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_24#Category:Tichon_Hadash_high_school_alumni

(Initiated 56 days ago on 6 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Defunct/disused/former_railway_stations

(Initiated 52 days ago on 10 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_21#Category:Sporting events in Australia by state or territory

(Initiated 41 days ago on 21 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_13#Category:African-American_Catholic_colleges_and_universities

(Initiated 40 days ago on 22 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23#Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England

(Initiated 39 days ago on 23 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23#Category:Scholars_and_instructors_of_spoken_Latin_or_spoken_Ancient_Greek

(Initiated 38 days ago on 23 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_25#Wikipedians_by_religion

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_12#Category:Deaths_on_Mount_Everest

(Initiated 34 days ago on 28 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 9#Dum Dums

(Initiated 30 days ago on 1 November 2025) Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Merge proposals

Wikipedia talk:Translation#Merge proposal

(Initiated 682 days ago on 19 January 2024) open for 1 year. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC) (Talk)]] 05:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close this because I'm involved, but interested closers should see User talk:FaviFake#Your closure of Translation merge proposal. I don't see any reason for a formal closure in this case. If something's been open for nearly two years without attracting more discussion, it's moribund. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussions are almost always formally closed and removed from the merge backlog, per WP:M4, especially if they are large and involve a lot of editors, as was the case here. I came across the proposal from the merge backlog. FaviFake (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ESPN (streaming service)#Merge with WatchESPN

(Initiated 202 days ago on 13 May 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agentic_AI#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 200 days ago on 15 May 2025) Alenoach (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2022 Auckland Council election#Merging local board elections

(Initiated 194 days ago on 21 May 2025) No activity in a month. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fruit slice#Merge proposal

(Initiated 126 days ago on 28 July 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Covfefe#Merge to Twitter use by Donald Trump

(Initiated 102 days ago on 21 August 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hurricane Ivan#Proposal to merge Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America and Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Greater Antilles

(Initiated 99 days ago on 24 August 2025) open for 2 months. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alternative medicine#Proposed merge of Functional medicine into Alternative medicine

(Initiated 98 days ago on 25 August 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Merge proposal

(Initiated 41 days ago on 21 October 2025) More than 10 days have passed and the discussion has become stale (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was closed by a non-admin and reverted as badnac, it also broke the page resulting in brief consensus to split out again (restore pre merge version). Experienced closer requested. CNC (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gameplay#Merge Request

(Initiated 40 days ago on 22 October 2025) The discussion is stale with the last comment being weeks ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done FaviFake (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading

Requested moves

Talk:Shetland dialect#Requested move 16 October 2025

(Initiated 46 days ago on 16 October 2025) — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prayagraj#Requested move 28 October 2025

(Initiated 34 days ago on 28 October 2025) — EarthDude (Talk) 07:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Averageness#Requested move 28 October 2025

(Initiated 34 days ago on 28 October 2025) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians#Requested move 9 November 2025

(Initiated 22 days ago on 9 November 2025). relisted on 20 November, no discussion since 23 November. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 14:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war#Requested move 9 November 2025

(Initiated 22 days ago on 9 November 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:FCSB#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2025

(Initiated 178 days ago on 6 June 2025)

Too much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

probably {{done}} by someone else by now, as it says it is answered and there has been no activity since 25 October Oreocooke (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is not actually. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre/Archive 1#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois

(Initiated 97 days ago on 26 August 2025) - Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wales Green Party#Welsh independence in the infobox (again)

(Initiated 46 days ago on 16 October 2025)

This discussion seems to have ended and I think it will be useful to have an uninvolved closure to determine if there is consensus for Welsh Independence to be included in the Infobox of Wales Green Party as an ideology, consensus against inclusion or no consensus. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#Should_IAR_be_overturned?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 22 October 2025) 268 comments, 103 people in discussion, discussion/!voting has mostly died out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion to close. Editors are now sniping at each other in disagreements about process. The debate on the actual question seems to have finished. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer: Please check the later IP's in this one, there seems several similar 2, 3 edit IPs whose short edit history reflect each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing#Suspect

(Initiated 25 days ago on 6 November 2025) Discussion has mostly stalled. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Unblock of Billy Hathorn in 2013

I may be right off track here, but here goes. This is further to a discussion that began at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 August 7 in relation to the article Timothy Dwight Hobart. I've no first-hand knowledge of the history, but, as I understand it:

A CCI for Billy Hathorn, requested by cmadler, was opened on 27 July 2011; it now has about 4800 articles outstanding, or some 7% of our total backlog of 72,000.
The user was indeffed for copyright violations and BLP issues by Ironholds on 29 September 2011,
repeatedly evaded the block by socking,
and was unblocked by Amalthea on 27 April 2013 with the comment "not effective"; Amalthea later wrote "a bazillion edits that should really have been looked at as part of the CCI are now untrackable for us".

I believe that two questions arise, one small and one large:

Is there community consensus that Hathorn should be free to edit here? (please see below for my comment)
What, if anything, could or should be done to prevent the sort of abuse that led Amalthea to make that unblock decision? Are we interested in finding ways of dealing better and more robustly with this sort of thing?

To be clear: I'm not criticising, in any way, anyone who tried, or anything that was done, to contain this problem – it seems to have been just a mass of work for a lot of people. I'm merely asking for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hathorn is still violating copyrights and denying that there is a problem – please see my comments here and at Talk:Susan Pamerleau; also this edit. Yes, the copyvio in that article is not very extensive; nor is it negligible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from reading that unblock reason is it happened because the block didn't stop the copyvios, instead causing block evasion that a) negates the effectiveness of the block and b) makes it harder to track the problem edits. Basically, "The block merely makes it harder to track the copyvios since they still happen through sockpuppets, but it doesn't stop them". Imma think on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the unblock is that no one has been monitoring the user, and no one should be expected to have to monitor the user, checking their every edit to make sure it's copyright compliant. This is beyond the scope of what we can expect of our volunteers, even those who are interested in helping with copyright clean-up. If someone is violating the terms of use, which includes a statement that we are obliged to engage in "Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws", then they should be blocked. Perhaps a checkuser could monitor for socks and block them as they appear. Hopefully the editor would quit socking at some point if all their socks were blocked and all their edits were reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question- What proportion of their edits, rough percentage wise, might be considered copy vios? Blackmane (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had spot-checked his edits in the months after the unblock, but only for a while, of course :/
Considering all circumstances I remain convinced that the unblock was the right move to make, even though the comparison from Talk:Susan Pamerleau shows that the problems and fundamental misconceptions from back then still exist two years later.
If there are questions I should answer I'll do my best.
Amalthea 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly leaning toward reblocking him indefinitely. We shouldn't reward a socker by unblocking him! Sure, unblocking a helpful-but-socking user might occasionally be beneficial, but it would be absurd to say "You're unstoppable with your socking and copyright-infringing, so we give up and unblock you", and I don't see a big difference between that and the reason for unblocking him. Users who repeatedly flout our policies need to be shown the door, and especially in cases of recidivism after the removal of an indefinite block: get indeffed for a good reason, get unblocked, and start up the bad behavior — why should we believe anything you say? Why shouldn't we just revert, block, ignore you? Amalthea, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and that you're right. Would you mind giving us more extensive reasons and trying to convince me that the unblock was the right move to make? Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate very much Justlettersandnumbers trying to drive this towards a solution (we need one), I also feel the need to speak up to explain the situation that Amalthea was dealing with here. :) The unblock was not intended as a reward, I know; it was simply an end-of-the-rope attempt to find a solution when traditional measures demonstrably weren't working. Transparency was chosen in preference to what we were then dealing with. Keeping up with Billy's socks was a massive time-consumer, and as best as I remember I spent quite a bit of time and energy on RBI myself. (I use it heavily when dealing with block evading serial copyright infringers, even now.) I would have much rather Amalthea had produced a magic wand and found a way to stop the issue, but can't fault him for failing to do so. No more could I. :( At the time Billy was unblocked, his socks were not demonstrating the copyvio pattern he had previously shown in the swathe of articles I spot-checked, but it's not possible to say definitely they weren't happening. Unfortunately, it's massively time consuming to check for those, and material may be missed. Additionally, I have no doubt there are many socks that were never identified.

Basically, I think Amalthea's decision - while not the solution one would hope for - was pragmatic. We could not effectively block him, and his edits were likely to escape review. Making them transparent meant the ability to at least review them, while the fragmented accounts and IPs he was using previously were difficult to review at all. Given that years after his initial block, he still doesn't get it - and by his note on Talk:Susan Pamerleau doesn't really seem to even understand the issue - I think Billy remains a problem. But if he is indefinitely blocked again, I think it will require some creativity to enforce it, since it's hard to know how technical measures could be brought to bear here. I don't think one or two people trying to WP:RBI can make a difference. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look over the SPI page and grasp the enormity of the problem. I'd really like to see what @Billy Hathorn: has to say about this and, if it's not a satisfactory explanation, don't see why a site ban with the application of the nuclear option should not be considered. If one cannot trust all, then one must suspect all. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to detecting the contributions if he resumes socking, his ordinary choice of subject and manner of writing is highly distinctive. We may not be able to block him no matter what he may turn his hand to, but we can block him in this field at least. The material his socks added was on the customary subject in the customary manner. I'm not ay sure an unblock such as the one in question here is ever justified: I tend to think not, but I don't want to rule out there might be some justified case. If it ever is done in such a case, I think it would warrant prior discussion. For this case, the detectability of the contributions forces me to the conclusion that it was an unblock that should not have been done, even on the basis of the evidence at the time, not just because of the subsequent copyvios. Even the best active admin make errors. But if it is not agreed that an unblock in such circumstances takes great caution and discussion, we will need a policy saying so. MRG? Amalthea? DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of years and memory is fallible, but I think it's worth noting that this situation was a bit more complex than "This isn't working; let's just let him disrupt under his main account so we can see it." (Although transparency was a major factor.) Blocking Billy in the first place was the right call. He repeatedly violated various policies related to content and was absolutely unwilling to change his editing behaviors no matter who called him on it or how it was explained. But from a copyright standpoint, Billy was not one of those people who copy-pastes wholesale from sources that I recall; his taking often may not rise to substantial similarity (although only a judge could make that determination). It's more a matter of close paraphrasing brief runs from his sources in a manner that is clearly plagiarism as Wikipedia defines it and as most Western academicans would. This kind of writing does constitute a "copyvio" as a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, because we require that, except for clearly marked quotations, creative content from your sources be written in your own words (oversimplifying, but basically true). However, a spot-check prior to the unblocking had not shown copying issues in his sock contributions, and he was not (as best as I recall) violating BLP anymore by citing himself or unreliable blogs.

Dealing with his socks, especially socks who might otherwise not be violating policy, was disruptive in itself. The nuclear option has collateral damage beyond the time it requires for a user to go through and rollback, especially the longer it takes you to discover the sock. Other contributors waste their time polishing the work of banned editors and are not particularly happy when you roll back an article to an earlier state without at least being able to demonstrate that the content itself was wrong. Demonstrating that the content itself is wrong is essentially compressing the time it takes to do a CCI. (As an aside, Billy's CCI has been edited a grand total of 31 times in the four years it has been opened. Conducting CCIs is hard. Conducting it on an editor like this one? Doubly hard.) Doing this with dozens of socks and IPs - especially where the issues that led to the original block did not then seem to be a factor - was disrupting the project in itself.

After his unblock, both Amalthea and I reviewed Billy's contributions for a time. (See User_talk:Billy_Hathorn/Archive_20#Copyright_issue for one issue found as I was still following him four months after the unblock - it proved to be an old issue reinstated; the next section demonstrates Amalthea's continued engagement as well.) This was not intended to be a throwing in the towel, but another approach to prevent disruption. It wasn't the best solution and quite probably not the right solution. But it was also not a unilateral overthrow of a community ban; it was a single admin choosing to unblock a user, as we do all the time. And it was done with caution.

