Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Can someone please replace the Talk page of ANI?[edit]

The ANI talk page is for whatever reasons a hard redirect to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but there is no visible edit history so no way for civilians to undo that. ANI has more extant watchers that AN, and thus needs its own talk page. I'd like to put the message about avoiding too-soon archiving on its talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just a redirect (Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) although it is fully protected. It was last edited in March 2008. I think it should be left as-is, but you might raise any WP:ANI archiving issue at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close with a ping to the editor. Thanks for your efforts: I agree with the idea of keeping a closed section for 24 hours, and there should not be a race among editors to see who can be first to archive sections. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a question: If someone has ANI on their watchlist, but not AN, do they see edits on the AN talkpage? Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Watchlist notifications would be for changes to the redirect not for changes to the redirect's target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain why ANI does not have a dedicated talk page, then? Softlavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Almost certainly because there is or was a desire to centralise discussion about the noticeboards. See WP:TALKCENT. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel[edit]

A clarification request at WP:ARCA has been opened in regards to this incident. Additionally, the original purpose of this thread (to discuss the unblock appeal of Stadscykel) has been moot for some time now, as the user has been unblocked. As such, this thread no longer serves any useful purpose. I would encourage editors with further comments to make on the subject check out the thread here. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While browsing CAT:RFU as I often do, I came across this unblock appeal by Stadscykel. They have been given a 48hr block arbitration enforcement block, per WP:ARBBLP by Coffee, who I will notify shortly. Stadscykel has requested that their appeal be posted here. It bears noting that Stadscykel has not been given the discretionary sanctions warning at any time relating to WP:ARBBLP. Browsing their contributions, it also worth noting that they have not contributed to any talk page discussion and would not have noticed the warning posted there. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel notified
Coffee notified Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy unblock: Terrible, terrible, block - one of the worst I've ever seen. No warning given at all, no way of the editor to know what was expected. The editor in question made a single edit, was warned, but then got slapped with a block after not doing any more. User:Coffee has some serious explaining to do. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sppedy unblock -with the exceptions of likely bots working at high speeds, sockpuppetry, legal threats, and blatantly bad usernames (none of which apply here), we absolutely never block an account over an edit without the user having been warned and having continued the bad edits after the warning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: in fact, the wording in question was previously discussed on that page, and Stadscykel was, in fact, merely adding back the consensus wording. StAnselm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the blocked user's reasoning, I have now unblocked User:Stadscykel. Should further discussion here lead to the conclusion that User:Coffee's block was correct I have no objection to a reblock being carried out, but that seems unlikely. WaggersTALK 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. (emphasis added)

Either you didn't know there needed to be a "clear and substantial consensus", or you actually think 3 editors with no experience in enforcement actions constitute one... either way, those aren't acceptable answers and I don't think you should be making administrative decisions in this area. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The block can't be a DS block as the editor was not aware per awareness and alerts. Per Awareness and alerts
"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
1.The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
2.The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
3.The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."
--Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, which is the relevant policy when dealing with page restrictions. Page restrictions have a different warning system than other DS. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:, that page also says "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." Is there any reason why you failed to log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2? StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The page restrictions were logged, and one can easily see that in the section. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the page restriction, but about the sanction. But I think you're right - the sanctions don't have to go in the log. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
While you were allowed to block him under page restrictions, you were not allowed to make it a DS block without the editor being aware. Since it's not a DS block, any admin can unblock per normal unblock rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Waggers: You should voluntarily reinstate the block until there is consensus. I'm aware of at least two admins that were desysopped specifically for reversing an Arbitration Enforcement block out of process. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it is necessary for Waggers to reverse the unblock at this time. I'm familiar with the rules about reversing AE blocks out of process, but I am not sure whether they have been applied to blocks that, while based on an arbitration ruling, were never the subject of any discussion at AE. In any event, while we can debate how much of a consensus for an unblock is required, I see support for an unblock here from at least two uninvolved administrators and I am going to be the third.

There is indeed a warning that comes up when an editor seeks to edit the Clinton or Trump articles, to the effect that: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I can understand why this editor did not perceive this warning as relevant to the edits he was going to make, if indeed he noticed it at all. He did not make more than one revert (indeed, it is not alleged he made any revert). And, from the unblock request, and Stadscykel's limited editing history in this area, it is apparent that Stadscykel had no idea that he was making a "potentially contentious edit."

The purpose of requiring warnings before invoking discretionary sanctions against editors who have not been sanctioned before—which is a requirement that I personally wrote into the sanctions procedures when I was an arbitrator—is to avoid having good-faith editors entrapped by requirements they are unaware of. When an editor knowingly violates revert restrictions, edits against consensus, and the like, that is one thing and perhaps in clear cases of such things, a generic warning in an editnotice might possibly be sufficient.

In this case, though, we have a good-faith editor who thought he was making good-faith improvements to two prominent articles. If counseled that his edits were impermissible, I'm sure that he wouldn't have made or repeated them. This is not an editor who is trying to weasel out of a sanction by making a technical argument about warning levels. This is not an editor with some POV to push, about American politics or Trump or Clinton or religion or anything else. Rather, this is a good-faith editor who tried to make what he thought was a good-faith improvement to two high-profile articles, got caught up in the bureaucracy, and must now be wondering "WTF?" at all of us. The unblock should stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on. There's a reason why that wording was chosen in the page restriction, and I'm literally the only active enforcement admin I know of on these articles. Perhaps if you reviewed the many months long discussions that have gone into religions being, or not being, in the infoboxes you'd understand why such a seemingly trivial edit was block worthy. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: I know and you know of the long discussions about these candidates and about religion in infoboxes. The point is that Stadscykel clearly didn't. If you wanted to "discuss this with the editor," then as an uninvolved enforcement administrator (which I appreciate), you had every right to discuss it with the editor. You accomplish that by discussing it with the editor, that is, by posting a note on his talkpage explaining what the issue is and how he should edit differently. There is no reason to believe he would not have taken your guidance into account in future editing. Even in discretionary sanctions areas, blocking should very rarely, if ever, be the administrator tool of first choice in response to good-faith edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't write the requirements for page restriction warnings, ArbCom did. If you feel that an editnotice is not sufficient, you need to take that up with ArbCom and get them to change the policy. But, right now, the policy states that an editnotice is all that is needed. Whether their edits were good-faith or not is something I refuse to presume, that's why the warning was made so absolutely clear. If the editor had shown that they intended to discuss such edits in the future, (which what the restrictions are intended to force on these articles), then yes I would have unblocked them myself. But, I didn't even get a chance to do that before logging in today to see this. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Obviously you and I disagree on what would have been the best approach to this situation. Rather than repeat myself or even amplify, I'd be interested what others may think, particular admins with experience in contentious areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:, I really you need to step back from things here. The fact that you can't see how your block was out of order is very disturbing. As I mentioned above, the edit was actually in accord with the specific consensus on that page. Even if Stadscykel had read and understood the warning, he might still have gone ahead. He did not make any reverts; he did not make a controversial edit contrary to consensus. He was not given a warning. Instead, he was slapped with a 48-hour block. As I said, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that you can't see this, won't apologise, and won't back down. And that makes me wonder whether you should be making any blocks at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh go find some other pot to stir StAnselm. You literally say this every time I have a block review, and it's getting old. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, I'd forgotten about previous interactions here, but now I see that I said in 2013, "I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy." Also in 2013 was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#User:Coffee, which was also about your misuse of the admin tools. I think they were the only ones, but they do suggest a pattern. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if nothing, what should the community do about it? StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The honest answer, getting past your hyperbole, is that I need more admin support on these articles. This could have easily been avoided if I knew another admin would be online to enforce the page restriction when I logged off. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but it seems like this sort of thing could easily happen again, and that's not an acceptable outcome. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It won't happen again if more admins start volunteering to watch these articles (which have been subject to abhorrent violations, which caused the restrictions in the first place). It's really that simple of a solution. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that these and related articles have been subject to "abhorrent violations" does not, by any possible rationale, justify blocking for inadvertent minor violations (much less for edits that arguably are not violation at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the how much of a consensus is required to reverse a DS block, I do agree with Newyorkbrad that Stadscykel probably didn't know that this was a contentious area. To anyone not familiar with this particular mire it would seem a very routine change. I do think that a more articulate back and forth of words could have prevented this block.