I don't have much more time right now, but I will note that as I recall there is another potential way to deal with this kind of thing that was not thought of at the time. I can't remember this guy's name at the moment, but we dealt with a person who was copy-pasting content into, I think, sports article where we used a bot to blank or revert his content and place a template asking people who wanted to restore it review it for copy-pasting and annotate their findings on a list. Something like that might be a way to work with cases like this - where the person who is following the trail of a blocked serial copyright infringer doesn't have to manually review and revert each edit and the community can be mobilized in assisting. User:MER-C, do you remember that case? I'll look for it later if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post family lunch outing, I have remembered: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo, with the considerable assistance of User:Uncle G. This was an extreme case, and I wouldn't really want to use it for every CCI case, but for serial copyright infringing sock puppeteers, it might be the way to go. It also, honestly, might be judiciously used to diminish some of the mounting backlog at WP:CCI. Having a couple of people who whittle away at this monumental task is misusing their time. Perhaps if violations exceed a certain threshold, it's an alternative we should consider. (User:Wizardman, User:Diannaa - thoughts on that idea? Is it crazy, or something we might want to propose more formally?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the nuclear option is appropriate whenever there is sockpuppetry involved. MER-C 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing all their contribs will be reverted might serve to deter the violator from socking. This is why I typically remove all sock contribs, regardless of their value. Bot removal of edits might be a worthwhile option for the cases that are otherwise unsolvable due to sources not being provided, or the sources being inaccessible and uncheckable. FYI, the backlog currently contains 152 cases and 72,239+ articles, up from 142 cases and 71,258+ articles on this same date a year ago (14 cases were closed, but 24 new cases were added, and at least one case was substantially expanded). -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also suggest that the foundation should contract some paid employees to work on copyright clean-up? The current system of expecting volunteers to clean up over 150 CCI cases containing 72,000 articles and hundreds of thousands of diffs is obviously not realistic, as the backlog continues to grow. Some cases have been sitting unexamined for over five years. --Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to know which account to use to answer this, Diannaa. :) This is volunteer mode, and I haven't consulted anyone else about this, but basically my understanding has always been that the Foundation can't do this. There's a critical separation between being an online service provider and a content provider. The laws that govern the former are quite different from those govern the latter, as the former has safe harbors that the latter does not receive. If we lost that safe harbor, it has always been my belief that the entire model of the movement would have to change, as individual editors would no longer be solely legally responsible for laws they violate on our sites. We go well and above legal requirements in addressing copyright concerns on Wikipedia, and obviously I'm for that, since I have spent so much time doing it. :) But I fear that losing OCILLA would of necessity make open-editing obsolete. Again, this is my opinion as a volunteer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Timothy Dwight Hobart article is now a one-paragraph shell. The article was not a copyright violation. Someone claimed there was too much following closely from tshaonline. That material was corrected months ago. Yet the article was gutted to one paragraph will all the references for that paragraph. It began on the board in 2008.

The Susan Pamerleau article was said to have followed too closely from her campaign website. This too was corrected: there were three claims, very minor, all further scrambled. Sheriff Pamerleau's PR person gave permission to lift the copyright from her campaign site, but administrators here said the permission is invalid. At any rate, there is no copyright violation. One should read the article entirely. It was on a temporary page if one can find it. Thank you. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef. I believe action(s) executed WRT this situation were made in an honest effort to correctly address the issue. The admin(s) previously involved have my full confidence. Tiderolls 06:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef. To do otherwise would tell users (especially the sneaky-disruption type, such as massive copyvioes) that if they sock enough, we will unblock them. Enforce, as needed, with rangeblocks, checkuser checks on accounts, and possibly (if applicable) edit filters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef or ban, whichever has more support per Old Misheu, and the editor's completely unconvincing denial above. BMK (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about nuking from orbit, though. BMK (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef, unquestionably. Unblocking someone because they're using sockpuppets seems like it was a pretty bad idea -- I don't see how it made him easier to catch, since nothing stopped him from using a sock to post all his copyvios while using the original account for normal editing. Additionally, even if keeping up with his socks is a lot of work, it is work that is necessary as long as he's still posting copyvios (and as far as I can tell, he never even agreed to stop.) Banning a sock also makes it easier to remove possible copyvios, because it means that everything he posted with that sock can be summarily reverted as an edit by a banned user, without having to determine exactly what the copyvio is -- it shifts the burden of proof for keeping or reinstating one of his edits on to whoever wants to keep it (or, at least, it requires that an editor in good standing have enough confidence in the edit to be willing to accept responsibility for it), which, I think, is a reasonable thing to do when someone has enough of a history of copyvios to get permanently banned. --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef: It may well take a lot of time to enforce against socks, but it undoubtedly also takes a lot of time to monitor and correct the significant copyright violations. Given that both paths are time consuming, a block seems preferable as it shows that Wikipedia is actually willing to enforce its own policies. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, he should not only be banned, but I wonder if there's a way to nuke his edits. He's made so many that it would be very difficult to do and it's not something I would normally condone, but he's been so disruptive for so long that his edits will be impossible to clean up otherwise. I also did a cursory check on the Hobart article mentioned, and if he seriously thinks that wasn't copyvio then an indef block and ban is the only solution. MRG notes above that we've nuked once before, and it may in fact be the only solution. Wizardman 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban and the nuclear option in this case. Miniapolis 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban and nuking per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 10:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this is not at ANI. Infinite ban against and usage of Special:Nuke on this user. Repeated, long-time copyright issues.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Müdigkeit, I brought this here rather than to ANI because (a) it isn't an incident but a long-term problem and (b) it's an (un)block review, as mentioned under "Issues appropriate for this page" in the instructions above. If I was wrong I apologise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Müdigkeit, I think it's probably not just about this user but about this kind of issue, which happens to have a specific case at its core. The two are intertwined. I think this is probably the right place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know. Thanks for the answers.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, ANI is for "incidents". AN is usually for slightly bigger fish frying like site bans, etc. There is some overlap between the two but if you hang out here for a while, you'll see that ANI is a bit more dynamic than AN. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to go for an indef in this case, but are we seriously going to nuke, which means delete every article he's created? Surely a solution like in the Darius Dhlomo case where pages were blanked until they were reviewed would be better. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Jenks24. Nuking his subsequent sock edits is one thing, but the nuke solution now could be quite damaging. For context (this link will expire), he has contributed significantly in his editing career under this account to over 9,000 articles. Since his unblocking, over 4,500. I do not know (as was asked above) what percentage of these will be problems, but I suspect that there will be many which are not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuking all of BH's edits would do harm. I have other problems with some of his recent article creations. Namely they being totally sourced via paid newspaper obituaries. Those type of obituaries fail WP:RS when it comes to most details about a person's life and IMHO shouldn't be the only source for establishing someone's notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Darius Dhlomo solution is the current plan, and is what I support. Anything substantial added by any new sockpuppets will be removed indiscriminately. MER-C 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ban, automatically delete any new potentially-copyright edits, have human users filter through the user's past edits. We can't nuke all his previous edits, as he may very well have made a non-copyrightable change to a featured article, for example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Jenks24. Nuking could create a lot more work for us, imo. Connormah (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport ban. Also support whatever nuclear option gains consensus, whether it be a tactical nuke or something more like Tsar Bomba. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 30 days. Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there are problems here. But to claim that the list of decorations is a copyright infringement is ludicrous. The full list can be found at the USAF web site - and is PD-US as work of the US govt. - and would be otherwise as a bare compilation of facts. If it were not, all the sources that cite them would be in breach too.
If we cannot explain the (admittedly slightly bizarre) limitations of Wikipedia policy to this editor, then the we need to have someone better at explaining, or a simpler policy.
I suggest that the editor be shown how to use Earwig's copyvio detector, and we re-asses this in a couple of weeks.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections

I would request that this section be closed by at least one uninvolved admin approximately seven days from now.

I recently started a discussion on my user talk page about low arbcom voter turnout, which became a greater concern to me after stumbling across multiple content editors (including one with over 75k edits to ENWP who was unaware they were eligible to vote.) In privately solicited feedback, there was widespread agreement that the normal banners are slightly obtuse to anyone not already deep inside our administrative side, and leave a lot of the eligible electorate unaware they are eligible - an issue of special concern after 2014's votes were only 60% of those of 2013's.

Therefore, I propose, that immediately after the candidate nomination period has ended, a massmessage be sent out to all editors active in the previous three months who meet all criteria to vote for arbcom. I further suggest that the massmessage be sent from a neutrally named secondary account (which I or anyone else can grant +confirmed and +massmessage to in order to carry out the delivery. My currently suggested text for the massmessage is this:

Hi username, Please note you are eligible to vote in the current ArbCom elections as long as you have not already voted in them on a different account and are not evading a block or ban. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, including the ability to impose bans, topic bans, civility restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. You can review the candidates statements and vote here if you wish to and haven't done so already. <sig here>

(except, with all relevant wikilinks filled in.)

Any thoughts? In a time when we've had greatly declining voter turnout (no other editor metric fell as greatly as arbcom turnout,) it certainly seems in the best interests of the encyclopedia to inform all recently active users who are eligible to vote by the already established voting requirements that they are eligible to vote for arbcom, along with a brief description of what arbcom is (which I stole from one of their pages,) and a brief description of some of the actions arbcom can take. I don't think it's in our best interests to have only a tiny fraction of the eligible electorate be aware they are even eligible to vote (let alone what for,) and know a lot of eligible voters who would take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and vote according to their interests but who are (or were) unaware they were eligible to vote. I've been told that the necessary list should be easily generatable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - as proposer, with reasoning above. This is or something very similar is standard practice among any organization that holds elections with a specified electorate. I am disinclined to go beyond users three months back, because I don't want to wake the long-departed. Chris Troutman's oppose vote seems to miss the fact that arbcom participation has fallen faster than any other editing metric, and that people with editcounts in excess of 50k have been found unaware they were eligible to vote. We declared what our electorate would be, and then declined to let most of the electorate know they were part of it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm at a loss to understand the "oppose" votes, since this might do some good, and is unlikely to have any negative repercussions. BMK (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People can opt out if they don't want to receive voting notifications. This is too important to ignore. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Ed and BMK and Kevin say. Also, it's free. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't think of how informing editors that they are eligible to vote is a bad thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz: See below. Apparently there are still people around who see some kind of danger in having a broad electorate. BMK (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - considering how much power ArbCom has over even the average editor, it's important that as many people as possible chime in during votes. A simple "get out the vote" notice is harmless, contrary to the conspiratorial feelings of certain opposers. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in favor of more exposure to Arbcom elections.→StaniStani 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided the message is (as proposed) sent from a neutral user account - for example from one of the Election Commissioners. A one-off message notifying people of their eligibility to vote is unlikely to be that annoying, and is worth it if it lifts turnout. Some participants here have also highlighted talk of people running tickets to skew the election results in favour of specific viewpoints - a larger pool of voters reduces the success of this tactic, and will help ensure Arbcom is as representative as possible of the entire editor base. And along with more voters we need more candidates. To all those who've contributed to Arbcom process discussions or supported/opposed particular case outcomes this year - time to put your money where your mouth is by putting your name forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only seeing potential upside in this very sound and logical proposal by Kevin Gorman. Strongly Support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BMK, and in particular per many of the replies to the opposition. It simply doesn't make sense not to advertise this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, and only if we can target such messages to only go to people who are entitled to vote then I would be OK with this. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems reasonable. HiDrNick! 13:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm from a country with compulsory citizen voting & don't get the (mainly) US/UK cringe on increasing Wikipedia voter numbers. (Should add: I'd like to see compulsory ArbCom voting a requirement of being a bureaucrat/admin/clerk/etc.) AnonNep (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very sensible proposal, consistent with the principles expressed in WP:SOP. The banner site notices are useful, but can be easily overlooked among the other clutter. I agree with Euryalus that the notification should come from the Electoral Commission. While most of the oppose votes below have me wondering what the benefit of carving out a narrower electorate would be, I find that Carrite's comments stand out as unnecessarily accusatory (and inflammatory). - Mr X 14:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept but I think a few of the opposers make a fair point when they say this should have been raised during the RfC for this year's election, which has ended. It is a little late to propose this for the upcoming election. Neutron (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see any problems. Canvassing concerns don't sound convincing to me. Spam concerns either: it is not like ArbCom is constituted every week. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. More participation in elections makes for a healthier community, online or offline. As long as the notifications are delivered neutrally and ecumenically to all eligible voters, this can only be a plus.--Pharos (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being also from a nation with compulsory voting, despite the obvious contradiction to what others perceive as Democracy, I am often confused how citizens from other democracies are satisfied with a barely sufficient majority of the voting population choosing their governments. Arbcom, which has the largest reach of any body on Wikipedia, is usually elected by not even anything remotely resembling a majority of editors and those who do vote are usually those familiar with the back end of WP, the policies, politics, etc. This sets a dangerous precedent of a very powerful body being elected by a minority. If you want to see how such a body is reflected in democratic society I suggest looking at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, which isn't a democracy in any way but does have this odd election system. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I see no possible harm from additional communication. My experience is that you need to overcommunicate by a factor of at least ten to make people aware of processes. Arbcom is sufficiently important enough that we should aim to maximize potential voter awareness of the elections. –Grondemar 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More voter participation sheds more light on the process. More eyes need to be on Arbcom. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a resident of and registered voter in the United States, I am embarrassed by the turnout in elections. As a registered voter, I just received in the mail a sample ballot for the elections coming up next Tuesday. Is it spam? Is it canvassing? No to both. It's a reminder that gives me details of my option to participate and my potential choices on Election Day. Community participation in Arbcom voting is even more atrocious. Registered Wikipedia editors are registered Arbcom voters, and reaching out to inform these editors on a systematic basic to inform them of their right to vote is something we should be doing as a matter of course. We don't mandate voting, but we should at least be providing a formal nudge to solicit much greater scope in the electoral base. The argument that informing every prospective voter constitutes canvassing borders on the ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1) It is good to let eligible people know about elections; and 2) should anyone complain about a message appearing on a User talk page, remind them that: you know, that's where we leave messages for them; there is plenty of room on it, it's not like it is taking up valuable space; the page is not just theirs; and ignore/delete is the way to deal with any such imposition, minor as it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improving voter turnout is always better than the alternative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a harmless idea to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sure, why not? But make it something that respects {{nobots}} please. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Increased participation in the ArbCom elections will mean the new ArbCom will represent a larger sample of Wikipedians. Great idea, Kevin! RO^(talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To a point I am a bit concerned with the spam side of things but at the same time feel some people here may have absolutely no idea they can vote, Meh we need as much participation as possible. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fleeting annoyance of receiving a mass-message is overcome by its utility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enfranchisement is important. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informing people of the elections is the first step in building a larger and more informed electorate. The Interior (Talk) 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a registered voter, I think it is important to solicit feedback from other people. If we send them a mass ping like the one you mentioned above, the turnout would be better instead of editor not being aware of these elections. Editors might not immediately see a general announcement on the other hand. Sam.gov (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's important that voters be a large sample of the general Wikipedia population. Far from being canvassing, this proposal would make it harder to canvass; obviously, a message sent to absolutely everyone is not canvassing (it says so explicitly on WP:CANVASS), but more importantly, the more voters from the electorate as a whole we have, the less impact individual efforts to manipulate the vote by targeting some specific subset of the electorate will have. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, maybe even weak to the point of damning with faint praise. I agree with the criticisms that AN is the wrong venue for deciding this, but my concern is partly mitigated by the fact that it is listed at CENT, which is how I found it. I also think it's a problem that, because it was raised after the actual RfC, there hasn't really been an adequate discussion about the wording of the message. I think it's poorly written. It sounds like it keeps saying "we have determined that you are eligible to vote, except that we haven't checked whether you already voted or whether you are a sockpuppet, so maybe we are wrong". It also should put a greater emphasis on how voters can, and should, research the candidates before voting. On the other hand, I'm not bothered about the "spam" issue, and I figure that more publicity is the best way to counteract any organized block voting, if that really is being organized. And bottom line, my best guess is that this won't actually change the results of the election. So that's not a ringing endorsement. But I am all in favor of more editors being enfranchised and more editors being engaged in general, and I doubt that this message will do any lasting harm. So I don't object to trying it as an experiment, and next year, we can see whether or not it's worth continuing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes the process more robust against skulduggery. Rhoark (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More editor participation in a project which requires editor participation is always a good thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Down with the cabal that is not a cabal! Brustopher (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support If more editors participate, there's less risk of results being affected by inappropriate canvassing and sock puppetry. Wording of the message could probably be improved; if this proposal succeeds that should be discussed before the message is sent. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because of everything Tryptofish said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A reasonable idea and one that should have implemented years ago. Opposers are unconvincing. Jus da fax 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Anything we can do to increase the participation rate in and understanding of Wikipedia's internal administrative processes is a self-evident good. The risk of a massive influx of uninformed voters is small. And any marginal annoyance that results from the "spam" message is trivial in comparison to the greater good. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I respectfully disagree that increasing voter turnout can ever be a bad thing when there is no other skulduggery going on (e.g., patently dishonest campaign platforms). If we have anything to fear from uninformed voters, then we should take efforts to inform them. The fact of the matter is these uninformed voters have the right to vote: If having a higher turnout increases the risk of a catastrophic outcome, such as an incompetent person being elected, then the answer is to reform the process to mitigate that already-extant risk. I don't contend that new restrictions on who can run should be undertaken, but if the fear is the election of someone incompetent, then we should have that discussion. Otherwise, the risk is something like the election of someone who might not otherwise have been elected... and that's not catastrophic on its own. I would suggest that others look to BMK's learned response to an opposer below. To summarize: Merely because those proposing a way of increasing voter turnout are hoping to impact the outcome of an election does not make that increased turnout wrongful. So long as the notification is impartial, it is fine. And ArbCom elections are rare and important enough that whatever marginal increase in effort in carrying out the election cannot reasonably be said to outweigh the benefit in credibility that a greater voter turnout would grant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not only is there no evidence to back up the assertion that more voters would benefit the results of Wikipedia's elections, low voter turnout is a sign of voter apathy, not disenfranchisement. Long term editors that are unaware of the politics of Wikipedia should stick to editing and not involve themselves with the drama. I support rule by self-selectors; wrong-headed drives like the foolishness being discussed on Kevin Gorman's talk page are almost always the tool of aggrieved parties attempting to overthrow the status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are sufficient notices. I think turnout is dictated by whether there are issues or personalities that bring people to vote. A controversial and recent ArbCom action brings out many who would not vote in a quiet year. I suspect also people would be annoyed by an unrequested message.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris troutman. Arbcom members should be elected only by those who care about the results, and adding a ton of extra votes in this manner will either produce the same result or cause someone(s) to be elected by people who don't care about the performance of the arbitrator(s) in question, a problem compounded by the chance of a second-tier candidate getting elected when the already-would-have-voted candidates would have known to support someone better. We already publicise the fact that it's time for Arbcom elections, so anyone can vote; it's not like we're doing a registration drive in real life to help people register when they don't what to do to register. Keeping in mind Guy Macon's comment, I'd like to note that a major difference between this and RFA is the manner of voting — the only difference between successful and unsuccessful Arbcom candidacies is the number of votes, without a minimum number being required, so the current election process is successful in electing people; it's not like some real elections (e.g. Bulgarian nuclear power referendum, 2013, to pick one randomly) that fail if the total number of voters is too small. It's very different from RFA, where it can reasonably be argued (correctly or not, I don't know) that adding extra participants will routinely improve an individual's RFA. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment on Kevin's talkpage. Low participation is a product of people not caring about the result and of people not feeling the effort required is worthwhile (researching candidates is a huge timesink), not a product of unawareness. My personal feeling is that the importance of Arbcom is grossly overstated and most of the missing voters agree and don't care about the result. If one concedes your argument that Arbcom has a genuine discernable effect on the lives of normal editors, then to be frank while I'm sure there will indeed be people who are unaware the elections are on, anyone who manages to miss the glaring watchlist notice which remains in situ for a month, the notification on every significant noticeboard, the discussion on many if not most high-profile talkpages and usertalk pages, and the frantic canvassing efforts by every off-wiki criticism site and mailing list, is someone who is so detached from the day-to-day running of Wikipedia that they shouldn't be involved in decisions. ‑ iridescent 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What the cause of low turnout is is really not relevant to the question here, nor the importance or lack of importance of ArbCom. What do you object to about a low-cost method which could possibly get more people to vote? Is it a "mobocracy" thing, or what? I really don't get it. BMK (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the cause is important. Increasing information only makes sense if one of the causes of low participation is lack of information. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Kevin Gorman is one of the moderators of the Gender Gap mailing list (GG-l) hosted by WMF. Membership in this group is carefully controlled, although the public archive is readily visible. He has ALREADY BEEN STIRRING THE POT with a view to getting the couple hundred people of the GG-l organized for bloc voting in the forthcoming ArbCom election. This is clearly a political ploy, an attempt to stack Friendly Spacers onto the committee through selective notification of co-thinkers via official Wikipedia mechanisms. "Vote any way you want (nudge nudge, wink wink)..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully controlled? It's an open membership list with open archives. Furthermore, how on earth would a massmessage sent out to all recently active eligible voters be "selective notification"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the damning comment you made on Meta on Oct. 21 that I present below. You are organizing for bloc voting to push an ideological faction. Carrite (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: - I would invite you to point out how informing all recently active eligible voters that they are eligible to vote would in any way support bloc voting. I certainly have opinions about the future of ENWP, and am not shy about voicing them in open forums. If I was trying to organize a malicious voting bloc, do you really think I would be doing so by posting on an open mailing list and publicly soliciting feedback about the idea of a universal and neutral mass message to recently active eligible voters, including people I have significant disagreements with - including people I've previously blocked? One of my opinions about the future of ENWP happens to be that eligible voters should know that they are eligible to vote. If I was organizing a malicious voting bloc, do you think I would be doing so via opening a thread on AN openly asking for outside feedback on the appropriateness of the use of my admin tools, when I could've either done so myself without asking anyone (operating on the fairly safe assumption that arbcom is unlikely to desysop someone based off of a use of a neutral massmessage, even one that exceeds the normal number of people massmessaged to,) or simply coordinated a voting bloc via private emails and phonecalls that you wouldn't be able to notice? Please stop with the attacks and stick with reality. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If GGTF is trying to pull a Sad Puppies, mass notification would be the best defense. Rhoark (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, and I get accused of ABF!!
  It's not unusual in the RW for one side or the other to benefit more from getting additional people to the polls. In the US, for instance, the Democrats are usually beneficiaries (especially in the urban areas) and work towards getting more voters, while the Republicans, to generalize, do not, and often engage in tactics which are aimed at discouraging people from voting. But that as it may, unless things escalate to signing up dead people to vote -- as happened with the (Democratic) Daley machine in Chicago in 1960, which helped put JFK into office -- having a higher percentage of the eligible voters turn out is an unalloyed good thing. If Kevin believes that his group will benefit from that -- a charge which you bring no evidence to support -- that's a totally ancillary matter, the solution to which is to get people on your side of the issue to vote.
  Similarly, block voting is not a question at issue here. As far as I know it's not Wilki-illegal, and if you're concerned that it may happen, and may bias the election, then I suggest you start doing whatever is necessary to get a consensus to stop it -- but not by discouraging voters from participating, nor by making charges for which you provide no support. BMK (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASSING is a frowned-upon concept pretty much throughout Wikipedia, although I recognize that this is a bit different since, differently from pretty much everything else, it is actually a vote. LjL (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "voter's guides" for ArbCom elections are an institutionalized form of canvassing, don't you think? They seem to be an exception to the general rule, perhaps because of what you say, that it actually is a vote. BMK (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that, Ken... Kevin Gorman on WikiWomen User Group's page at Meta: "In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, the GG-L list alone has over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom elections, many of whom have not done so before, and I'd expect the same to be true of people involved in the WikiWomen's usergroup. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in." [1] — Everybody be sure to vote just however you want, nudge nudge wink wink! Carrite (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the intentions of KG etc., I fail to see how a mass message mail simply saying that "you can vote" can be canvassing. For instance, I was not even aware of ArbCom elections (though I don't usually vote for anything, even in real life), let alone the fact that I am eligible to vote. Presumably, KG has sent (or are going to send) messages over the GGTF mailing list: people who are the targets for canvassing can be more easily reached that way. The message should of course be neutral and to the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, I think it's a bit dubious to rally votes from an offsite mailing list, sure, but isn't that a reason to support this proposal, not to oppose? This proposal is for an alert that would go to absolutely every eligible voter; doing that would reduce the impact of any attempts to rally votes for a specific cause, since it would dilute their votes in a pool of voters more representative of the wiki as a whole. If someone wants to influence the election via organized block voting, they'd prefer to have as few people outside their bloc as possible voting in order to maximize the impact of their bloc -- sending a general message to absolutely everyone is a way of directly limiting their impact. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since this would encourage users unfamiliar with ArbCom to vote. They may unintentionally hurt Wikipedia by voting for less competent candidates. sst✈^discuss 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if they are not well-informed about the arbitration process, it is not more likely that they would vote for less competent candidates. There might be another bias (like voting for the candidates who appear at the top of the roster) but there is no connection between being ill-formed and purposely choosing less qualified candidates. They are just as likely to choose qualified candidates. And, for that matter, I'm not sure there has been agreement in the past about which candidates were competent and which were less competent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that less-informed would be more random-like. That would increase the randomness of the overall choice. It does not imply any bias, quite the opposite, the assumption is that it does not have enough bias towards the 'good' candidates, thus a random fluctuation could elect a lesser candidate - note that randomness does *not* even out. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spam is spam, and spam is rude. WP:MMS says "Mass messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to want their attention drawn to the message." The fact that watchlist notices don't attract a lot of voters is a good sign editors are more interested in building the encyclopedia than wiki-politics. Research has shown formal process aren't terribly important to most editors: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal. NE Ent 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is your opinion that informing people that they are eligible to vote in an election is "spam" and therefore is a bad thing, but expressing opinions in every corner of Wikipedia space without doing much at all to improve the encyclopedia is a good thing.
  What an interesting world you live in. BMK (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. People get involved in areas of Wikipedia that interest them, and they should not be spammed regarding areas that don't interest them. There are lots of areas of Wikipedia that get low participation which are more needing of attention than voting in an ArbCom election, and each call on a user's time reduces the effectiveness of the next call, especially when - as in this case - the call is genuinely non-important. ArbCom is for sorting out intractable disputes that the overwhelming majority of users don't encounter and are not interested in. Let those who are familiar with ANI decide who is more appropriate to be on ArbCom, and leave the rest of the editors and gnomes to get on with their work/hobby. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While notifying a bunch of people would probably get a few more people to come and vote, it would also just annoy a lot more people, and I don't see how this addresses the fundamental problems with the ArbCom. The ArbCom is simply a broken institution, damaging to the encyclopedia, and it needs either root and branch reform or abolition. Everyking (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is essentially a duplicate of D at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC except with the "do we need more participants" question mixed in with one particular method of getting more participants. Our time would be better spent helping that RfC to get a good consensus as to whether we need more participants and later, if D passes, helping the stage two RfC to decide what to do about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not wrong as a general case, except that I'd point out that this has to arb electorate, rather than the admin electorate, and that if this passes it can easily be put in to place before the voting for the next tranche of arbcom actually starts. That's not to say I disagree that that RFC is needed and I do intend to participate in it as I have time - but I'd notice that D there is easily passing, and if this passes by a similar measure it'll make a difference regarding the arbcom electorate immediately. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noticeboard. Please don't hold polls here. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This a noticeboard for issues of interest to administrators which routinely reviews the behavior of administrators either before or after it has been conducted. I'm not suggesting a policy change; I'm asking for opinions about the appropriateness of using my own administrator toolset in a way that I am already capable of doing. AN routinely has polls or straw polls related to the proper conduct of administrators, blocks, unblocks, topic bans, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Legotkm, this isn't the proper place for this sort of discussion, especially if it is already ongoing elsewhere. That said, there's some content editor somewhere out there who would make an excellent arbitrator, if engaged in the process. If some bullshit requested move is important enough to want more eyes on it, then why would we not want more eyes on the arbcom election? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the issue of whether it's the proper place. It's not a duplicate of the thing Guy Macon mentions, because he's linking to a proposal to increase the number of voters at RFA, not Arbcom elections. As I noted above, the difference between Arbcom elections and everything else is the nature of the voting: unlike Arbcom elections, extra votes at RFA, pagemoves, etc. can help by providing extra perspectives, opinions, etc., while Arbcom elections are merely picking an option and throwing your ballot into the box. If we had to fill a single Arbcom seat using the normal elections procedure, and two candidates were running, there would be no difference between a 50-20 result and a 5000-2000 result, unless I'm missing something significant. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This certainly deserves more eyeballs on it than it's gotten so far, but in order to implement logistically for this tranche cannot be a standard RfC, just timewise. While I've been actively thinking about places to draw more attention to this proposal than just this board, most other boards I could post on it on would result in people screaming canvassing. Nyttend: to give you a couple examples of reasons why informing our electorate is a good idea (besides just the fact that it's absolutely standard practice in all groups that *have* electorates) - there are multiple groups of people who are likely to have a direct interest in the outcome and results of arbcom elections who are likely currently unaware that they can vote and are likely to spend the time needed to vote with informed opinions (and for that matter, to make informed questions of candidates.) @Kerry Raymond: is a content editor with far more edits than I have who was unaware that she could vote. @BrianWC: is a professor of law and more or less where the education program got it's inspiration from - and although he does most of his editing anonymously (so his edit count is low,) his grad students are the primary reason why ENWP has mostly comprehensive content about American cyberlaw. @Sarasays: is an employee of the Smithsonian who regularly runs editathons etc and despite her low edit count has a vested interest in the direction arbcom takes, as do many of the people involved in the education program, gender issues (the art+fem editathons etc,) and GLAM issues. Many of these examples include a large cohort of people who are unaware they can vote and who will bring informed new perspectives to arbcom candidate questioning and eventual voting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've always looked at arbcom elections through the lens of local politics in the US - where every mayor or congressman or whatever got their start by standing at the ballot box thinking about which lever to pull. If one of those 5000 (or even the 2000) realizes that they have the skills and temperment to contribute in some meaningful way to the governance of this project (such as it is), and makes a positive contribution? I'd say it's worth it to pull those people in, even if the other thousands are just tic marks on a tally. It's not necessarily the result of the election that I'm looking at, though that is important as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. Arbcom has declared their own electorate, and most of that electorate doesn't know they can vote. A massmessage like this would pull in tons of voters whose opinions I disagree with personally, but also tons of voters who have an interest in the direction arbcom goes in, will make informed choices (even if I disagree with them) about candidate selection,) will bring new perspectives to candidate questioning, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? "Arbcom has declared their own electorate"? That is so far from reality it brings into question everything else you are saying. The community decided who the electorate was, Arbcom had nothing to do with it. The determination of who is qualified to vote has been exceptionally consistent over many years. The acceptable methods for contacting that electorate has been remarkably consistent over the years; there has always been, in every area and every major "event", a strong distaste for unrequested mass messages. Frankly, I think you're making out like Arbcom is far more important than it actually is. I didn't see you proposing this for the WMF Board elections, and they have a lot more to do with the functioning of the site than Arbcom ever will. Risker (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether or not the original voting standards were decided by the community or arbcom is largely irrelevant, what's relevant is that most people who can vote don't know it. You are correct that the method that the electorate is contacted has remained largely unchanged, and hasn't worked well, hence the proposal for change. WMF board elections were held in May, correct? If you look at my contribs, you'll notice I barely edited from December until after the board elections. Severe septic shock with six organ system failure in January meant I was not in a state fit to suggest even a minor intervention in the way board elections were held in May (which would've also been a much more technically challenging message to send to the electorate for board elections.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Kevin, it is *not* irrelevant who decided the voting standards. It is extremely relevant, because you seem to be bashing Arbcom for something that they have nothing to do with, and refusing to accept community decisions. You have not, incidentally, addressed my point that English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages. Again, I point out that you're giving far, far more importance to Arbcom than it should receive. Arbcom decisions really have very little to do with the running of Wikipedia, and most editors quite justifiably ignore it completely. Risker (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Bashing Arbcom? I haven't bashed arbcom at all here. I've just pointed out that we don't notify members of arbcom's electorate as is considered good governance in pretty much every group that has an electorate (and yes, that includes conduct-oriented panels.) The fact that we don't directly notify them isn't arbcom's fault, I don't anyone on arbcom thought of it. As I said in my original post, until Kerry suggested something very, very close to the idea as I have presented it, I hadn't had it cross my mind. If arbcom bans EC, do you really think that it won't effect the efforts of anyone working with him on content? Or if (when) a similar content producer gets banned, it won't effect each and every one of their collaborators? When Arbcom banned Neotarf (and I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad ban, I have insufficient info to know,) the Signpost had to find a new volunteer to write the column Neo had been writing. I guess arbcom would have no effect on your editing if you have no interaction with any arb sanctioned editors or topic areas, when ignoring the editors for a minute, those topic areas alone already in existence effect editing articles about areas that literally contain half the people on planet earth, not to mention the general ones dealing with things like gun control, broadly construed, or post-1932 United States politics, broadly construed. I'm not at all saying I disagree with those decisions, but can you, with a straight face, claim that they have little to do with the running of Wikipedia? Kevin Gorman (talk)
        