I also think Coffee should have been given time to respond here before action was taken. In my experience they are very receptive to the concerns of the community. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have likely handled it without this even making it to AN, this block was for purely preventative purposes - nothing more. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was a monumentally bad one, as sanctions should not be applied to a good faith editor making one edit that it is reasonable to assume they might not have known was controversial. Speaking to the editor on their talk page to explain the problem should have been the first step here, not stomping straight in with a block to stain their untainted record. Also, I find Coffee's complete inability to hear what multiple experienced editors (including a number of admins and an ex-arb) are saying here - such intransigence reinforces the bad image of admins that so many people have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not that I don't hear them, it's that we disagree on our approaches. Like I've said above, if more admins volunteered to be enforcement admins on these articles I wouldn't worry about having to block for first offenses at all (outside of obvious libel or vandalism of course). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Trying to blame others for not being there doing the same work, and claiming that that forces you into blocking for good-faith first offences, is shameful - do you really have no sense of self-awareness here? Your block was wrong and your continuing arrogance in defence of it is wrong, it's as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Not blaming anyone, just stating a fact. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You're saying "If X, then I wouldn't have to do Y", where there's a very clear consensus among your peers that Y is wrong and you should not do it regardless of X. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus and accept your mistake. That is not how admins are supposed to behave. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking over Coffee's block log, a see a similar (but slightly different) situation happened a couple of weeks ago - User:Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. What makes it different to this situation was that Aaaaaabbbbb111 had introduced a (presumably) controversial edit here, it was reverted without comment or discussion here, and then Aaaaaabbbbb111 reinstated the edit with a reference. For this, Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. I realise that this comes out of an ArbCom decision, and the talk page warning is a strong one, but again there is no evidence that Aaaaaabbbbb111 even saw the talk page. This sort of blocking has got to stop. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comment: In any case, I really don't think Coffee is blocking "according to the rules". If these blocks are made per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, then the rule stated there must apply: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Now, does the warning that appears when you click "edit" count? Apparently not: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months... the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Wait? Isn't the article warning an alert? No, it is specifically defined as follows: these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message... is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. So there you have it - Stadscykel and Aaaaaabbbbb111 did not receive the necessary DS warning. Am I wikilawyering? Perhaps. But what Coffee is doing is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. The only question that remains is whether we should ask ArbCom to rule on this. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel's comment[edit]

It's probably my turn to say something here. To answer all the questions here, let me go through the bullet points:

  • No, I had no idea that there is some controversy regarding religion in infoboxes. All I've seen is a number of articles on politicians all across the political spectrum, from Newt Gingrich (by the way, how could I guess that his former religions were somehow more notable than Trump's or Clinton's current ones?) to Elizabeth Warren, and I presumed that the articles simply lack that information - well, Wikipedia is not complete yet, isn't it?
  • Let me quote the warning: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." And let's go through it:
    • "not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" - obviously not applicable.
    • "must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits" - how does one exactly expected to know what "potentially contentious" means? Well, I would say that claiming that Trump is not a Presbyterian (I'm sure there's a lot of speculation about it out there) - now that's something contentious, and I would never write anything like that.
    • "are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" - alright, let's read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions then:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

  • The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  • The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  • The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
Obviously, neither of that applies to me. Which brings us to the following point:
  • "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware [...]". The application of "arbitration enforcement" to me was never allowed from the beginning, and User:Coffee's reference to the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal is therefore invalid - I was never allowed to be sanctioned from the beginning. Because of this, Coffee's idea to "reinstate the block until there is consensus" cannot be seriously considered.

Now, let me answer to some other comments made by Coffee.

  • "I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on". Wow, thanks for the provided ability by blocking me e.g. from this discussion! After I've done my edits, User:Guy Macon has indeed left a comment on my talk page (User_talk:Stadscykel#Controversial_edits) so it became known to me that the content of the infoboxes is that controversial. By the way, I actually thank Guy Macon for the warning - I guess if I unknowingly proceeded with making similar edits I would have blocked by Coffee for a year - or probably indefinitely? You never know what punishment is sufficient for such a vandalizing editor like me.
  • "this block was for purely preventative purposes" - and once again, I have received the warning and never continued to make similar edits. If we try to follow Coffee's logic, every editor should be blocked just in case they suddenly decide to break the rules of the project - that's probably not such a good idea? (Coffee should really read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals, by the way.)


I do not intend to provide my opinion in this discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be a part of the infoboxes (nor is it relevant to this discussion), but it is now known for me that there is a consensus against the religion field. Meanwhile, I have spent a lot of time finding out how to make an appeal to unblock, read the rules regarding blocking, unblocking, and arbitration enforcement originally written for obviously disturbing edits and not any good-faith edits like mine (Wikipedia:Assume good faith anyone?) - and I could have spent that time editing actual Wikipedia articles instead. Instead, I have seriously considered quitting the project altogether, because volunteering under such vague rules ("one can always expect an instant block following any edit") just did not seem right.

It is now clear for me that User:Coffee's actions can only be described as misuse of administrative tools, and I urge the community to seriously consider applying sanctions to Coffee. I have no opinion on what kind of sanctions can or should be applied to Coffee, and this is absolutely not some kind of personal revenge for me, but a necessity in order to protect other good-faith users from Coffee's unjustified rulings. Best regards, Stadscykel (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this long note, Stadscykel. These edge cases can be hard to deal with, and we sometimes screw up. I think everyone is sorry about the way this turned out. It seems that User:Coffee was technically following "the rules" as written, even though, in hindsight, everyone can see a better way to approach it. Rather than sanctioning Coffee for making the effort to work in a complex and dispute-prone area (and it is very hard, with people ready to scream at the slightest less-than-perfect outcome), I think it might make more sense to fix up our procedures. If we don't address the gap between "the rules" and "best practice", then this sort of thing will just happen again in the future, with the only difference being a different admin and a different article and a different editor being completely surprised by a block. With your recent frustrating experience, I would not be surprised if you better understand the importance of preventing a recurrence of this situation, than anyone else in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I agree that a clarification of the rules is needed in that case, for example it would be logical to assume that there should be a clear list of violations for which blocks without an initial warning can be issued, otherwise editing any article e.g. on Eastern Europe (another "area of conflict" according to the rules) turns into a minefield for new editors. My problem here though is Coffee's unwillingness to recognize their wrongly (as per opinions on this page) issued block, instead it has been suggested by them that my block should be reinstated. Stadscykel (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I am entirely open to discussing anything about the merits of the block itself, but it is simply not correct to state that sanctions were not allowed. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions (the relevant piece to that ArbCom policy) clearly states: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. ... Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The policy page does not state anywhere that the "Page restrictions" section somehow invalidates the rest of the page. Besides, if there's an explicit consensus prohibiting the addition of the religion field, it should have been mentioned in the mentioned template, Template:ds/editnotice. The idea that stating "Religion: Presbyterian" in an article stating as a matter of fact (Donald_Trump#Religious_views) "Trump is a Presbyterian" should be seen by any editor not aware of the previous discussions as "potentially contentious" is ridiculous. The rest of the page says e.g.:
  • "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion"
  • "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict"
  • "[...] administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum"
  • "For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans"
As far as I understand from the page, the section you mention simply allows the administrators to choose to which pages the rules descripted in the rest of the policy would apply. I see no source confirming that the rest of the policy is invalid in this case. Stadscykel (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, that's just plain wrong. Stadscykel was not allowed to make uncontroversial edits without consensus. Quite apart from whether or not what he added was "controversial", and whether he not he was aware of various previous discussions, there was indeed explicit consensus to include the words, per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11# Donald Trump Religion. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware here. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of that page cannot override the total community consensus that was established at the village pump to depreciate the religion parameters. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, once again this raises the question as to how Stadscykel could possibly have known all that. But religion parameters are still, it seems, allowed in some infoboxes (under certain conditions), so there is no reason to believe that the local consensus is being used to override the total community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that. Just saying that perhaps the best course of action would be to actually enforce the community wide RfC and remove the parameter from the infobox options. That way, this "contentious" edit would be technically impossible in the future. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, we have a parameter in the template with a capital punishment for use? A big red button with an obscure, hidden instruction, "Do not push!" ??? That sounds like an ANI waiting to happen. <Joke>Let's leave it in the template and see how many others we can catch! </joke> Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: The language you cite still leaves some room for interpretation. In my view, the key phrase is Editors ignoring page restrictions.... In my view, to ignore a restriction requires that you know of the restriction's existence, and violate it anyway, thus ignoring it. To me, this fits with the general design of discretionary sanctions, which require prior knowledge of the existence of the sanction. That said, I can also see how you could interpret it differently. In fact, the definition of ignore includes both interpretations, though according to Wiktionary, yours is obsolete. Perhaps Arbcom should clarify the language to avoid this type of issue. Monty845 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no serious ambiguity requiring clarification. An interpretation suggesting that an editor may be blocked for a first-time good-faith edit made with no knowledge that it was in violation of any policy or sanction would be so contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that no one can have intended such an interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NYB as you well know, this place has a lot of rules, and it is difficult to make broad pronouncements that don't have an exception here or there. For example, your broad pronouncement that we could never possibly intend to block an editor for a good faith edit without knowledge of a violation of policy sounds eminently reasoanble, except... it isn't true. If a brand-new editor creates the user name XYZ corp and edits XYZ corp, they get blocked. No notice, no warning no anything except a block. And it appears we intend to do this as it happens every day. I clean up after literally hundreds of these cases. They get an explanation which is often not understood. You and I both know why they are blocked, and know it is not a big deal but they don't know that until I do some hand-holding. My point is that we do impose rules that sound reasonable, then have actual cases that follow the rules and we realize we need to rethink the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Well, that's obviously a different situation from what I have in mind, but I take your point. (I happen to think that the way in which we interact with new editors in the circumstances you describe is very troublesome, and I've said so for years, but let's not divert this discussion in that direction.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The relevant part of the username policy is: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I assume you are talking about the above section, however the policy does not provide for blanket blocks of promotion/corp usernames that edit the 'corp' article. Merely creating a username "DavesHardware" and editing "Dave's Hardware" absent problematic editing is not blockable by the policy as written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
To be fair to the admins, many of them will not agree that a user "DavesHardware" who is editing "Dave's Hardware" is engaged in non-problematic editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Page restrictions are limited to "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." Coffee has at least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for random content restrictions, not less. Very disturbing that the interpretation was no notice about the list of "certain content" needs to be provided. --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on User:Coffee[edit]