        If English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages, then why is there a clear majority of editors supporting this proposal? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 18:50, 01 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a discussion affecting all editors being held on an administrator's noticeboard? The ACE2015 RFC is already closed, and the elections should be conducted per that RFC. NE Ent 01:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Correct. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Because AN is the typical board used to review the actions (past or proposed) of individual administrators. This is an action that I can undertake using my own administrative toolset. The RfC you point to had essentially no participation - significantly less than this section has had so far. Theoretically, I could literally have done this of my own accord with the possibility of being desysopped if someone raised it to arbcom afterwards. Floq's close of the RfC even explicitly raises the issue of lack of any meaningful participation in the RfC as an issue. I've already raised the issue on Jimbo's talk page as per arb policy he still has authority over arb issues; I've not yet raised it elsewhere because I'm nearly positive any other place I could raise it either has the same audience as AN, or would have people accuse me of canvassing. I'm more than open to suggestions as to where else to post it, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016 NE Ent 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:BURO BMK (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This section already has more comments from both sides than the 2015 RFC did, and involves something implementable via my own administrative toolset within this election cycle. You are suggesting that an proposed idea that would be implementable this election cycle using standard administrative tools should be put off an entire cycle because it wasn't brought up during an RfC that had about five comments? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The fact only five folks participated isn't surprising -- we've done arbcom elections for quite a few years and we have converged on a consensus on how to do them, so I'm sure the 2015 is pretty much the same as 2014. NE Ent 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note: As I have voted in previous elections, I would like to opt-out of any notifications in this particular venue. Regards, — Ched : ? 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll be setting up an opt-out page at some point in the near future both for this message and any similar future messages I may propose, and will personally add you to it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this poll not being held in some place like Village pump proposals? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Legoktm:. We can separately debate about whether this is the best place to hold polls regarding administrative matters, but this is not an administrative matter. Arguably, it might be appropriate to place a notice here explaining that a discussion and poll is being conducted in a relevant place (maybe VPI). --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with conducting this RfC here, but if there's a concern that not enough people will know about it, then someone can post notifications at the village pump and ANI. - Mr X 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been part of the ACE 2015 RFC. As for the proposal itself, "meh." I strongly doubt it will change anything. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment (moved from weak Oppose). Probably there are lots of editors unaware of the importance of ArbCom and that they can vote for it. Information is good. One message a year is not a big deal of spam. I could very well vote support, but... there was a RfC about the 2015 ArbCom election, it had only 4 proposals and minimal participation. This question and maybe a couple more about how to make the process more attractive to more editors could very well fit there. We shouldn't be discussion on 'random' venues, and starting out from possible unilateral mass mailing decisions. Not-Now, bring it on next year. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and this isn't a random venue - it's the standard place to review past or future admin actions. We shouldn't put off a proposal for a year because I failed to post it during an earlier RfC if it ends up getting closed as supported here. Regardless of the outcome of this section, I don't see how it could be considered "unilateral." A unilateral implementation of this would be me doing it without asking how others felt about it first. Within the first couple days I've posted this here, it's generated significantly more discussion than the ACE 2015 RFC did. Although I agree with you that it could have very well fit within the context of that RFC, since this is not posted on an obscure messageboard dedicated to a niche topic and has already gathered significant both supports and opposes, I'd suggest that by our standards of consensus, it doesn't particularly matter what forum it's posted in as long as it gets sufficient attention, and the forum is one where it's likely to draw excessive pile-ons from one side or the other. I've noticed someone else has already added it to cent, which was the other place I was intending to drop it today (thank you whoever did so,) and more than welcome suggestions for other appropriate venues. (I might drop a pointer at VPP, but as this isn't a policy shift but an administrative action, still feel this is a better board for it's overall review.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but due process is also important, otherwise it would be chaotic (more chaotic... :-). Finding a decent balance is the key. OK, this would be better at the 'proper' RfC, but also this is not one of the cases when someone starts a new tangential discussion mid way through a first one that isn't going their way (and I reeaaly dislike those). If it helps, fine, I won't oppose. Two thoughts for future consideration: One, I hope someone makes this suggestion in next year's RfC; Two, why did this discussion got so much more attention than the Election's RfC? (may be the scent of blood at AN?... "Oooh, a fight, let's see what's going on"...?) - Nabla (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Rev-delundel

I was thinking about the MediaWiki:Rev-delundel interface message, which is the (del/undel) text used for revdel links. I've always found this to be a poor wording choice. The MediaWiki default is now (change visibility), which you can see on the test wiki, for example. A quick survey of other wikis shows many use the "change visibility" version, dewiki uses (+/-), and some others use variants like (show/hide). I prefer all of these to the current one. So, what do we think? If this has been discussed before, I apologise, but I assumed it hadn't since MediaWiki:Rev-delundel has no backlinks. — Earwig ^talk 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A think that wording makes sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete it and just use the MediaWiki default unless someone provides a good reason why our project needs to be unique for this. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the message was overridden, the text was "show/hide". In 2013 it was changed in MediaWiki to "change visibility". I think the latter is better link text for the link. Legoktm (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition, I've gone ahead and changed the message. The relevant actions (if people decide to revert) are 1, 2, and 3. Hope no one gets confused! — Earwig ^talk 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this change and I think it's an improvement. Thanks for suggesting this Earwig. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suspicious User

Hi please check and review User:Sheydai background. I think this account is belong to Category:Sockpuppets of Manimihan

such as Maninimihan this user is also intersted in Hossein Shahabi ‎and his films