Cannot be done here. --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In light of the bad block and Coffee's inability to see how it was bad, there seems to be competence issue here, as well a need to protect new and inexperienced editors from these sort of blocks. I therefore propose that User:Coffee be prohibited from blocking editors for a period of six months. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not We don't restrict admin tools. You have a problem with Coffee? Take it to ArbCom. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't think I've seen a blocking prohibition be requested against an admin! The issue has been discussed here, and I will echo Majora's comment above that if you would like to take this further, please contact ArbCom -- samtar talk or stalk 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not realistic This is not how we handle things. If you think you have a case take it to arbcom. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll withdraw this proposal, and possibly take the issue to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • See now I thought (hell, hoped) we were finally getting past the need for hyperbole in our discussion above, and then I see this. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm totally uninvolved here, but I usually always follow discussions that I find interesting across the three noticeboards (AN, ANI, ANEW), and that what I've been doing here. Coffee was not acting in bad faith, so I don't believe any sanctions against them or even an Arbitration Committee case are warranted. Let's all just move on and go on about our business. If something like this ends up happening again, it can be dealt with then, but mistakes happen—though note I'm not saying anyone made mistakes here—to the best of us and bringing out the pitchforks over something like this is rather unproductive. If something of this nature, for anyone, becomes a pattern, then yes, start off with a discussion and go from there; however, if it's just little mistakes every now and then, it's really no big deal—though just to make it clear again, I'm not saying anyone here made any mistakes. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not just the mistake, of course - it's the inability to see that it was a mistake that puts other new and inexperienced at risk. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No way. It's either ArbCom or nothing. Blocking is a fundamental tool for admins. Coffee was acting in good faith, there is no reason. I'm not sure if it was a mistake at all, or the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back to basics[edit]

The bottom-line issue here is that User:Stadscykel didn't know about the sanctions in place on those articles, so made good faith edits and was blocked for the privilege. From this conversation and others it's fair to surmise that Stadscykel is now aware of those restrictions and is very unlikely to repeat those edits - so a preventative block is no longer necessary. There are then discussions around whether or not User:Coffee was correct to block Stadscykel in the first place and, to a lesser extent, whether I was right to unblock the same user, and what sanctions either of us might face as a result if our actions were wrong. As mentioned above, those are matters for ArbCom, should anyone feel sufficiently strongly to raise a case there. My own view is that that would be a gross overreaction but the way is open should anyone wish to go down that route. Finally, Coffee mentions that these articles are under-patrolled from an admin perspective and that's something I'm sure we can all help out with. Unless I've missed anything in that summary, it seems there's nothing else to be said here. WaggersTALK 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that User:StAnselm has asked the Arbitration Committee about the issue (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_American_politics_2), and I would welcome any comments on this matter from other editors. Stadscykel (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say, except that when you're wrong, Coffee, you need to put your hand up and say "sorry, I've made a mistake". I think the reason this has carried on a bit and is now at ArbCom clarification is because there was clear agreement here that the block was a poor one. Then, instead of accepting that and apologising, you first tried to wikilawyer your way out of it and then when people still disagreed with that you tried to pass the buck by saying that the area is understaffed by admins. That may be so and it may even be a reasonable answer for why you've made a mistake, but you are responsible for your decisions and to try and pass the buck without admitting fault is not on. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on these points. I dropped a statement at the Arbitration clarification request, but will reiterate part of it here. A page restriction should not replace an individualised DS notification. Even if it did, given their sporadic editing history which should have been taken into consideration, Stadscykel should have received a warning on their talk page to remind them that DS was in force. Stadscykel made one edit to Donald Trump and one more to Hillary Clinton. In neither case could any reasonable, or even strictest, interpretation of the page restriction could this be viewed as "ignoring page restrictions". Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Tool to Help Transfer Files to Commons: MTC![edit]

Hi all, I have created a new tool, MTC!, to help transfer files to Commons. I'm looking for some victims beta-testers to help test and/or provide feedback about the tool. Any help would be appreciated! :) Thanks in advance, FASTILY 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When I open it, it asks for username and password. Is it looking for my WP info, my Commons info, or something unique to the program? BMK (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: It's asking for your WP info. -FASTILY 22:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Danke. BMK (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I gave it a try. Much easier to transfer than before and pleasantly surprised that it also automatically tagged the image as CSD F8. I'm curious what is the purpose of creating a transfer log. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear you like it! The transfer log lists the files you most recently transferred using the tool. Useful for statistics, or if you would like to manually review each file you transferred -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you offer an option to disable this? Not everyone wants this feature. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'll include this feature in the next release :) -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: I plan to give it a try, but before I do, can you clarify whether feeding a category into this will automatically transfer every page in the category without further review or whether I'll be able to manually give a yay/nay to each file as it comes up? ~ Rob13Talk 18:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it will transfer every eligible (the built-in filter skips over Commons-ineligible and files nominated for deletion) file in the category, because it assumes you have already completed a manual review (e.g. flagged copyvios for deletion, and fixed licenses for any file that may be ineligible for Commons). Think of MTC! as a dumb assistant that performs the grunt work after you've completed the paperwork :) -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright. That's a bit tricky for large categories, especially since files could be added while you're working through the "paperwork". I'm more likely to use it file-by-file as a result. Not sure if that fits in with your intended use or not, but thought you might want to know. ~ Rob13Talk 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I typically use it to transfer a user's uploads, which is pretty manageable given that most users don't have an insane number of uploads. I've included Category and Template selectors for those who like a challenge, and because it was easy to implement. -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comey recommends no prosecution[edit]

Heads up to anyone monitoring relevant articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy for non-Yanks. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
And for some of us Yanks, as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't delete pages[edit]

I'm attempting to delete Wikipedia:Ahmet Tan, Wikipedia:Admerasia, and Wikipedia:Adil Rasool, so I selected G6 from the dropdown and copy/pasted the same rationale into the "Other/additional reason" box: Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace (in all three cases, someone moved a page into the WP namespace by a misunderstanding or by picking the wrong option from a dropdown), but I can't delete anything: in all three cases, I clicked the "delete" link from the redirect's entry at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 4, modified the deletion reasons, and then hit the "Delete page" button as normal, and in all three caes, I got an HTTP 500 Internal Server Error message upon clicking that button. Any idea what's going on? I'm not having trouble performing normal edits, or I wouldn't have been able to leave you this message. If you're able to delete any of them, please leave a note at the relevant discussion section(s) at RFD. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: related to this error? Give it a moment and try again, as another admin has been able to delete a page they were struggling with. If it continues, may be worth a phab report? -- samtar talk or stalk 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been deleting pages for a hour or so and other than it being slow (then again, I've been admin for only a few hours now...) there have been no issues. Nyttend, does it still not work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed a database issue with a recent edit, so I'm guessing it was a short-term glitch.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 Works for me - I'm guessing temporary database error as well - I deleted one of the referenced pages above, you should be able to do the rest. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You both were right, see my comment here: --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Chilcot & Premptive protection?[edit]

Chilcot is giving his statement now on the Iraq Inquiry and the full text will be released in about 30 mins. It is likely to cause disruption at a number of articles (Tony Blair, Bush Jr etc) so would it be worth an admin pre-emptively semi-protecting the relevant articles? Or wait and see? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait and see... how thick the whitewash runs ;) Muffled Pocketed 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, the text is up here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have most of the potential hot spots watchlisted anyway. If it does get bad, yes we'd want to protect - but doing it preemptively shouldn't be option A. In the same vein - I'm also expecting shenanigans at Gretchen Carlson and Roger Ailes, on a totally unrelated matter - perhaps worse, given that it involves a sexual harassment lawsuit. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source creation request[edit]