World Cup 2010 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page (Sock Puppet Investigations) for you to report such concerns, which is a better venue for such things. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Follow the directions at Sock Puppet Investigations and create a case there. This is the proper place to report concerns like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Arbitration motion regarding overlap of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

John Witherow Verification

Hello team,

I have been trying to verify the John Witherow page for a day or so now, with further citations needed (apparently) for it to be made official. I think I've added quite enough - how do i get this verified? Thanks TheoTheoDaviesLewis (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is already being dealt with at WP:BLPN; the OP has also raised the matter at the help desk and my talk page. I'd suggest inadvertent WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Giant Snowman 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like to make a complinet about a user

Moved to AN/I as an incident. BMK (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to lift indefinite topic ban

Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 from logevity topic related articles, on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. The ban was imposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Being unaware of new settings, I had reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and, as a result, my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in my contributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such as List of Polish supercentenarians, Aleksandra Dranka, List of Czech supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute in this field, for the English Wikipedia, further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion in which the topic ban was imposed, which can be found here (a link you should have provided in your request). and I must say that I agree that the topic ban was a reasonable response to the behavior that was reported there. It was not "too fast" -- the thread begin on 14 August and the ban was imposed on 16 August -- and you have more than sufficient time to make any claims or counter-claims you wished to make. Therefore I oppose this request. BMK (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Waenceslaus, however your conduct at the linked discussion shows classic battleground behavior, and believe me, I know a bit about it first hand (see my block log if you doubt it ).I'd say edit elsewhere and show that you can edit well (for at least 6 months or more) than ask again, that doesn't mean you'll get an automatic approval, but it wouldn't hurt either. KoshVorlon 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Oppose. 2 months for the behavior exhibited in the topic ban discussion is far too early to ask for reconsideration. Follow the advice given by others (go edit other things for 6 months) otherwise you're only reinforcing the viewpoint/opinion that your actions (and those of the associated wikiproject) require the hostile inspection of all policies/content produced by the wikiproject due to the Walled Garden nature. I speak as both an editor who was on the outside of the garden tearing the walls down and a editor on the inside trying to keep the rest of wikipedia from crashing in. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Upon reading the ANI thread, it looks like the topic ban was both necessary and basically inevitable. I don't think a return to the topic area would be beneficial to you or Wikipedia itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Discretionary Sanctions are, I believe, now in place for all pages relating to longevity. If User:Waenceslaus had the topic ban lifted and failed to comply with these quite stringent conditions they would rapidly find themselves receiving escalating blocks.

Since they have not said that they will no longer push the position the WOP should be the arbiter on longevity articles and will no longer make retaliatory requests for sanctions against good faith editors and admins, it seems to me that this is a real risk.

However to some extent that is their funeral. If they can make sufficiently cautious edits to survive the trial by fire, they will benefit the project. If no they will rapidly find themselves leaving the project for good.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Image source rescue

Can anyone confirm if the deleted version of this image on Wikipedia has any source information? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FN_Scar_Light.jpg. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it never had any. It was uploaded in February 2005 by User:Rangi, and all the description page ever said was "FN Scar". It should evidently never have been transferred to Commons on that basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image here never had a license tag, either; I'm curious why someone decided that the image was in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has just been proposed for deletion, because apparently editors at the Russian Wikipedia have uncovered it (link in Russian) as a Soviet-era hoax. The Russian article has already been deleted. Could any Russian speakers verify this? We should probably delete the article unless there are enough sources about it being a hoax that we can write an article about the hoax instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Russian speaker, and I followed the story from the very beginning. The point is that there are sources, mainly in Azerbaijani, some in Russian, which make some claims about Jabrayilov. A group of Russian Wikipedia editors verified these claims, including sending requests to French archives, and found most of them (or all of them) wrong. Apparently, a person with this name existed and participated in World War II (unclear on which side he participated), but he did not do what is ascribed to him (for example, he did not participate in the liberation of Bordeaux, and he does not seem to have any French decorations). On the other hand, there is obviously no reliable source in any language which says Jabrayilov did not do this (though there are RSs saying the article was deleted as a hoax, see e.g. [2]). I weakly support deletion, but I am involved with this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also took part in that discussion. Also I visited house-museum of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in Shaki, had a discussion with the director of the museum, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the son of Ahmadiyya, made photos of awards, documents, original photos from France and letters to him. Also Javanshir Jabrayilov gave me all scans of the documents and photographs of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. During the research of Wikipedia users we identify some unclear moments in the biography of Jabrayilov. But it doesn't means that all biography of Jabrayilov is "Soviet-era hoax". It is normal that there are many unclear moments in the events of World War II. But during the discussion we confirmed that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov really took part in Resistance. In 1970s he visited France, we can see how really participants of Resistance (Rene Chambar, Louis Lasbareilles etc.) greet him. We can see how they visited memorial for Soviet victims. This visit was also documented in French "Sud Ouest" newspaper, where we can also see a photo of Jabrayilov. We cannot ignore these facts. We also cannot ignore the fact of the presence of French awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum (Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix du combattant etc.). Médaille militaire we can see only in the historical photos, which Jabrayilov brought from France[3][4] (as his son said to me this medal was taken from him in Moscow in 1966, when Jabrayilov was invited to greet Charles de Gaulle). I didn't aggree with the deletion. Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable person as a participant of Resistance. There is a lot of sources claiming that. And nothing which can proof that he is hoax. Only original research of some Wikipedia users. --Interfase (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now PROD was removed; the article has to go to AfD or stay.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think AfD would be the best venue to discuss this anyway, now that it's clear that the hoax isn't a blatant one. It may very well be that we can salvage the parts of the article which are verifiable, and remove parts that originated from propaganda, but that's not something that we are well equipped to do at AN. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.

Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:( For what it's worth, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Compromised_accounts on suggestions going forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Security review RfC

Having discussed the matter with a member of the WMF Security team, I've put some options together on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Please can interested parties go there and have a look? Worm^TT(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Orphans

I've been informed that some images I tagged as Orphaned Non-free were actually in-use, despite the file description page saying otherwise. Letting the adminstrators here know that they may need to do an additional check based on the article name in the NFUR, as well as looking at claimed usage. Not sure why the 'usage' information is inconsistent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letting the adminstrators here know that they may need to do an additional check; translation "I can't be arsed to clean up the mess I made so I'm telling you to do it". ‑ iridescent 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's uncalled for, I check carefully already. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Iridescent , No personal attakcs, ok? KoshVorlon 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon: After I was informed about the issue of 'in-use' images not showing up as such I did a re-check and found a few images that were actually in-use, and detagged. Also found 1 or 2 that could be easily fixed by purges, infobox checks. As a human I can apply that logic, a bot (like some of those currently used for auto identifying Orphan non-free) can't hence the note to the adminstrators that some images might need an additional check so as to avoid angry contributors chasing down admins over a bad-call. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG thanks for the heads up. I wonder if this is related to the issue raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redirects? Nthep (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG I'm actually supporting your side and asking Iridescent to tone the personal attacks. KoshVorlon 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be arsed to clean up the mess I made so I'm telling you to do it Among other things, we can assume that the problem isn't limited to images tagged by Sfan00 IMG; admins should check allegedly-orphaned images that other users have tagged, too. Sfan00 IMG knows about the problem, but other users might not. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be related to this bug, where the links tables for newly-uploaded images aren't getting populated. --Carnildo (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor, D4iNa4, that was unblocked after indefinate block

user:D4iNa4, who was indefinately blocked for being a sockpuppet [5], was later allowed to edit after a year. However, this has resulted in a campaign of his of blanking entire articles [6][7], refusing to discuss the matter, removing sourced information and blanking entire sections [8][9], and adding unreliable sources. Xtremedood (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments make it sound like the diffs were blatant vandalism, but they were not. Redirecting a bad article to another one, which is what D4iNa4 said he was doing with both "blanking entire articles" diffs, is sometimes a good idea, and deleting entire sections because they're full of original research (third diff) or because they got rejected at talk (final diff) is almost always a good idea. I've not investigated enough to say whether D4iNa4's edit-summary claims are accurate, but the situation's quite different from what you're saying, and you need to provide a lot more evidence if you want to demonstrate that D4iNa4 is being seriously disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question redirected the Battle of Saunshi article twice, to the Maratha Empire page, without discussing it on the talk page [10][11]. It is a well documented battle [12] [13], and he needs to give further reasons as to why he would want to do this. His entire blanking of the Slavery and religion of the Hindu section points to a bias. The original content was not posted by myself, but by user:Terabar as stated here [14]. The statements are referenced and I do not see any indication of original research as user:D4iNa4 states in his edit [15] and you in this section. He keeps on doing this multiple times as proven by his edits on these pages. I would recommend looking further into this, before simply reading edit summaries. Xtremedood (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've not checked to see whether the edit summaries are accurate and whether the allegations are justified. It's simply that it's a situation with plenty of wiggle room, and you made it sound like vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was never engaged in sock puppetry, it can be confirmed well, because I had never abused two accounts on one page, that was clarified on my unblock request too, before unblock was granted.[16] Now back to the massive disruption that is being caused by @Xtremedood: since he joined wikipedia this year.

Xtremedood has been subjected to many similar WP:BOOMERANG reports,[17][18] that he opened himself and every time he was admonished for making such malformed and misleading reports.[19][20]

After he failed to WP:GAME and misrepresent consensus on these articles[21][22] violating WP:BLPCAT, WP:LINKVIO, etc. He went onto WP:WIKIHOUND my edits by making edits where he provided no explanation for revert, and on other edit he asked for "discussion" something he never attempts himself.

His "documented sources"[23] [24] are snippets. He believes that it is better to misrepresent a snippet, because no one has access to them, however he fails to provide actual sentence of quote. Now recently he got reverted on this article he failed to discuss any of his edits.

He reverts without even making discussion while himself asking others to discuss, and in place of making discussion with other editors, who have rejected his edits, he went on to open this WP:BOOMERANG report. He didn't even responded to the concerns that I had raised on his talk page.[25] When he is known for never discussing his edits, why he reverts others and enforce them to discuss about some obvious things just happened to contradict his POV?

His edits can be considered as WP:IDONTLIKE.[26][27] As he fails to provide explanation too, his editing can be particularly described to be having some kind of anti-Indian approach. Including that he also edit warred on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 by disrupting the infobox, about 2-3 ago,[28][29] he claimed that it was Bangladeshi victory and not an Indian victory. He never made any discussion. He also voted on closed RFC.[30]

Final comment, realizing his failure to understand simple English language and guidelines, him making retaliatory reverts where he labels me as "disruptive editor" on edit summary as his ultimate explanation for reverting,[31][32][33][34], continued edit warring on same article because of which he was blocked,[35] his failure to discuss his misrepresentation of sources and WP:IDONTLIKE-edits, his violation of WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, list of issues is definitely huge. I think that it is best for an uninvolved admin to simply ban him from Indian articles, since they are under WP:AC/DS and not every person has tons of hours a week to discuss his disruption and watch out if these articles are being disrupted or not. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think any sound and rational administrator can see the nonsense here. I have not blanked articles simply because I did not like them. The user has a history of operating as a sockpuppet, this is sadly not an uncommon practice amongst special interest groups in categories pertaining to conflicts between Pakistan and India. He has made several false accusations against me, which are attempts to divert the issue. I have a history of adhering to Wikipedia policies. I have seen first hand the ridiculous attempts used by such special interests to silence editors on Wikipedia, and I hope the administrators do not fall for this game. The sources indicated are academic sources that detail the historicity of the Battle of Saunshi, it is a historical event and just because the Hindu dynasty of the Marathas lost, does not mean that it should be deleted. Also, the majority of voters in the Indo-Pakistani 1971 War have agreed to include Bangladesh in the results section of the article. The user above has accused me of the following: "he claimed that it was Bangladeshi victory and not an Indian victory." However this is incorrect. I was simply asserting the fact that India alone was not the victor on the Eastern front of the conflict. The user above has also made several personal attacks against me calling me by calling me as "anti-Indian" when I have not identified myself as such and for saying " realizing his failure to understand simple English language". The user also denies that he has been a sockpuppet, which is false according to the link provided in the opening paragraph. Xtremedood (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source indicated on the article for the battle [36], it is on page 916. Clearly the Battle of Saunshi is real. Xtremedood (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting consensus and making false allegations without providing diffs is your another trait and further proves my point. I don't see anything[37] notable at all though, you are pushing two liners about an incident that are still not enough for creating separate article, you can instead mention it on the main article. 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4iNa4 (talk • contribs)