2016 Paul Hunter Classic created, temporarily as a redirect to Paul Hunter Classic until Vinitsky14 edits and adds some actual content.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request creating source for the upcoming 2016 Paul Hunter Classic professional ranking snooker tournament, as it has been restricted to administrators. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems this is due to a title blacklist. I am not sure if this is the intended target or not. It will take some doing to figure out who added it. I can't find it in the blacklist talk page archive. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The same thing was with the article on the 2015 event, however it was created also after my request. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
If you start a draft then an admin will be more likely to move it for you than to create a blank page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The title blacklist entry appears to be the first entry in the "ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS" section. The only relevant discussion I can find is at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 3#David Beals which is from September 2013, but the filter predates that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I am thinking this is a false positive. We do have an article on the tournament in general: Paul Hunter Classic. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification regarding WP:INVOLVED[edit]

Edokter has requested a desysop "under a cloud" at WP:BN & deleted his userpage (see his message at the bottom of this thread), resolving any concerns of violations of WP:INVOLVED. Draft:Main Page & MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage / MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.js could be restored by any admin who thinks the community wants these pages (they all had multiple contributors and were not in userspace making G7 nor U1 technically inapplicable but I won't overturn the CSD myself if nobody wants them anyways.)  · Salvidrim! ·  19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Draft talk:Main Page#Warning User:Edokter claimed that WP:INVOLVED does not prevent him from using the tools in an RfC that he is heavily involved in.[1][2] May I have some clarification as to what is and is not allowed in such a situation, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reserve the right to remedy any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or ohterwise derail any ongoing discussion. So pot, meet kettle. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that we as a community do not trust you or any administrator to correctly identify "any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or otherwise derail any ongoing discussion" in discussions -- including RfCs -- where you are heavily involved and have expressed strong feelings. That's why, as a general rule and a good practice, you should ask an uninvolved administrator to take action in such cases. If there really is a policy violation, the uninvolved admin will see it and deal with it. Doing it yourself gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Add the bizarre edit-warring here as well. Edokter, I get that you're feeling stressed but please calm down; Arbcom has desysopped for much less blatant admin abuse. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter is completely incorrect when he says "WP:INVOLVED governs content disputes, not RfCs." He needs to look at the first sentence. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Comment in the RFC? Don't use the tools monitor it, shape it, or affect it in any way. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
NeilN, I don't think he's listening. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Edokter shows us the path forward, "Don't like it? Go to ArbCom." I see a couple people involved in the discussion who won't be shy in doing that. He really needs to take heed of, "...pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec) If editors arbitrarily start moving the pages under discussion and breaking the the new main page gadget (over 2000 users!), then nominating it for deletion to make a point, I regard that as sabotage, nothing less. Tell me how I am supposed to handle this? Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence and wait while the mob keeps derailing the entire discussion? I will, but only when anohter admin will take control and monitor all pages involved. Don't expect me to have to accept any further disruption while others are allowed to vandalize it; I will take any involved party to ArbCom myself. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence Yes, that is exactly what a clearly INVOLVED admin is expected to do. Now that this matter has the attention of multiple un-INVOLVED admins, please step back and let them handle it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Law of holes applies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of arbcom being the only resort to putting a stop to adminsbehavingbadly(TM). I don't understand the issues involved here, so I can't do anything about it. Arkon (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter I think that INVOLVED very much applies here. Please allow other admins to make decisions on how tools should be used in this area. If you insist on handling this yourself it will end badly. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I admit I am involved, but only because no one is backing me up. The is one simple solution: Stop sabotaging the the pages being discussed. Really folks, I will happily delete it all if that is the outcome. There is no reason to pre-empt any action. So, Which admin will step in to ensure that? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A key reason for not allowing INVOLVED admins to use the tools in situations like this is that you (generic and personally) are not able to objectively judge when something is or is not being sabotaged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED is very clear on this "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Suffice to say, the bold part is the important bit. There is no way Edokter is not involved, and threatening to block users to get his own way is clearly designed to chill discussion and intimidate others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Once again, I feel I am completely ignored. I JUST FUCKING ADMITTED I AM INVOLVED!!!!!. I askied for assistance, but again, no one is offering! SAY THE WORD and I AM OUT! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      • If you know you are involved, why are you threatening to block other users? Perhaps no one is offering any assistance because they dont feel it is required. You have been throwing around the word 'sabotage' however there is little evidence of such. Also 'the word'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Edokter other admins are looking at the situation, trust me you have gotten a lot of attention. Their goals may not be to further your cause or to prevent people from objecting to it. Surely you must have realized going in that changes to the main page have historically been an uphill battle. Without a consensus for your changes you may just have to accept that they may not be adopted. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
All I want is that everybody plays by the same rules. I am asking for assistance, but I get no affirmation of any kind, only the past being rehashed. All I need to hear is "OK, I keep an eye on it and make sure no further disruptions take place while the discussion is ongoing." Is that so much to ask? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It may be, if you expect others to strictly adopt your view of what is disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What is disruptive is pretty obvioushere; moving pages and breaking gadgets are the main examples here. Are you telling me those are not disruptive? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It depends. Did your own actions ensure something would break if these actions were reverted? Is the move undoing a prior undiscussed move? Is the move breaking anything or does it have support? Not always clear-cut. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It is disruptive to take any action after the discussion has been initiated. Had I not started it, I believe no one would even bother about it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It is similarly disruptive to misuse administrative privileges in order to promote this to the gadgets page, and to create gadgets without proper discussion — luring innocent editors to enable the gadget for what is a one-man project. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If that was disruptive, why haven't I had one single complaint in the one year it has been up? No, that is a pathetic argument. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter, please give it to us straight. You have read the comments here and elsewhere. Realistically, is there a reasonable chance that you will voluntarily stop doing the things that others are complaining about, or do we have to (in your words) "take it to Arbcom"? I don't want to revisit the reasons why you think you are right and I think you are wrong; I just want to know whether I should suggest that this be closed as being unlikely to be resolved at ANI, thus saving everyone a bunch of time and effort. So what say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have stopped since this thread started; that should be enough. It is almost if you don't want me to stop. It will be resolved when someone tells me that I no longer need to be afraid of the few opposers that think they can get away with disrupting the discussion that I always had every intention of following through, and sworn to abide by its outcome. But that is apparently not enough. I would like to know why I am held to higher standards then other editors (and not necesssarily as an admin), and why it is OK for ohter to disrupt, and not for me to correct. In simple terms, I am MORE then happy to follow procedures; all I ask is that others show me the same respect. And by that, I mean to just let the discussion run its course wihtout any premature action of any kind. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Edokter, you've made two threats in this thread alone[3], [4] and have yet to retract your threat on Talk:Main Page to abuse your admin bit to enforce whatever changes you want regardless of opposition. I concur with David below that unless and until you specifically retract all your threats, you shouldn't be trusted with the admin bit given that (regardless of whether you intend to follow them through) your threats and bluster are clearly intended to create a chilling effect. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Already rescinded below. All I expect in return is that you respect policy as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The actions about which Edokter is complaining were disruptive, but they stemmed largely from misunderstanding. Unless and until Edokter explicitly retracts his threat to block any user who "sabotages" his proposal, I no longer trust him with the admin bit. —David Levy 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And I only made that thread because the rest of the admin core failed to step in. I will retract my blocking threat. I still ask for some confirmation that further disruptions are handled by someone else. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to be crystal clear, did you just unconditionally agree to not use the admin tools in any RfC that you are involved in, or was that conditional, based upon some other admin agreeing to "step in"? I do apologize if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, but the distinction is important. If the answer is "unconditional" I am going to recommend that this and all related discussions be closed as "resolved, No admin action required". If the answer is "conditional", then I am going to start the process of opening an Arbcon case, starting at User:Guy Macon/Work In Progress#Draft Arbcom Case. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This report is misguided (IAR, NOTBURO). Edokter is one of the good guys who is working towards improving the main page, although some people think the main page is fine—a discussion for elsewhere. People started a move and a deletion discussion no doubt with wonderful intentions, but with a result that is 100% disruption. The subject is the main page—it's an important issue and should not be sidetracked with lame debates about the namespace or the letter-of-the-law at MfD. Now people have scented blood and are doubling down to force Edokter into submission—that is not helping anything at all. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I made some stupid mistakes which caused much of the above, so I'll not comment much beyond this post. I just want to ask someone uninvolved to undo Edokter's involved actions at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-NewMainPage and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage, and to make it clear to him that an edit summary like here is uncalled for (whatever errors I made otherwise, in that case I was turning a redlink I created into a correct bluelink again; blocking me (or threatening to block me) for that edit was totally out of line, as it was one of the few edits I made in this episode which were actually good). Fram (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But why should those edits be reverted? What purpose would be served other than to establish that rules are sacred? A fair guess would be that Edokter is the only person here with a good understanding of gadgets, and it would be reasonable to assume that his statement is correct. Of course in the heat of battle there was not an opportunity to ask him what he meant, but now that some reflection can occur, is there an urgent requirement that MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage be deleted? Is it so abhorrent that someone who has improved the use of CSS and JavaScript at Wikipedia for years should have a page to draft ideas relating to the main page? Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have undone both since no admin tools are required. WP:MFD explicitly states under what may be nominated here both Mediawiki and Gadget pages can be nominated there, so there is no procedural reason to not let the discussion run its course. Any discussion on the merits of the deletion needs to take place at the MFD nomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This fallout has been a long time coming, and I doubt it will stop here without serious changes to Edokter's "my HTML & CSS way, or the highway!" approach (a much longer-term problem), especially now that he's using threats of administrative action against anyone who gets in his way. Repeated threats, with hostile, temper-tantrum screaming, and repeated dares to take him to ArbCom, are unbecoming. If something like this happens again, someone will likely take him up on it, and might now anyway. The stark obvious fact of the matter is that threats to abuse administrative power when WP:INVOLVED are themselves an abuse of administrative power when involved. If a cop pulls you over and says "give me all your money or I'll shoot you", they're still abusing their authority even if though they did not shoot you or even put the gun to your head. I have no doubt whatsoever that ArbCom will see it that way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