Comments: For one thing, if filing on this board rather than ANI, the blocking and unblocking admin, Callanecc, should be notified. For another, the username D4iNa4 seems to be a spoof or near-spoof of Diannaa; too close for comfort for me at least. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur with the concerns raised about deleting information which seems to contradict D4iNa4's POV without prior discussion and, when restored, repeating the same behavior on a different pretext without engaging in talk page discussion, and not refraining from the reverting behavior until a consensus is reached or objections have desisted. This appears to be pure POV pushing and aggressive determination to have the last say on what info articles and their talk pages contain that the previous 1-year block should have calmed and restrained -- but has not. FactStraight (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FactStraight: looks like you are unaware of the reason behind those two edits that you have linked. Read Help:Archiving a talk page, it says that you can archive when talk page "has multiple resolved or stale discussions", there was no discussion on the same page for over three years, that's why I archived.[38] Revert of my archiving was clearly an accidental revert[39] it included no edit summary either. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user, D4iNa4, has also blanked this article twice [40][41], stating that "(no mention of this battle anywhere)", even though there are two sources. Xtremedood (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since Callanecc has not responded, this is really a behavioral issue and needs to be on ANI, not here. The article blankings-and-redirects, talk-page deletions, and article-section blankings are clearly against policy. In terms of the Converts to Islam from Hinduism, these are correct removals in that those entries require strict and direct quotations from the individual. But again, all of this needs to go to ANI, not here. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging WP:ADMINGUIDE to WP:NAS

See here. The admin guide basically repeats the info at the new admin school, in a less organized way, in my opinion. I'm happy to do the work, just need a rough consensus. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, and thanks. Miniapolis 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i want to upload a file named 123.gif

the file is just the numbers 123 but the black list prevented me from uploading it so can you please let me upload it Rigsofrods (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a free image - not copyrighted by someone else - upload it at Commons. BMK (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its also block at commons thats why i went here Rigsofrods (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial request for SPI help

I know that we're all overworked and grossly underpaid, however there are currently 17 open SPI cases wherein Checkuser has already been run and 19 open cases where CU wasn't requested that require admin review. If you would like relief from some of the more mundane mop tasks, please do take a few moments to review the "checked" and "open" cases to see if you can help out. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:JackTheVicar needs to be reviewed by the community

Slightly reluctant to close this, but the discussion over whether a former editor has passed away may impact on people's real lives. Also, I suspect there's not much more to say beyond what is already here. Some things:

JackTheVicar was blocked as a sockpuppet of ColonelHenry.
JackTheVicar denies they are ColonelHenry, so there's no utility in discussing an unblock of ColonelHenry as a way of restoring JackTheVicar's editing rights.
JackTheVicar has lodged an appeal to BASC. They have also provided supporting material and indicated there is more to follow.
BASC will consider JackTheVicar's material alongside the evidence for the original block.
Because much of the evidence relates to personal information, it's unlikely to be shared on-wiki. However, given community interest I'll seek the opportunity to post the outcome of the appeal in an appropriate location.
BASC consider the appeal as quickly as possible, but there is no hard deadline - better we get it right slowly than get it wrong in a rush.
Happy to discuss further, though I doubt there's much more I can add while the appeal is under way. And if someone really does have something new and interesting to add, please feel free to revert this close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three days ago, User:JackTheVicar was found to be a sock of community site-banned editor User:ColonelHenry, a fact which he refutes, and was blocked by User:Mike V, their only route of appeal being ArbCom. Given that ArbCom have been unresponsive, presumably because they are confident of the accuracy of their (the functionaries') findings; and if we, the community, are to accept their findings; and given that the editor was originally banned by the community; it follows that it is the community who should decide whether the editor is welcome to return under their new handle. It is, in my opinion, unacceptable to delegate the enforcement of community sanctions to a congregation of a select few privileged individuals who operate in complete secrecy, and who have, historically, proven to be completely out of touch with reality. It is the community who should hear appeals to bans we impose; and, more to the point, it is the community who should decide whether the CU findings, in this particular instance, are significant, so as to merit the blocking of a productive editor and the erasure of all of their contributions, with few exceptions. Alakzi (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is categorically denying he's ColonelHenry. So what's the point of reviewing ColonelHenry's ban? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite apparent that ArbCom won't budge, and considering that, in accordance with galactic law, ArbCom has the final say on CU blocks and that we cannot overrule ArbCom on this matter, our only remaining options appear to be either (a) to consider whether the ban should remain in place, or (b) whether, at the very least, we should make an exception to the banning policy to restore their contributions. Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot review ColonelHenry's ban if the editor says he's not ColonelHenry. We can ask arbcom or other CUs to review the CU evidence but that evidence won't be publicly released for the community to review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we can ask that some general information about the CU be revealed. They can't say the IP was X, but they can certainly tell us if the IPs were identical or within a certain range, and possibly comment on whether the claim of two users living close to each other using the same library WiFi is plausible. They could also tell us if any OS/browser info is from a smartphone (they tend to send identical OS/browser info) as opposed to a Windows machine (they tend to have different OS/browser info) and whether the OS/browser info is common (Windows 10, Windows 7) somewhat rare (Windows 95, BSD) or very rare (Dillo browser). There is a lot that someone with CU can say without compromising the user's privacy. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe Guy is correct and CU's could disclose some additional information, several of the specific points he cites (like useragent) would bring whatever CU involved directly in to conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, which explicitly applies to checkusers, and would result in them being, well, no longer checkusers. Even if both JtV and CH regularly surf Wikipedia using Windows for Workgroups, disclosing that information would violate a board level policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that saying "the user agents were identical" or even "the user agents were identical but commonly used" or "the user agents were identical and extremely rare" would violate any policy. Or even a mysterious "I reviewed the CU information and for reasons I cannot reveal in my opinion the explanation given is plausible/implausible". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much what I was going for - we can only really receive somewhat mysterious information regarding their findings. The only reason I commented is if they were, for instance, both using BSD or to go with your very rare example, Dillo, disclosing that would be a violation. Actually, even just disclosing that they were both using the same exceptionally rare UA might by itself be a violation. So in large parts we'll have to trust mysterious checkuser statements for the checkuser part of this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments below, useragent should not be available for ColonelHenry according to the WMF's policies. Admittedly 'as long as necessary' does allow some leeway, but not 18 months of it when it would usually be gone in 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not only that, but JackTheVicar states that ColonelHenry is deceased and that other users have met him in person. If true, it would be provable that JackTheVicar is not ColonelHenry. I would like to know why the BASC has apparently not acknowledged JackTheVicar's emails, although it does seems that the BASC has a 6 week backlog. A simple acknowledgement saying "we got it; we're working on it" could be sent in seconds. - Mr X 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It had a six-week backlog in December 2014. Is the BASC currently active? Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage editors to read the following (which is six sections long) before jumping on this bandwagon and commenting [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Having a complete picture regarding the long-term history of ColonelHenry, his socks, and what led to the ban is important. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ColonelHenry last edited in April 2014 (the last sock activity recorded from that time also) and JackTheVicar didnt start editing unti; Jan 2015, while I am not adverse to the idea he may be a sock, what personally identifiable technical information was kept available for 18 months for ColonelHenry in order to be used to run a successful checkuser in the last week? And why? The WMF's data retention policies seem to indicate it shouldnt be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical example? Maybe they did use an exceptionally weird useragent or otherwise memorable piece of info that a CU would easily retain in his head as standing out. /cue conspiracy theories about CU wiki. From having done abuse for different sites, it's also possible that a CU active on CH would just remember an awful lot of info about CH - I still remember the most common IP blocks I performed as an abuse admin, and if I came across one of them IP-editing Wikipedia, would be able to connect them with no problem given their nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WMF's data retention policies (this and this may be of use here) useragent at the point of editing would be one of the pieces of info that should not be kept longer than necessary. There certainly should under no circumstances be a record of it 18 months AFTER the user has stopped editing - absent a damn good reason. IP addresses are kept indef due to thats how edits are logged, but since IP's are regularly re-used, that is why an IP by itself is not an indicator of socking when separated by a significant period of time (in this case 9 months between ColH and Jack). If this was 'IP + behavioural' then it should be clearly stated that is why. This is why SPI exists after all. The current indication from Mike is that technical checks have proved beyond a reasonable doubt they are the same person - so assuming CU's are telling the truth on this one, it indicates to me that the WMF's data retention policies may be being violated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps CUs have access to PRISM.- Mr X 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am less disposed to believing absent evidence 'checkuser says sock' these days since one of them lied about it in order to smear a UK politician. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: Do you mean "refute" or "deny"? Sorry to be pedantic, but to me, "refute" means to supply convincing evidence, and I haven't seen that. (That said, I hope it is true it would solve some of the problems).--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion; I meant "deny", though he does say he's in a position to refute the allegations in private correspondence with ArbCom. Alakzi (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is only one way that would convince me that Mike V and other CUs are incorrect, and that is if it is true that some admins(or members of ArbCom) have met CH in real life and that he is indeed deceased. Other than that, it's up to those who have access to the tools to decide if an editor is a sock or not. We cannot judge on data we are not privy to. People can list similarities or whatnot, but those would not matter if in fact the original operator of that account has passed away. If there is not proof of that, then we should let ArbCom and the CUs handle the situation. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb question alert Since Colonel Henry's last post was in April 2014, wouldn't any CU of Jack the Vicar be turned away as being stale ? (Yeah, like I said, dumb question). I do agree with Alakzi, the community banned him , the community gets to decide if he gets rope'd , allowed back in or the ban stays. KoshVorlon 17:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @KoshVorlon: There is a (fairly real) chance that there are more recent suspected socks of him that were blocked without being reported to the SPI page or announced to be him (WP:DENY and all that), so this may well be based on that (However, I don't have the CU evidence in front of me, so this is pure speculation). Mdann52 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome, Lake Neepaulin, Neepaulakating Creek, and West Branch Papakating Creek ought to be restored; they were valuable articles with no problems in and of themselves. While CH seems to have written some hoaxes, I fact-checked virtually every claim in the Neepaulakating Creek article when I did the GA review. I would be willing to rewrite them myself if I must, but I would rather not, as I also have articles of my own to work on. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your statement, @Jakec:, I've restored the Neepaulakating Creek article wholesale. I also restored the article that got brought up at ANI and am in the process of reviewing its sources further myself - and have found impressive sourcing, but no evidence of problems. I am strongly of the opinion that an article brought through GAR, let alone with the statement "I checked virtually every claim myself," is not G5able. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really reversed a deletion without even contacting the deleting admin? Again? After apologizing for doing it yesterday, you do it again?--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the gross misapplication of CSD G5, yes, I chose to restore the article and notify you at the same time. I'm still floored that you threatened to block me for doing so. Please to reread your CSD criteria... Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related discussion here: WP:ANI#IAR article restoration against CSD G5? - Mr X 19:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to JackTheVicar's email to BASC, letting them know the email(s) were received and are under consideration. Reiterating a point above - there's seems no point in reviewing the ban on ColonelHenry in order to restore JackTheVicar's editing rights, as JackTheVicar denies they are ColonelHenry. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth looking into the claim that ColonelHenry is deceased? That sounds like a privacy issue that we should not discuss details about to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This case raises a number of important issues. As some editors have speculated above, the retention of personal information related to CU appears to be outdated, so one wonders how the accounts were connected based on CU data. If they weren't, then either the procedure wasn't followed, or the decision to connect the users was based on LTA data or some other process. Another issue this raises is the role of Winkelvi. IIRC, the MaranoFan debacle involved false CU claims as well. Not knowing too much about this case, I have to say that Jack's defense sounds a bit strange. However, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you think you remember, but what you are implying/accusing me of is a pretty strong charge. Either back it up with something solid evidence wise or strike your accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. You know exactly what I'm referring to here, specifically the marathon fishing expedition you engaged in over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive, where you had almost convinced the community that the people you were stalking and goading were socks. You have a habit of doing this. Also, since by your own admission you have a problem dealing with ambiguity, I don't think you should be allowed to participate in CU-related activities. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is straying way off topic. Whatever past... whatever it is you are referring to, Winkelvil does not have access to CU data on this project, and as far as I can tell never has. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he did. "CU-related activities" means anything having to do with CU, such as filing SPI's, following up after CU results and nominating articles by the suspect for deletion, everything Winkelvi has been doing and in the process making things worse. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColonelHenry outed himself earlier. So the privacy issue is not great. If JackTheVicar can send the evidence that that CH is dead (perhaps a newspaper story, say by email to me) I would report back here if it is indeed as he claims. Also if the IP is from a small library as claimed, then the CUs could verify that. (that would explain same browser settings, same IP). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, then this is open and shut. Any admin could review the obituary in question and verify the person is dead. Why hasn't this happened? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you know where to find it, could someone please provide a diff to the spot where ColonelHenry outed himself? Surely it would make things simpler for the death-verification process. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we need people to start speaking up here and for the block on Jack to be lifted immediately. This lends weight to Jack's argument that the Colonel was a notable person. He apparently has his own Wikipedia biography (or did at that time). I'm going to take a wild guess and say it would be very easy to prove Jack's story based on the name of his town and a quick search through his local paper, followed by a search for the bio on Wikipedia. So far, the evidence is in Jack's corner. Lift the block. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I remember ColonelHenry. He claimed to be notable and to have an article, but always in ways that seemed like bragging (with the cloak of anonymity used as the excuse to show off the article in question). JackTheVicar started editing in a way that marks him as an experience Wiki editor. I am not saying I agree it is CH, but the supposed evidence against that presented by JtV has the same sort of feel to it. There is certainly enough question marks to proceed with caution. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yea, I think we should wait for Eury to get the info from JTV. If it were me, I would send a copy of my drivers licences and post a link to my Facebook page with a msg to ArbCom. Although I don't trust any editor that posts from a public place, VPN or open proxy for all of their edits. That rings alarm bells that say they are trying to avoid scrutiny. And why would anyone want to hide their home IP address from CUs if they are not up to something. So waiting for ArbCom seems like a more prudent course than taken immediate action. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        For info BASC has now bene emailed some supporting material, with more on the way. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Viriditas, did you intend to give us that link, or did you pick the wrong one by accident? Incrementing your place among active Wikipedians doesn't lend weight to anything ID-related, as I see it. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        DaveDial, I disagree with your assumptions about the use of public IPs. If this is the town I think it is, it would be a miracle if they didn't share IPs. And not everyone has the money for or the access to reliable Internet in small towns like this, which is why they both used the library. Nyttend, the diff was offered to support the existence of notability and a Wikipedia bio, as well as the claim that people here know who the user is and whether he is dead. The more I look at this, the more support I see for Jack's story. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been presented with evidence that refutes everything I wrote. We seem to be dealing with a (Redacted). I want to apologize to Winkelvi and anyone else, as this is some fucked up shit that I can't begin to process. Jack, I would really like to see evidence of that obituary. Real soon now, I'm sure. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Could you supply more information? Changing your userpage to reflect moving up on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits doesn't by itself demonstrate anything about notability or having a Wikipedia biography; here's another user making such an edit, for example, but (as I can confirm from knowing him in person) he's just an average person who isn't WP:notable and doesn't have a Wikipedia biography. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, Viriditas, I guess. I seriously have to wonder why you went after me at all. Regardless, I'm glad that the cat named Captain Obvious is finally out of the bag and/or more clear to some. Yes, this is some fucked-up shit. I'm not privy to specifics, but looking at the history of ColonelHenry in addition to my instincts from the first time I encountered the individual in question, I knew something was more than off. And that there was "there" than others were seeing. What a weird couple of days seeing all of this go down and the reactions of several. Lots of fodder for someone interested in a sociological study, for sure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not going to address this anymore. I think there is evidence that this is a good block. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure; just please remember that it was an edit-conflict, as I wrote it before reading your comment. Was the evidence off-wiki or on-wiki? If off-wiki, no more requests; if on-wiki, could you link to it? Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad this thread seems to have lit a fire under the butts of people in a position to actually evaluate relevant information, but now that they have it, maybe those who don't have all the relevant information should find something else to do while BASC does its thing? Hinting that you have a secret and it's really juicy but you're not gonna tell is fun and all, but not exactly productive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The block appears to be legit based on all available information. HighInBC 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The information appears to have been shared with Viriditas by Mike V via email. It is unclear to me why Mike thought it proper to reveal the specifics of this case to a non-functionary, but not to the community at large. And it's not OK to call other people ... whatever your conception of the situation. Alakzi (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - There appears to be some kind of larger game being played here. I have not received any email from Mike, even though he seems to have placed a YGM message on my talk page 10 minutes after I made my initial comment up above. You could probably ask someone with the appropriate user rights to check the mail logs as well. Either he sent the message or he didn't. In any case, I never received an email from him. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, thank you for clearing that up. Alakzi (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you hear it from me, I haven't provided any information to non-functionaries. @Viriditas: I've sent the email again. Could you check your junk folder or if you use gmail, your social tab? Sometimes Wikimedia emails end up there for some reason. Mike V • Talk 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a drivers license photo from JackTheVicar by email. This is a different person from who I believe ColonelHenry was. I am still awaiting the story / obituary about the death of the RL ColonelHenry. Another technique to use is to compare the writings of the two users to see if they are the same style or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does anyone know for sure that a drivers license photo proves that an editor submitting that photo actually is that real world person? There are neighborhood bars where many sad and sick people would allow their drivers license to be photographed for the cost of two or three shots of bourbon. As for comparing the writing styles, there are people who are convinced based on this type of analysis that Bill Ayers is the ghostwriter for Barack Obama. Great caution is in order here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Cullen, someone else could conceivably be induced to pose with their (legible) driver's license, which is why I'm not pushing for him to be unblocked based on what I've received so far (he's in contact with a couple of non-functionary people, including myself and Graeme.) That said, there are other measures that can be taken to establish either that he is who he says he is, or that CH is deceased and thus he can't be a sockpupppet of CH. From talking to him, I'm relatively certain this will be resolved entirely within 72 hours, and almost certainly in JtV's favor. Please remember when reading this that I was the previous blocking admin on all of JtV's blocks. I'd also point out something significant - and a difference between this and CH's socks which is part of why I think the truth is worth figuring out - no one has been able to find deliberately falsified material in any articles JtV wrote, and at least a few of his articles were pretty frigging good. Saving the rest of his content if he's not CH and not inherently untrustworthy is a worthwhile expenditure of time. I'll tell you one thing - whoever is he, he's good at sourcing obscure facts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Fake credentials on Wikimedia? Never! Just don't, Graeme. It's time we all walk away. Keegan (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said the holder, I do not know if JackTheVicar really has this driver's license ID or not. I could try to contact the owner of the license, but that is not worth the effort. I am just presenting what I have received. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we pls close this thread as the community is not in a position to evaluate the CU findings. We have ArbCom for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Awaiting statement

Well, there is the issue of how such a long dormant account could be checkusered to a current one, given WMFs stated data retention policies; Mike V had indicated he would be making a statement, I'd like to see that before dropping the matter entirely. NE Ent 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. And if it transpires that the CheckUser tool was not used to draw a connection, the CheckUser block is invalid. But as with any other CU/ArbCom dealing, this one too is shrouded in mystery, using privacy as an excuse - as if we'd asked them to reveal any of the editors' personal information.

In their closure above, Euryalus states that there's no "utility" to discuss an unblock of ColonelHenry as a way of restoring JackTheVicar's editing rights, which is how they mean to place us in a bureaucratic deadlock. It is the implication that the burden of proof lies both with the accuser and the accused at the same time. Alakzi (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow; to my mind, Euryalus' comment makes sense. JackTheVicar claims he's not ColonelHenry, so an unblock of ColonelHenry would have no bearing on JackTheVicar. (Either JackTheVicar is lying, in which case he should stay blocked for being deceptive, or he's telling the truth, in which case the two situations are orthogonal). More to the point, ColonelHenry isn't getting unblocked. There are serious real-life concerns of which I will assume you're unaware. Given those issues, as well as ColonelHenry's prior prolific sockpuppetry, it would not surprise me if some checkuser data were retained in this case to aid with identification of future sockpuppets (although I have no firsthand knowledge of the details of this particular sockpuppet investigation). MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told in the past by a checkuser that data for particularly disruptive editors with a history of socking, and who are therefore likely to pop up again, is kept around for a longer period than normal editing data. This is perfectly consistent with the WMF privacy policy. I have no inside information on this particular incident, and don't want to, but, like MastCell, I wouldn't be surprised if ColonelHenry fell into the extended-retention category.

Also, I don't agree with Alakzi, Euryalus' comment was perfectly sensible. Alakzi, however, might like to take note of this from the Privacy Policy:

For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites.

BMK (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input; valuable as always. Alakzi (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BMK, that snippet from the privacy policy puts it all in perspective. HighInBC 16:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to November everyone. For those of you newer users, aloow me to explain: What is known as the "holiday season" in the United States has somehow become the "silly season" on Wikipedia. So just sit back and relax as trolls come out of the woodwork and naive users here rush to defend them without being in full possession of the facts or having a logical basis for their proposal. It's a hell of a toboggan ride! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted some on-wiki evidence to the SPI page to help give the community an idea of the basis for the block. As I've noted on the SPI page, there is additional evidence that involves non-public data/information. Mike V • Talk 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike V's SPI statement references "ColonelHenry's data on the checkuser wiki." Colonel Henry's last edit was April 2014. WMF data retention policy regarding Personal Information, including IPs and user-agent: "After at most 90 days, it will be deleted, aggregated, or anonymized." Could a representative of the en-Wikipedia checkuser community explain what I'm missing here? NE Ent 11:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - NE Ent; The privacy policy says: "Once we receive personal information from you, we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable U.S. law.". I agree what you reference is inconsistent with that (and should be fixed) but it is absolutely standard, and expected IMO, that it is okay to keep identifying information for reasonable purposes, such as long term abuse. This case is an example of how that is a valid use case. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is it doesnt explicitly say that anywhere on any policy page here or on Meta (which as WMF is the data controller, holds precedence regardless of what practice is on EN-WP anyway). But as a statement 'long term abuse' is nebulous. I think everyone would agree the difference between ColonelHenry and Grawp are huge. The other problems (not in order of severity) are: Who decides how long individual records are kept? What guidance are they following? What checks are made to certify they understand the principles of data protection? What data protection training (if any) have they had? What oversight processes are in place to check that decisions made are correct and to revisit previous decisions? (Although this last one I would have suspected would be covered under AUSC, but given their actual output, I doubt anyone on AUSC is trained well enough to know what sort of questions need to be asked). Recently a member of WMUK with advanced permissions ran checkuser against a user that had not edited in three years and the original offence was nowhere near to being long term abuse under any definition. I didnt get clear answers then either over what data was still being kept for that length of time and AUSC gave it an all-clear, which leads me to believe that current practice is neither comprehensively documented, compliant with the WMF's stated data rentention policy or even following a basic best practice. I am scheduled to have a chat with Courcells when he returns on the 13th about this subject, so I would suggest dropping it until then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - As an update because there's interest, BASC has/is reviewing the evidence from the SPI, and some responses to it from JackTheVicar, and will hopefully resolve the appeal shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 8 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 17 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with nine seats open, there is absolutely no reason not to stand. There's also no reason for the traditional shyness about nominating before the final day. If you think you have the time, the interest and the experience for the job, then go for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are reasons not to stand. Such as not enough time, thinking that you won't be able to do it...--Müdigkeit (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or not wanting to have to learn another bureaucracy. Beyond My Ken, I think it's time you got off your butt and filed your application. Yngvadottir, you too. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did these two editors do to piss you off so much, Drmies? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly consider voting for both of these nominees. I'll leave it to them to decide if that's an endorsement or a form of revenge. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from the problem that I am not an admin and there's never been a non-admin arbitrator, that I'm as likely to be elected as Vladamir Putin is to be appointed head of the National Security Agency, that I don't have the sort of personality that deals well with the kind of work ArbCom has to do or the way they have to do it, and that I totally, utterly, and adamantly don't want to do it, I can't see any really substantial objections to my standing for the job. BMK (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't see any really substantial objections." Perfect. I'll take that as a yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll appeal to the highest court! BMK (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a number. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DS block appeal

Copied from [48] NE Ent 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DHeyward (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the administrators' noticeboard. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." DHeyward (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the mens rea consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --DHeyward (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, substituting blocking administrator with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@HighInBC: Gamaliel had already addressed it as an AE case and said "No action" if I didn't repost the material. How Mitchell, who has already had a block of mine overturned at AE became aware of deleted edits, related them to a noticeboard ban regarding another editor and took action without reviewing that it had already been dealt with by the admin that imposed the topic ban deserves scrutiny. Why me, why then, why a deleted edit, and why after the sanction implmenting admin declined action deserves scrutiny. AE 1 ArbCom case clearly states that admin closures with no admin action are AE actions. Mitchell undid this and acted out of process by blocking after the original admin dealt with it. It's an out of process block and Mitchell is once again absent to address this, just as he was absent in his first block which was overturned at AN. I don't care to know why he unblocked MarkBernstein out of process by undoing Kww's block or why he hsa found it necessary to block me with specious reasons for hte second time. He just needs a new hobby. Also, someone needs to review the reasoning for deleting my edits under BLP grounds. Nothing I said was false nor was a living person identifiable unless they were twitter fans of that person (which makes them involved but still not a BLP violation as they know the tweets occurred.). --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End material copied from DHeyward's talk. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider my reaction of "I don't want to deal with this, I'm on my way to work soon" to be an "admin closure" that is binding on HJ Mitchell or anyone else. Since I communicated with DHeyward via email, no other admin had any way of knowing about our communication.
HJ Mitchell is allowed to have a life outside of the encyclopedia.
The edits I rev-deleted did not name an individual but contained more than enough information to clearly identify the specific person.
DHeyward has violated this topic ban several times without being sanctioned and has a history of boundary pushing in this area. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of block