After reflecting on this a bit, I have decided to retire. I will delete my user page, the gadget, and the new main page (they are private pet projects after al), and request on meta that my admin bit be removed.

This is not the first time an RfC has blown up in my face, each time by a few rogue editors who thought they could oprate outside process to derail the discussion, which after all is precicely what they intended. Both times I was left hanged to dry by the everyone else. So it is clear to my that volunteering is not possible because of those rogue forces, that claim to speak for the community, while the real community isn't allowed to fully participate by means of sabotage.

Congratulations to the rogue force: you won. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone should immediately de-sysop him before he goes on a deleting spree. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't grave dance. He asked to have his bit removed and hasn't done any deleting but his own creations. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not grave dancing at all. Read his promise here to delete not just his page but other things. There's no thing as "my creation" once I publish it on Wikipedia, it's Wikipedia's. Deleting a userpage is one thing, but other stuff should not be deleted. And once a person says "Retired" their sysop tools should be immediately revoked, there should even be a bot that does that at the first posting of the "retired" template. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Eh, fair enough. I felt like you painted his misconduct with a wide brush as though he might go deleting articles on all sides as he exited, bit I see your points. Also, I assume someone involved with his draft will ask to have it refunded: I thought it looked pretty nice myself. (post-close comment) Rebbing 19:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Edokter: I realize it's not my place, but I'll have my say anyway. This—all of this—was unnecessary: we have processes for calmly handling these things. Had your draft main page been deleted at MFD, you still had DRV, and, failing that, nothing kept you from working on it in your user space like any other user until it developed more interest. Still, it grieves me to see a valuable editor departing the project on these terms: I don't think you have to do this. I wish you the best. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Think this has probably run long enough: Think this could be closed, and, if appropriate, the result sent to the developers to institute? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms closed[edit]

A heads-up to everyone that Nakon, Deor, and I have closed the above RFC. Great thanks to Coffee and The Wordsmith for shepherding this process through to the end with a minimum of disruption and angst. Katietalk 20:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request from Wackslas[edit]

This proposal was declined a week ago. The standard offer requires ~6months of squeaky clean behavior, which has not been met. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I encountered this user via a UTRS request to make a standard offer request. I re-allowed talk page access so they could do that. They have asked that I post their request here[5]. At this point I will refrain from posting my opinion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my ban lifted. I was banned back in October 2015 and they said I can go for the standard offer which takes six months. It's been over eight months since I've been banned so that's why I want it lifted. Every time I've said this, I've been told I need to say more about it. Read carefully because I've said this every time I've asked for the block to be lifted. I also sent suggestions to edit Wikipedia while I've been BLOCKED (I said on my last UTRS appeal that it was while I was unblocked but that was a mistake on my part) and that shows my ongoing involvement in the community. Yes, I did have another account and that was why I was blocked but it was a minor mistake that happened late last year so I think it should be long forgotten now. Thank you. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Standard Offer request for Wackslas was only just archived. Does he get to keep asking everytime it's declined? Granted, there wasn't much discussion the last time.--Atlan (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This was just rejected a week ago, as seen in the edit above for among other things trolling on IRC. Is this going to be a weekly occurrance now? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @HighInBC: Were you aware of the recent request?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No I was not. Their e-mail said they had waited 8 months. If I had known they had asked so recently I would have declined it. Based on this I of course oppose. I also have no objection if someone wants to close this early. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Warnings[edit]

IP blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for 31 hours. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user: keeps reinstating block warnings on user:;s talk page even though she clearly does not want them there. I told user: that user: has the right to delete warnings from her own talk page and that he needs to leave her alone. However, he is continuing to reinstate unwanted warnings on her talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've imposed a short block to hopefully stop the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request DYK topic ban[edit]

This discussion acknowledged the hard work that both Fram and LavaBaron has been putting into DYK. The crux of the problem is that LavaBaron's contributions often fall short of the expected standard of front-page content on the English Wikipedia. Most editors consider it appropriate for Fram to be strict in his challenges of LavaBaron's submissions and promotions, but both LavaBaron and Fram fell somewhat short of the collegiality that is expected from Wikipedia editors in difficult discussions.

There was overwhelming consensus that LavaBaron's earlier block was unjustifiable. While an interaction ban between LavaBaron and Fram could reduce inflammation of future discussions, there was consensus that such an interaction ban would not benefit the quality of DYK. There was a weak consensus that some temporary restriction to LavaBaron will be appropriate, so that LavaBaron can receive oversight and advice from other editors. But many disagreed with a topic ban on the grounds that a topic ban would still be too excessive, and that a topic ban would mean that LavaBaron would not have the opportunity to improve.

As closing admin, I see Gerda's suggestion as a workable compromise. The restriction will mean LavaBaron cannot single-handedly promote a DYK hook, which will reduce the likelihood of inflamed situations caused by the emergency pulling of hooks from the queue. But it will also allow LavaBaron to continue participating in DYK under additional oversight from other editors. I shall flesh out the restriction as follows:

  1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
  2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
  3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
  4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor. Struck per discussion at DYK (and cross-posted to AN) Hobit (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

Deryck C. 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Addendum 13:58 UTC: The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request a topic ban for User:LavaBaron from Wikipedia:Did you know (shortened DYK) and all associated pages and processes. The problem is not that he or she introduces errors: this is a common occurrence at DYK, and most editors react constructively when real or perceived errors and problems with their hooks (the one-liners that appear on the Main Page) are pointed out and hooks get temporarily removed from the Main Page or the preparation areas to deal with the issues.

With LavaBaron though, the problems are not only too frequent (two articles he created were on the Main Page with an incorrect hook on 21 June 2016, and one article with an incorrect hook he had reviewed was set to go on the Main Page this week as well), but his reaction to the situation is very worrying. The discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Removed_staircase_hook_from_Main_Page (first article), Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aplets & Cotlets (second article), and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment. He also commented on two other discussions I started, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire.

In the first discussion, it is best if you read it completely, no single diff will indicate the problem but in total it becomes very clear that LavaBaron is unwilling or unable to either admit that he made an error (which isn't a problem), or support his claims that he was right and why with precise sources. The only source he claimed as support was in this edit (which also contains the false claim that I demanded him to quit Wikipedia; a claim he repeated at User talk:Coffee): after I linked to that source and quoted the part that supported my reasoning and contradicted his claim[6], with a request to indicate which page or quote supported his position, he didn't: he didn't reply to that post directly, and when I asked again[7] and again[8], he only claimed that I was wrong and he was right without any explanation how or why, and finally gave some non-apology apology[9]. The article itself was of seriously below-par quality and should never have been proposed or accepted for DYK (my cleanup).

The exact same thing happened at the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, where I asked " which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable?", and no reply as to what source actually supported the hook (and how) followed), despite LavaBaron repeatedly replying in defense of the hook.

Instead of leaving it at that, he decided to escalate the matter by applying his failed standards to other discussions about problematic hooks I started. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat, I indicated how the hook was not supported by the refs given for it, with explanation of why (per ref).[10]. LavaBaron clamied that the hook was sourced after all and shouldn't have been removed[11]; but again gave no indication of where he found that information. I again asked him "what sources?"[12] but got no reply.

When discussing a hook he reviewed and which contained an error, his reply[13]: "I see no problem whatsoever with it". Not because it wasn't an error, but because it wasn't the main point of the hook.

Someone who believes and defends that knowingly putting a hook with an error on the Main Page is "no problem whatsoever" is not acceptable as an editor in or around DYK. Someone who creates errors which are put on the Main Päge, and then continues to defend these errors against demonstrated facts, claiming to have evidence for his position but never producing it, is disruptive and a net negative at DYK. Other solutions are welcome, my preference would be to simply topic ban him from DYK. DYK is already often enough time-consuming for many editors, and too frequently introduces errors to the Main Page. But most editors agree that this is a problem and try to avoid it. Editors who actively try to defend errors with false claims (or even not seeing the problem with having an error on the Main Page) are not contributing to the process but create an additional timesink. An additional warning that disruptive edits like this (a rather transparent attempt to remove a note about his incorrect DYK on the article from the talk page, while leaving the DYK template in position) will not be tolerated is also welcome.

My apologies for the lengthy post, it is not easy to put problems like this in two sentences and three diffs, it's more something one needs to read completely to fully appreciate. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • oppose suggest Ritchie333's idea of a two way IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron may be a better idea LavaBaron (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since the only interactions we have is me pointing out DYK errors, and you defending them, I don't think such an interaction ban would be beneficial for WP. The only result would be that more DYK errors would get unnoticed. Fram (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Since you've only raised an objection to two of my 148 DYKs and DYK reviews, it's statistically unlikely that would occur (if, indeed, it has occurred at all at this point something, as you know, about which you and I disagree). Ritchie333's suggestion that you "drop the stick" [14] and a two-way IBAN be applied seems in the best interest of the project and community. LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Also an interaction ban would be ludicrous since Fram is one of the very few people preventing the error-ridden crap being visible on the main page. An interaction ban would effectively allow LavaBaron to continue to degrade the front page at their leisure. Given they have shown very little indication that they are in error (despite the overwhelming evidence they have been), removing LavaBaron from DYK until such time as they can demonstrate competence is the fix that actually improves the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Away from DYK, LavaBaron can't learn how to do better. I suggest that for a certain period, every article by LB needs two reviews, and an approval by LB needs a confirmation from a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's see: as you note, LavaBaron introduced the idea that someone ran 1.3 miles of steps in 1:44 (Mile run world record progression says that the record for one mile, presumably on flat ground, is 3:43.13). As you note with the award-winning: if sources A, B, C, D, etc say that someone has won an award (different award for each source), it's is obvious mathematics (WP:CALC), not a problem, to say that the person has won several awards (not good for DYK, which demands that the claim come from a single source, but not dishonest), but introducing such a claim based on sources that don't say this at all is a hoax, because presenting those sources as citations is a claim that the information came from those sources. Together with the unsourced claim that you're trying to get LavaBaron to leave the project (per WP:WIAPA, unsourced claims about bad personal behavior are considered personal attacks), these are sufficient reason for a significant block; the rest of the stuff you bring up is relevant to the topic ban idea, but I'm not going to offer an opinion there. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As Fram has noted that two of my 150 submissions and reviews (75 each) are, in his opinion (but not those of the promoting reviewer, apparently), lacking, it is probably germane and non-canvassing - since a TBAN is reflective of an editor's holistic contributions - to courtesy-ping editors who have reviewed my 147 other DYKs and DYK reviews to weigh-in for either the LB "Remain" or LB "Leave" campaigns. As per the note that's been on my user page for a week [15], I'm OOT ATM and am typing via phone, so can't ping everyone but will hit a few regulars, and leave it to Fram to ping the rest - @Wilhelmina Will:, @Notecardforfree:, @David Eppstein:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Epicgenius:, @Georgejdorner:, @Northamerica1000:, @Nvvchar:, @EEng:, @Coffee:. LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite. [16] (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as an alternative to a block. Making factual errors is common and easily corrected - that's why hooks are reviewed. But repeatedly ignoring requests for the most basic verification? That's not acceptable. Honestly, I don't really care how many DYK's LavaBaron has had approved - we don't (or shouldn't) keep score. But the fact that it happened twice in rapid succession is troubling. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is hardly the first time LavaBaron has had issues with DYK reviews, including approving problematic hooks. A few examples are this one, where the originally approved hook as stated does not appear in the article, one of many incomplete yet passed reviews, and this lengthy one with a disagreement that is reminiscent of the current one. There are more, but I don't have time to look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • To provide fuller background, BlueMoonset had previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN [17]. When he was rebuffed by other editors he moved to DYK where he began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when he subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, below). However, I look forward to the promised examples, when he has "time to look for them." [sic] LavaBaron (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Prhartcom, were you indeed saying I made an "unwarranted attack"? LavaBaron has made this charge twice here, and it seems most unlike you to have said any such thing. As for the rest of LavaBaron's post, since I have already listed three examples of problematic DYK reviews that LavaBaron is ignoring, I'm hardly going to spend further time finding more for him to ignore and give him further opportunities to recast past events in reply.
    Per Casliber below, I'm registering my opposition to any IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron while the latter participates at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    If I did, I must have meant it at the time, and there must have been a good reason for my statement. Don't worry, I support you, BlueMoonset. My !vote is below. —Prhartcom 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. These issues date back to Oct 2015 this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and things have not gotten better. And his attitude is often snarky, which troubles me. When I flagged a number of reviews he did as inadequate, and listed them at WT:DYK as is standard practice, his response seemed to be that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of the much quicker route of just doing adequate reviews. He argued on those nomination templates about review details not being necessary. I ended up doing some of the reviews myself, out of sympathy to the nominators. When things weren't going his way, on the DYK talk page he tried to get RFCs going to do away with the very guidelines he didn't feel like following. And then there was a laughable (to me) "threat" from him regarding an issue that really had nothing to do with him. He just used the opportunity to try to bait me, I guess. I personally have stayed away from him since then, but being active in DYK, I have noticed the attitude problem with others that just never ends. And this is all very sad. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Support TBAN, but oppose IBAN between LB and Fram. Here's why:
1) Fram doesn't sugar-coat his messages, but his intent at DYK is to clean-up multiple issues. He has a zero tolerance for errors, and can be blunt in how he delivers that message. You can agree, disagree, or not get involved.
2) With LavaBaron, it's not just the errors, and not just Fram. It's a poor attitude that goes beyond DYK, but this is the one project we're dealing with here. I first noticed LavaBaron after his dust-up with another editor at GA that I was not involved with; and he has a practice of banning editors from his talk page which seemed kind of bizarre to me. The second thing I noticed about LavaBaron is that for someone whose account was, at that time, less than a year old, he certainly seemed to have figured out the mechanics of WP pretty well, including SPI and AN. LavaBaron as a new edittor was already lodging disputes with other editors. So, it isn't just Fram.
Therefore, my opposition to the IBAN. There are too many other editors who have been subjected to LB's attitude. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note LavaBaron has been blocked for reasons related to this thread. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a 1-month block that is currently being appealed by LavaBaron on his talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Admin note - Reopened this thread, as the block is currently in question. Any requests for a topic ban may continue freely. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Block has since been rescinded. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I attempted to review the editors entire talk page history. It is long, and in some cases, I scanned rather than read in-depth. I see some things we would expect - minor short-comings early, pointed out and apparently not repeated. However, while the history is not pristine (whose is?) there's a gulf between identifying some shortcomings that could use some advice from experienced editors... and a topic ban. I am troubled by the Howe Street situation. There were too many warning signs to shrug it off as an understandable mistake, though I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction. (I'm also troubled that the DYK was approved, but that's a matter for another venue). I don't think a topic ban is close to warranted, although I would urge the editor to take a deep breath and take on board the fact that bad DYK's on our main page are a black eye, and strive to be part of the solution, not the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm the editor who originally approved the Howe Street Stairs hook. As a catalyst for these events and for advancing poorly sourced or downright wrong information, I'm sorry. While reviewing the article for approval, I had some of the questions that Sphilbrick raised at my talk page but figured that I just wasn't understanding information that was confusingly worded (what qualified as a staircase or a flight of stairs, for instance). Of course, I should've asked for clarification instead of assuming that I would be the only one who had trouble with the article. I'll step away from reviewing others' articles on DYK for a week to get a little perspective and take my mind away from the process. In future, I'll go by the rule of trusting my gut–if I'm confused about something, it's couth to ask the nominator for clarification. I'm sorry to have played a part in this and thank everyone for their continued vigilance and good faith. All my best, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Edit: As of 4JUL2016 I've cut-short my wikibreak to address this. Request Suspension of Discussion until July 13 - I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated for the following reasons:
  • (a) though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive [18]; I remain out of town and it has been extremely difficult for me to be pulled back into these issues ... it is virtually impossible for me to do a bulleted defense of a WP:WALLOFTEXT accusation. I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue.
  • (b) this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk. So far, most of the editors who have opined here are those who !voted "support" in that one. The core issue here deals with interpretation of written reviewing criteria of DYK, and it is a long term issue involving a vocal minority and a less active majority, that latter including myself. In interest of balance, since this is a similar TBAN proposal to the recent failed one, editors who participated in the majority of the last one should be notified it is being re-run at ANI. It is beyond my bandwidth (figuratively and literally) to do that while out of town.
  • (c) on top of all this, this TBAN has attracted the attention of the sockmaster of 11+ socks [19] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer operating on the Frank Gaffney article. For several months I have been the subject of a coordinated railroading effort by a professional sanitizer due to my singular efforts fixing and de-sanitizing the Gaffney article, which have been denounced by Gaffney himself on C-SPAN (the first in a flurry of socks and IP editors who will soon land here have already done so, in the form of IP editor 130..., above). Doug Weller can confirm the veracity of this situation if asked. I have, on holiday here, had to deal with such malicious and persistent vandalism at my Talk page since this TBAN was opened that my Talk page is now in lock-down and protected by action of Huon. To expect me to simultaneously defend myself against (1) a TBAN that has attracted (and will soon be attracting more) socks and IP editors to stuff the ballot box, (2) a (successfully retracted) bad block, and (3) Talk page vandalism from a professional full-time firm, is just far too much to process during a time period I was supposed to be "dark". As an occasional, part-time contributor to WP, I can usually avoid railroadings, but even I can't deal with three trains at once.
  • (d) immediately after this TBAN was opened I was blocked for 30 days sans warning or caution (on the same charges leveled in the TBAN) - blocking someone immediately after opening a TBAN on the same topic castrates their ability to mount any defense or explanation. Even though a heroic outcry from fellow Wikipedians resulted in the lifting of the block after less than 24 hours, it burned through the short time I have free to deal with this; I will be unable to access the internet again after this post for at least several days
LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is IP I encourage LavaBaron to provide the evidence he claims to have of a relationship between myself and any "sockmaster" or "professional sanitizer" or "professional full-time firm". There is none. (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [20] LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As a contributor, I'm reluctant to close this myself, but in view of LavaBaron's comment, I think it would be wise to close this for now, and revisit, if necessary after 13 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I would first like someone to post a link to the discussion referenced by LavaBaron above, "this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk." I can't immediately find such a proposal (and can't remember being involved with one), and if it happened, then the fact that another editor (me) now also starts such a topic ban proposal points to a continuing problem and is an extre reason to have the ban, not a reason not to have it of course (as the current proposal is for current problems, not an attempt to get a different result for already discussed issues). We can suspend the discussion, but I'm always wary of people who have time to respond for days and many posts (even inserting themselves in other discussions with me, a strange thing to do if you don't even have the time to properly defend yourself in discussion about your own actions), but then no longer can reply the moment it becomes clear that a restriction seems to have support. Avoiding restrictions by being unavailable is too often misused. Impose a topic ban now, and let LavaBaron start an appeal when he has the time to do so properly. Fram (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Fram I think what he is referring to was not a TBAN, but two editors wanted him to be "warned". Click on this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and the wording is "I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs." proposed by Prioryman. LavaBaron opposed, and BlueMoonset supported it. But as far as I know, that's all it ever was. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
        • ErrantX and Jakec seemed 2 reject idea NE "slapdash" reviews were occurring but didn't !vote (presume on grounds that can't !vote to warn someone 4 something not happening?) - sry for brevity, typing from phone LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - in the above, an anonymous IP wrote (in regards to LavaBaron) "A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite". I think this comment needs to be ignored and even considered biased. The off-site link the IP provides connects to a tirade on, which character assassinates LavaBaron. Clicking on the Frank Gaffney "Before" and "After" links and the same for "Center for Security Policy" links shows a previous status and the current status of both Wikipedia articles. It appears the "Before" in both instances was most likely POV editing by an Anon IP as discussed here: --> [21].
The tirade also links to this that discussion in an attempt to put LavaBaron in a bad light. However, providing this link does the opposite and shows a side of LavaBaron that is in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. LavaBaron intiates a thread at a Wikipedia discussion board questioning the IP's POV editing and even takes a stand against the IP later in the discussion - that resonates with standing up for editing according to Wikipedia standards. It is very different from the LavaBaron who has engaged in problematic editing at DYK. Maybe someone can provide insight into this matter? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow us to call a defense analyst a "conspiracy theorist" and the think tank he heads an "Islamophobic hate group" and how does this possibly pass BLP? I see a slew of hit pieces that came out when Gaffney became Ted Cruz's national security advisor. They all crib from the Wikipedia page which is LavaBaron's opinion which is a curated selection of opposition opinion pieces. Wikipedia established BLP protections to prevent this from happening. Compare the handling of Frank Gaffney's BLP to that of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Is BLP a Wikipedia policy or not? The prior promotional state of the pages does not justify breaking BLP and NPOV as badly as is humanly possible. LavaBaron's work is like replacing the description of John Oliver as a "comedian" or "TV host" with whatever nasty names Ann Coulter decides to call him in her next column. (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [22] LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the above commentary, and then the background information provided by User:Fram via the provided links, I think a DYK topic ban for LavaBaron is warranted. From Fram's comments and the DYK admin participating in the discussions that involved a number of DYK editors I can see that it is very important to have accuracy be the norm at DYK. User:LavaBaron seems unable to see the need for accuracy via sourcing or as a norm and so on. He also continually defends this position in discussion after discussion, and seemingly attempts to talk his way around the issues. I think LavaBaron needs to take a time out from DYK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Errors are fine. We are all human. Sticking by your errors when people point them out to you? That is not fine. Refusing to even reply when asked for proof? That is definitely not fine. At this point in time, I have no confidence in LavaBaron's ability to contrib to DYK in an error free manner. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban is the only alternative to protect the integrity of the main page. As a side note, I also oppose the suspension of this thread as LavaBaron has already broken his promise (I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13). --Majora (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated" - my simple request was rejected, so I will not cede my right to speak on my behalf - at great personal expense & inconv & no ability to mount an effective defense via mobile phone edits ... to recap: OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page, I was silenced by an (admitted) bad block [23] for first 24 hours of discussion doubly ensuring i couldn't speak on my behalf, & we have probable socks !voting in this thread - after all that my only simple req. was for a suspension of disc until i could get 2 a comp. & off my phone and it was rejected by OP - this monstrous pile-on is utterly shameful LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
When you stated above " though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive " I let it pass because you added "I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue." because, while it sounded cynical, you could aalways claim that you meant what you wrote. It now turns out that you were indeed cynical: "OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page". No, OP (me) started a discussion on the 21st (about one DYK hook, not about a TBan) because that DYK was only promoted the 19th (a Sunday, and I very rarely edit on Sundays) and hit the mainpage the 21st, the day I noticed it and started the discussion. The second one was also on the main page the 21st, and the third one was only promoted the 23rd. Meanwhile, you still found time to incorrectly criticize the pulling of another hook, and responded freely and at length (but without much substance). The TBan discussion was started here the next day, the 24th. No special delays were made, no effort to catch you when you were unavailable. The actions I took wrt your DYK hooks are actions I take all the time when problematic hooks hit the preps, queue or mainpage, regardless of the editor. I don't first check their userpages to look for their availability. Fram (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved editor try to find a consensus in this and close it as such before it gets auto-archived? Discussion seems to have died down. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose DYK has a formal review process for each article plus additional layers of oversight as the article passes through preparation to the queue to the main page. There is therefore plenty of opportunity to detect and resolve errors in a collaborative way per WP:IMPERFECT. If LavaBaron's work is error-prone then he should be encouraged to put it through such peer-review as DYK. Banning him from such peer review would have the perverse effect of encouraging him to work in isolation where any errors would be less readily detected and corrected. As his work seems to be good faith and the errors seem minor, it would be best to leave matters as they are. The attention given to this matter should naturally cause LavaBaron to be more careful and that seems quite adequate in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Andrew D., the problem is not that LavaBaron makes errors, the problem is that he doesn't care or doesn't recognise them even after they have been pointed out to him. DYK is a collaborative effort, and it has become clear that LavaBaron is not really interested in such collaborations, only in getting his articles on the main page. DYK has trouble enough stopping errors from appearing on the main page, and letting known liabilities continue to contribute articles to it is just making things worse. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I know LavaBaron, he/she is a hardworking contributor, though his/her work appears to be error-prone at times. I do not feel a ban from DYK will do LavaBaron any good, and I agree with Gerda Arendt's suggestion above. The need is to be able to communicate with LavaBaron, who says he/she is away till mid-July. Better keep an eye on their work for a certain period of time and let them know their flaws, as Andrew opines above; I am sure someone who has good faith will not miss an opportunity to improve oneself. As for LavaBaron, he/she needs to understand that you can't ignore the demand for providing sources, and a defensive tone all the time does not do one good. All in all, a ban or a block definitely does not look a solution to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Has anything in this discussion given you the impression that he cares in any way about the errors or understands the problems with his edits and comments? This just seems like postponing the inevitable and forcing a second discussion in a few months, for little or no benefit. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Sainsf, there have been problems with LavaBaron since he or she first arrived at DYK, and unlike you I don't see that anything but a ban will stop the problems from happening, since there have been no signs of improvement over the months to a seemingly reflexive resistance to correction. Even now, he's misrepresenting the facts: "between 1 to 3 errors", which he keeps repeating like a mantra, is demonstrably untrue and significantly understating the problem: I noted three more in my original "oppose", and they aren't the only ones. If I thought LavaBaron was indeed voluntarily leaving DYK per this typically worded edit below with two subsequent emendations, I wouldn't have bothered writing this, but past experience renders me skeptical of such posts. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
          • BM, as we're good friends I don't wanna appear like I'm trying to Boomerang you, but IIRC you previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN over a content disagreement [24]. When rebuffed by other editors you moved to DYK where you began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when you subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, above). In light of that, it would be good if you could clarify if this is a genuine issue you're expressing or an instance of you going into the "attack mode" that has caused other editors concern? I hope all is well with you - best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
            • My goodness, LavaBaron, what on earth possessed you to add that belated false claim that we were good friends? You banned me from your talk page last August (it ended up being effectively permanent, as witness your false IBAN claim several weeks later), and then blatantly lied about me and my motives. To be clear, the issues in my posts here are genuine, just as Fram's have been. Your continuing actions speak far louder than any words could. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                • I consider all other WP editors friends, and try to deal with them all as I would deal with a friend, with honesty and pleasantness. If you choose not to reciprocate that's beyond my control. And no, I did not "lie" about you. As a friend I need to ask you to please police your accusations better; you've already been cautioned by another editor once for "unwarranted attack" [25]. LavaBaron (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • OK, I looked carefully at the discussions once more. I see the point Fram and BM are trying to make. LavaBaron, I understand you are good at heart as a Wikipedian, but your reaction to the situation looks far from a collaborative approach. I find you too defensive and sometimes close to hostile, please don't get me wrong but I find it hard to believe that only you can be fully right and the others are mistaken in their allegations. Your response is worrying, not you. I'm sorry but if you continue with this attitude I will have to switch to "Support" on this proposal. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment While a certain "version of events" has been advanced in which I am unable to process WP:IMPERFECT collaboration without erupting into a Desmond-esque tirade, smashing the WP:TEAHOUSE's china and screaming for Bon Bons, the fact is I happily collaborate when suggestions for improvement are put to me in a polite and constructive way. Like many people, I do have a personal failing in sometimes having clouded judgment, or becoming defensive, when the first note directed toward me is in the form of attack or belittlement. On my userpage I've linked 15 GAs I've authored and have been passed. I certainly invite anyone to view the GANs those went through to see just how pleasant of an editor I am with whom to collaborate and the fact that 9 times out of 10, I accept suggestions from other editors without a moment of hesitation. However, I pledge in the future not to let personal feelings get in the way and to do a better job collaborating on occasions when suggestions for edits come in the form of a full broadside against my literacy. Moving forward, I will be the model Vulcan editor: emotionless, stoic, indefatigable. LavaBaron (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Translation: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT—nothing said by the people concerned about DYK issues has any merit, and LavaBaron has no intention of deviating from their chosen path. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed. For reference, this is that first note directed towards LavaBaron. Fram (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • So now I'm an enemy of "the people?" My wickedness knows no bounds. It's clear my one recent sourcing error and one failure to catch an error made by another editor has established me as one of the worst Wikipedians in history, and just a terrible human being generally. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's a few of my most recent DYK's where, like just about all my DYKs, I happily and unhesitatingly accept suggestions when offered with kindness and construction: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. But, of course, I understand it's more exciting to keep laser-focused on 1-2 minor errors in my 150 reviews/submissions. No biggie. Frankly, I honestly doubt I'll submit to DYK again after this shellacking. It'll be easier to just continue generating copious quantities of articles sans the self-confidence destroying nature of this particularly cruel form of quality control. LavaBaron (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban LavaBaron demonstrates the problem immediately above—the bull-in-a-china-shop approach may be great for derailing discussions and dismissing unwanted opinions, but it is very unhelpful for DYK on the main page. There is no need to spend a month of repentance if a mistake is made, but the blanket dismissal of those who do the work to reveal the problems shows that a DYK topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This TBAN originated from an editor whose fixation on an error by me prompted a warning by Ritchie333 that he should "drop the stick" [32]. So, just to keep this in perspective, as my gut feeling is that your !vote may have been because you were possibly feeling chuffed by my forthright reply to your previous missive as opposed to having studied the facts of this case, "the errors" referenced that have actually been diffed involved one (1) sourcing error I made (and accepted correction of without protest), and one (1) error by me in not catching another editor's error (for which I've apologized) - out of 150 DYK reviews and submissions I've made.
As for your rather surprising charge I have been "dismissing opinions", I think I'd like to try diverting the emotion and empowering you to take a diff-based, fact-oriented view of the situation. In that vein, I see your one (1) example (which, respectfully, I'm not sure most reasonable editors would consider an example at all - all I said was "whatever" and then stopped discussing / editing the article in question ... I was out of town and unable to accent my response with additional pleasantries, as exhaustively explained elsewhere), and raise you thirteen (13) recent examples of me pleasantly and promptly accepting others opinions in DYK and GAN: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43][44]. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
One sourcing error and one error in a review? Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs was wrong and pulled (as endorsed by Ritchie333 and everyone else), Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets was wrong (and should not have been featured on the main page), Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro was wrong (and pulled), and your retaliatory comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat was also wrong and only helped to prolong the problems. In the Howe Street Stairs discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Removed staircase hook from Main Page you simply made up what the sources said (either you totally didn't understand them or you flatout lied), and refused to back up your claims. In the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, you again couldn't or wouldn't provide any source that supported your hook and position, but also couldn't accept that you were wrong. In the Aispuro hook, you claimed "As everything prior to the comma is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it." So, you specifically admitted in seeing no problems in having factual errors in a hook a long as it wasn't the main focus of the hook. You then struck it with "In interest of avoiding the threatened TBAN, I hereby strike my previous opinion. I apologize to the community for expressing WrongThought. My opinion is hereby refactored to RightThought and I agree, in total, with Fram on this issue. I affirm that I agree with anything Fram has said now, or will say in the future, about this issue, and do so without hesitation or mental reservation." which obviously was not meant at all. Fram (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So now the TBAN is because I agreed with you when you pointed out an issue, but I wasn't "sincere" enough? I didn't bow low enough when I admitted my error? Is this discussion even really happening? I feel like I've just been sucked into an alternate Wikiverse. Good lord.
And why do you keep trying to puff up your case by blaming me for articles I didn't edit like you just did above with José Rosas Aispuro? As the article history shows I've never made a single edit to it [45]. This assertion by you has already landed one admin in hot water after they relied on your version of events to impose a block that had to be immediately yanked as a bad block. It's concerning you're willing to sell other editors down the river by continuing to peddle this. Your TBAN nom comes down to 2 errors in my 150 DYK contributions. Full stop.
Ritchie333 told you to "drop the stick" - I really think you should heed his, and other editors/admins, words to you. Your conduct is unbecoming. LavaBaron (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I linked to Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro, a DYK review you performed: "Apologies for my delay. ALT-1 hook is supported by references and is interesting. Thank you to Yoninah for adding it. All other factors have previously been cleared. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)" Alt-1 hook was not supported by the references, and should not have been approved. I did not link to the article, nor did I ever claim that you edited it. This DYK topic ban proposal, and your defense, is based on your DYK nominations and reviews, and this is a DYK review you did, on 22 June 2016 (so right in the middle of all this, and after your break started). One would expect you to get these basic things right by now. Fram (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that the hook said 'September 1" and that wasn't in the source, and in actual fact it is Sept 15. Ok got it. The situation at Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets is a bit of a grey area. Both blogs that Fram cited as problematic appear semireliable with listed authors and structure, and the facts they cite are pretty banal, so I am on the fence with that one. oops, forgot to not the tenuousness of the East/West Washington issue. So, yes is a problem. Agree LavaBaron's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire were not helpful. Ditto Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment, Lavabaron, the date was wrong pure and simple and needed changing - sarcasm there was not helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose an IBAN as Fram's corrections are important - I need to digest these diffs and will comment shortly. A little busy now. Cas Liber (