I have reviewed the deleted edits. This is not a BLP violation (no individual is named in any way) and it is not a violation of the discretionary sanctions. This is, unfortunately, a hazard when the same administrators work too much in a given topic area; they start to assume things that aren't really written. Recommend unblock and reversion of the deletions. Risker (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the same way. It's all too cryptic. That doesn't make it a helpful comment, but "unhelpful" is not a valid block reason. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know DHeyward as well as anyone on this site and am well versed in his editing and this issue and damned if I could figure out what made this a BLP violation and or a breech of an arbcom sanction. This matter is one reason something needs to be done about AE as well as the first mover advantage in an AE decision. Alas, I am but a lowly defrocked admin so what do I know.--MONGO 06:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far I've refrained from commenting about the contents of the edit, but it seems I will have to. The rev-deletion may have been overly cautious on my part, but I did it because the edit contained allegations of off-site wrongdoing. DHeyward is topic banned from discussing Mark Bernstein and the edit clearly references him. DHeyward mentions being "threatened" by a PhD; Bernstein is the only person with a PhD involved in editing Gamergate, and this is well known by everyone involved. (In a previous topic ban violation, if I recall correctly, DHeyward alluded to Bernstein's undergraduate alma mater, so it's clear DHeyward is familiar with Bernstein's academic pedigree.) To make the matter unambiguous, DHeyward made a second edit to add the word "Shameless", the name of Bernstein's anti-Gamergate blog post which was heavily quoted by The Guardian and other news coverage of the GG Arbcom decision. This is not an obscure reference for experienced GG-editors and admins; the title of the post is frequently mentioned on-wiki, including by Bernstein himself - so much so that other editors have accused him of self-promotion. This is merely the latest in a series of digs at Bernstein where DHeyward has pushed the boundaries of his topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is confusing to some folks. The topic ban is for DHeyward to avoid interacting with, filing complaints about or discussing Bernstein. So, if he received a short-term block for violating his topic ban, it's pretty clear what he did...he referred to Bernstein in his edits. This wasn't a BLP violation, it was a violation of his interaction ban. And for anyone who has ever edited a Gamergate-related article or read GG discussions on wiki or at off-wiki sites, it's clear who DHeyward was referring to in his remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, no issue that the other guy ~~ho is not bound by the same finding~~ can send an email to an admin who had a previous block made against the same editor overturned now have the opportunity to rectify that situation by placing a new block for "short duration" eight hours after the "obvious" posts were deleted. Sounds punitive, vindictive and just plain wrong to me...--MONGO 19:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward is able to email whoever he wants, as he has done frequently with this matter. There is no restriction on either party in regards to private communications, nor do I think we can regulate such things. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: not a BLP vio, not a DS vio. I read the entire thread (time I'll never get back) and still can't figure out who the "specific person" is. We don't block by Kremlinology nor by assumption because the user has violated his topic ban before (if he has; apparently not in a way to be blocked for it, so perhaps not). Unblock and undelete. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Unblock, undelete per Bishonen. While intentions may be good, I think we are collectively getting too quick on the trigger with Arb related sanctions as of late. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for being absent. I remained online for a reasonable period of time after making the block and heard nothing, but I can't be online all the time; I have two jobs, a social life, and various other commitments, and this appeal was launched in the very early hours of the morning my time. It seems clear to me, not least from DHeyward's arrival in the thread shortly after MarkBernstein's comment that this is a continuation of those two editor's interpersonal dispute. The two of them have been subtly needling each other, and accusing each other of doing so, for months, to the extent that Gamaliel banned each from discussing the other. When this comment came to my attention, my first instinct was to quietly remind DH that he should be keeping his distance from MB so went to WP:DSLOG to check Gamaliel's exact wording only to see that Gamaliel had logged a warning to DH for a previous violation of the restriction, so I felt that a short block was the appropriate response to enforce the restriction and prevent yet further violations. I chose 48 hours as a short duration in recognition of DH's mostly clean block log and to avoid the sanction seeming overly punitive while being long enough that it would not go completely unnoticed. Essentially, my position is that editors who are in dispute should leave each other alone, and should not disrupt the project by exporting their dispute to other areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not reasonable to expect any editor to be online 24/7. Given HJ has responded with ~24 hours of the block he has clearly satisfied WP:ADMINACCT. NE Ent 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At WP:DSLOG it states "MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:DHeyward and User: Thargor Orlando and restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to those users without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)"....but you responded to an email notification about this from Mark Bernstein....so is email exempt?--MONGO 19:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty clear that the only two people who believe that the deletion and block were appropriate are the deleting and blocking admins. Based on the consensus of the review, I will unblock and undelete. Risker (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Removing the block and the rev-deletion are one thing, but do you really think it's appropriate to restore a comment where one editor calls another one a "low-life"? ~~I'm going to remove (but not rev-delete) the comment again unless someone presents a policy-based reason why it should remain contrary to WP:NPA.~~ Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Risker: First, I don't think that's true. Others have commented and stated that there was a topic ban violation. Secondly, why I don't object to a 'time served' unblock, your restoration of the edit that was removed is totally inappropriate. If you do not know that edit is DH obviously needling Bernstein and violating his topic ban, then you need to step back from this and re-read what has transpired between the two editors. Now, I will admit that both need to stay away from each other, but that can be difficult when one of them is directing innuendos and posts toward the other on the same pages. That is why there wasn't an interaction ban, so they could edit the same articles, but just not discuss each other. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Risker: It seems that 9 editors in the approx 16 hours you left this open commented- yourself, Mongo, NE Ent, HJ Mitchell, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, Liz, Gamaliel, and Drmies. Of these nine people, four disagreed with the sanctions put in place. I don't believe four out of nine is a clear consensus, nor do I believe that 16 hours is a very long time to leave it open. You disagreed with it on the grounds that it wasn't a BLP violation, but unfortunately the deletion and blocking weren't related to BLP at all. I urge you to reconsider what seems to be an attempt at bypassing due process in an unblock review. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was a good block, and I agree with the unblock. NE Ent 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I hope you'll be charitable enough to agree with this proposition: you hadn't agreed with the proposed unblock here, to be included in this consensus, before that comment just then. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty clear that the only two people who believe that the deletion and block were appropriate are the deleting and blocking admins. This is not true at all, Risker, for some reason you think this is a BLP violation when it is the violation of a clearly stated topic ban, one that applies to three different editors. They are not supposed to talk about each other. I don't understand how you can't see this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risker said it wasn't a BLP; it was Gamaliel who brought up BLP when he rev-del'd the edit [49]. NE Ent 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'm not going to remove it myself, though I strongly urge the editors and admins here to remove this personal attack. I'm going to step away from this, as I no longer wish to be the intermediary between these two camps. It's clear there is some dissatisfaction with the way HJ Mitchell and I handled this situation, so I have removed the restrictions which prevent these editors from opening new enforcement requests so other administrators can bring a fresh perspective to their dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: First, note that my comment explicitly addresses the discretionary sanctions, not just BLP issues. Secondly, this is not just an unblock request, it is a review of administrator actions because of the block being an AE block; thus, the comments (appreciated as they are) from the two administrators involved don't count toward the consensus. The 48-hour block was itself more than half-way expired, thus the limited period of review; if it had been a week- or month-long block, of course a longer review period would be expected. That DHeyward had a belief that any concerns about the edits had been addressed is perhaps a minor point here; we all know that just because Admin A doesn't block doesn't mean Admin B can't, especially when none of the discussion of sanction takes place onwiki. Finally, talking about being outed on Twitter, without any mention of activity onwiki, is getting far too precious; but if reading between the lines is what it takes to justify the block (and it is very much reading between the lines) then the same can be said of some of MB's edits on the very same page. Nobody's suggesting sanctioning him (myself included). I'm fine with someone reverting the edit.
As a last response, Liz, I am sorry that I did not explicitly reference your position on this review. You did indeed indicate that you believed it was an appropriate AE sanction. Risker (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of two former accounts belonging to Peter Damian

Hello. I'm bringing this here because I've renounced directly involving myself with the blocking tool.

I'd like to request that someone unblock Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Renamed user 5 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). These two accounts were briefly used by Peter Damian in 2007/8. As is well known, his 2009 ban was decisively overturned on this noticeboard in April this year. However, looking at the contributions for these accounts will show a pink block notice stating that the account is blocked "per Jimbo", and including his current user name. This is obviously no longer true, so the accounts should be unblocked. The user pages and user talk pages were also still fully protected and displaying ban notices, all of which I've removed.

I requested this originally directly of Worm That Turned, as he performed the unblock in April. However, he was reluctant to do this request as, as he "believe[s] that generally accounts created to evade a block should remain blocked even after the main account is unblocked." I believe there is no harm in unblocking these old accounts, and in fact we are required to do it. My logic is:

Blocking old accounts does not prevent someone from creating more accounts, so these old blocks serve no current purpose.
PD's unblock under the terms of the standard offer are sufficient guarantee against any future use of secondary accounts. I am quite sure that he would be willing to provide an assurance against his doing so if asked for one.
Which is academic, as PD now has an account in good standing, so has no reason to use any other account.
The block notices on these accounts misrepresent the consensus of the community as determined in April 2015.

Lest this be seen as needless fiddling, the block notices are easily accessed from visible locations. For example, I happened across these accounts from seeing that the "4" account was the creator of Chelsea, London, as will any other user of the XTools gadget and probably other enhancements.

Thank you for your consideration. — Scott • talk 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow did I really start the article on Chelsea? I can't believe I wrote "the comfortable squares off the King's Road are homes to the English establishment, particularly military, American investment bankers and film stars, and latterly the sexy pop siren Kylie Minogue". Ha. Wikipedia was a very different place in 2003, and has probably changed for the better, despite what I sometimes say. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, since you have seen the thread, could you pls tell us what you think of the possible unblock of these accounts. For example, if you do not care, I do not think they should be unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK turning to serious matters, I have no intention of using either of these accounts, as is obvious from the renaming, and I would prefer them unblocked. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to unblock these. Renamed user 4 is just Peter Damian's old account - and has his original contribution history going back to 2003. Renamed user 5 is harmless and I can't see any point making a fuss about it. If they edit, they can aways be reblocked. @Peter Damian: - would you like Renamed user 4 renamed to something like "Peter Damian (old account)" so you are better credited for your old edits? WJBscribe (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WJBscribe - especially since I didn't catch that the 4 account was actually PD's original account. I think that renaming it as you suggest would definitely be good to give credit where credit is due. — Scott • talk 12:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For good order, I have also unblocked Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs). To avoid confusion with that account, maybe a better new name for Renamed user 4 would be "Peter Damian (original account)" or similar. WJBscribe (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all this. "Peter Damian (old account/original account)" or something like that would be fine, and I will link on my user page as an alt account. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done - see Peter Damian (original account) (talk · contribs). WJBscribe (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the interests of full and complete disclosure, there are quite a few of the post-2009 accounts left. Some have been blocked, some haven't. These were never used abusively, but as part of my continued involvement in the project. See e.g. History of logic, a significant part of which was written by such accounts. Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the block notice from "Peter Damian (Old)" and redirected it to your current user page, along with the accounts I originally posted about. Yes, I see that now about the other accounts - Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian and these ones. I think the best (simplest) thing to do would be to unblock the lot and redirect them to User:Peter Damian. You can answer any queries about them at a later date, should someone have one. I'm happy to do the redirects if someone will do the unblocks. — Scott • talk 14:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:ARBPIA cover Jews and Palestinians?

I recently reported two users for reverting each other at Jews, believing both to have violated the 1RR of WP:ARBPIA. Turns out I made a mistake, as the article currently is not covered by WP:ARBPIA. Having watched it for a long time, I think this omission is a mistake. Jews (and to some extent Palestinians see quite intense disputes and these are never about Jewish culture in 17th century Poland or Palestinian culture in 17th century Palestine, but very often about "how was there first" and "from whom do modern Jews/Palestinians originate". These questions are directly linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sides try to up their own claim to the land. Furthermore, the most active editors engaged in these disputes are almost always the same editors engaged in other ARBPIA-covered articles about the conflict. As the disputes at Jews and Palestinians are directly linked to the area covered by WP:ARBPIA, and see much more conflict than many articles currently covered, I suggest ARBPIA be extended to these two articles. Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, if you wish to argue that the scope of discretionary sanctions for ARBPIA should be extended, you should post a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment where the arbitration committee can consider your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz! I hesitated about the right place to ask about it. Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, Clarification and amendments would benefit from more community participation and discussion. As long as you post a neutrally-worded statement regarding your proposal, once you've posted your request, I think you should notify those people and WikiProjects that would be affected by a change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards