Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Appeal my topic ban[edit]

BAN REDUCED
Community consensus is DeFacto's metrication and units of measure topic ban is replaced; DeFacto is under a 1RR restriction from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2017 (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.

About 15 months ago, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. Two months ago I successfully appealed against my 1RR restriction and since then I continued my trouble-free record of editing. So today please, I would like to appeal the second of my three restrictions - my topic ban.

I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, complied 100% with this restriction over the last 15 months - so am now asking for this topic ban to be lifted too please. I understand the principles of the MOS and I do not plan to re-open any of the old arguments or controversies, but would very much appreciate not having to navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban. The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise and am committed to doing my best to help to improve Wikipedia. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Following Dennis Brown's wise words in the discussion below, I would like to change my appeal from asking for a complete lifting of the topic ban, to asking to have the topic ban replaced with a 1RR restriction on the same metrication and units of measure scope. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Note that Dennis Brown stated, on 13 June 2017, "I would be less inclined to lift the others today, but I think this is the best one to start with and we can revisit another in 6 months". 6 months from 13 June 2017 is 13 December 2017. I say this entirely without prejudice. I have no opinion at this time whether your topic ban should be lifted and do not know whether Dennis Brown still holds this opinion. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • While I am inclined toward support based on the previous AN/I discussion, I think there is still a sentiment that the topic ban should not be lifted just yet. If this appeal was rejected, and the original poster can manage to continue to contribute in a positive manner, the next appeal (possibly in December as noted above) would probably have much higher chance of success. Alex ShihTalk 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I wish you would have waited longer, but it is certainly within your right to request a lifting of the sanction. I will add this, I think that if you instead asked for a modification of the sanction along the lines of "The topic ban of metrification (etc) is here modified to allow editing under a 1RR restriction" you would have better luck. Then wait a year for the 1RR lift request. 1RR is not a huge deal to live with. We are a bit gun shy, to be honest. In your defense, you've complied with all expectations as far as I can see, but I think you understand why the community is hesitant. I will just say that lifting it but inserting a 1RR restriction would have my Support. Otherwise, I would stay neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dennis Brown for your constructive suggestion and wise words. I will happily go with your idea of a 1RR restriction in place of the topic ban on the metrication and units of measure scope - I wish I had the wisdom to have thought of that for myself! Hopefully it will also help to reassure others that my only intention is to be constructive and add value to Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Would you also accept a continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages? This would still mean that you would not have to "navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban." 92.19.24.150 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll accept whatever the consensus here believes is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 08:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Then to be clear, I support the new 1RR. I think this will allow DeFacto to demonstrate they can restrain themselves, and by giving them a little rope, we give them the opportunity to keep climbing out of this hole, or hang himself. Hopefully, the climb will continue. Dennis Brown - 14:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given how much trouble was caused by de Facto on metrification, I don't think it would be productive to allow them to return to editing anything to do with units. Number 57 09:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Number 57: may I ask, what it would take to convince you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It would involve a time machine and you not causing all those problems in the past. My experience is that editors who were as troublesome as you were are not able to change; given that you can edit everything on Wikipedia except this, I don't see any benefit from lifting the topic ban. Number 57 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • For all I remember what happened before, our rules hold that everyone can come back if we understand that they are unlikely to be disruptive. On the basis of a 1RR, and an understanding that a repeat of the behaviour we saw before the ban will most certainly result in a reimposition of sanctions (and I'm pretty sure that's already understood), I will support lifting this ban at this time. Kahastok talk 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • strong support . The user fully complies with the restrictions imposed (as far as I can know - no idea regarding the"always logged-in" part, for obvious reasons). I do not see any other signs of disruptive editing either. So, changing the topic ban to 1RR will be no harm for the community. Quite the contrary, since the user will likely contribute constructively. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • support either lifting the topic ban or replacing it with 1RR on the same scope. As much as I respect Dennis' wisdom, I don't see the point in saying, essentially, that there is no reason not to lift the ban but we're going to make you wait four months more anyway. Contra the adamant oppose above, indefinite does not mean infinite and I think we should always be willing to reconsider after time has passed. de Facto will know they are going to be subject to extra scrutiny, We could perhaps add an extra condition that the TBAN can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin if problems re-emerge in the next year. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I've worked the SPI cases and know the history pretty well. If DeFacto goes off the wagon, he already knows it will likely be an indef block. My suggestion of 1RR was one to help him, as restraint was a demonstrated problem in the past. Dennis Brown - 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support either the original requests or the 1RR version. The initial dispute was over trivia (a metrication-related example in one article), the editor lost his cool and apparently didn't have much respect for or intent to continue participating in the project as serious work at that time, and was just in an "F it all" mode after he initial administrative action. This attitude has clearly changed in the intervening years. Everyone makes mistakes and learns from them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Tend to oppose – the years of socking and circular, timewasting MOSNUM discussions cannot simply be forgiven and forgotten. But, as others say above, he can contribute constructively subject to stringent restrictions. If the restriction is to be eased (about which I am personally unconvinced – I do not see the benefit in allowing him to edit on a fairly marginal topic about which he has only been disruptive in the past), it must be made absolutely clear that he will be banned for life from editing Wikipedia if there is any hint of a return to his past malicious behaviour. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Archon 2488: can I ask, what would persuade you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
My question was more about the motivation for wanting it removed, as seen from Wikipedia's perspective. I understand that you personally find it frustrating, but since editing WP is not a right but a privilege, the question that needs to be answered is not whether it is personally inconvenient for you to be banned from making edits related to measurements and the MOS. The question is whether it is in the encyclopedia's interest to lift the ban – what material difference does it make, if you are allowed to make edits concerning a fairly minor subject (and we can accept that your contributions unrelated to this subject have not caused problems), when there is extremely strong past evidence of disruptive behaviour in this area, out of all proportion to its importance? What would you be able to do, in concrete terms, that you are currently prevented from doing? For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the MOS-related restrictions. Any extra liberty to edit in article-space needs to be granted subject to strict conditions, as described above.
If you can persuade me that there is some tangible benefit to easing the ban – meaning a real improvement in your ability to contribute constructively – then fair enough. Obviously, it comes with the proviso that any subsequent hint of disruptive behaviour will be nipped in the bud with an immediate reinstatement of sanctions (and you'd do well to understand the sentiment behind Number 57's comment above – some forms of trust, once gone, are basically never going to come back). You can be assured that people will be checking your contributions to ensure that past "mistakes" do not have the chance to be repeated. As Dennis Brown says above, any extra "rope" you are granted here can serve one function as well as the other, and you don't need me to tell you that everyone will take a very dim view of any future abuse of trust. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point Archon. My belief is that having this topic ban lifted will enable me to continue with the sort of article creation, improvement and expansion that I used to do before the troubles arose surrounding the said topic. If you look back over my contribution history, you will see that amongst the 400+ articles I have created and my 13,000ish live edits to about 2,500 different pages, my subject coverage is broad - including engineering, architecture, roads, motor vehicles, motoring, road safety, geography, politics, history, as well as the said topic and much more - most of which inevitably have content related to the said topic.
In a nutshell, I believe that without the topic ban I'll be more efficient and more effective at adding value to a broader range of Wikipedia articles, just as I was before my troubles. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but only with the 1RR, and the "continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages" suggested above. That restriction seems like a sensible step which would not hinder article editing/creation at all, and could be somewhat reassuring for those who remember the old disruption and still fear a return to it. Without those additional conditions, count me as opposed at this time. -- Begoon 07:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown, but with very short leash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: where do I stand now?[edit]

A couple of days after my topic ban was apparently reduced to a 1RR and the editing restrictions log updated, another editor has reverted that close and reset the log.

As the editor didn't quote any policy, I was unable to confirm for myself whether these later edits were correct. Inbetween times I started editing again in the topic in question. Was this, what is effectively a reapplication of the ban, correct and justified? -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Remain calm. There is no rush. The thread will be closed by an administrator (this is the administrators' noticeboard) shortly. 31 hours is not "a couple of days". Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
So I'm re-topic-banned for now? @Softlavender: what makes you think that it must be an admin - is that interpretation documented in a policy somewhere? BTW, you are right about the number of hours, but as it was done on Friday (UTC) and undone on Sunday (UTC), I was right about the "couple of days" too). :) -- de Facto (talk). 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Pinging NE Ent as the original closer: I wonder if you have a view on this. -- de Facto (talk). 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@NE Ent: I see you've moved this section up amongst the older stuff, won't that mean it receives less attention? Do you have on view on Softlavender's action? -- de Facto (talk). 12:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear.

First, I assume it's obvious this should not be treated as a topic ban violation because De Facto had reason to assume that a different restriction was in force.

Second, Softlavender really should have made it clear what he was doing and what the implications were on De Facto's talk page, not just reverted and expected De Facto to keep up. There was no reason to assume that De Facto would have even noticed that the close had been reverted and that there might be some question as to what restrictions were in force.

On the question at hand, I am not aware of any rules restricting closes on WP:AN to admins - WP:CLOSE explicitly says that any uninvolved editor can close a discussion - but it may be that I've missed something. Regardless, it seems to me that if the close is disputed with have a process at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that was not followed, and if it is not disputed the fact that it was not done by an admin is not, in and of itself, a reason to revert it.

That being said, De Facto, for now I assume it is obvious that in the meantime you are best off acting as though the close never happened. Kahastok talk 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a mess. DeFacto, in response to your question, WP:CBAN specifies an uninvolved admin must close discussions related to bans. Your original sanctions are currently still in effect. Any violations between the improper close and now are not an issue; you had every reason to be confused about what the active sanction was. ~ Rob13Talk 12:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?
— Games People Play (The Alan Parsons Project song)

In Wikipedia-as-it-should-be, the non-admin closing of a two week old discussion with a clear consensus and no activity for the past three days would be allowed to stand. At least BU Rob13 took the time to post a link that sort of supports their argument, although a more careful reading makes it clear imposing a ban requires an admin close; it doesn't actually say reducing a ban does. I certainly would have no argument with someone reverting the close if they genuinely felt the outcome is in doubt. In any event, hopefully an actual admin will become weary enough of this discussion and realize the most expeditious way to resolve the situation is close the above discussion. DeFacto: best just to wait until the discussion gets formally closed; if it goes to archive without a close fire me an email and I'll annoy some admin into closing it. NE Ent 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • OK, it seems clear that there's a consensus to close as per NE Ent's original close, so as an uninvolved admin I will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2017 (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.
On a related subject: A "ban reduction" is essentially voiding the old ban and implementing a new one, so any "ban reduction" needs to be closed by an admin, per policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My account was wrongly blocked[edit]

Relocated to user talk. ~ Rob13Talk 04:17, 5 September 2017 (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.

Hello. My account was wrongly blocked in a sockpuppet investigation. I asked for help on this board about a week ago but my request for help was deleted. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet; I am entirely nonfictional. Please can someone get my account unblocked. Beth Holmes 1. Transposed from talk by Winged Blades Godric at 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Beth Holmes 1 is the account that is blocked. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That account has talkpage access, so they need to post an unblock request using the {{Unblock}} template. It's a checkuser block so we cannot simply lift it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've left a message on User Talk:Beth Holmes 1 advising her to make a request using the {{unblock}} template. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And similar advice on the talk page of the IP. Nothing more to be done I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (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.

What is the blocking policy here?[edit]

For the policy on enwiki, see WP:Blocking policy. For the policy on svwiki, go to svwiki; we can't help. ~ Rob13Talk 04:19, 5 September 2017 (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.

Hello, in general, what would lead to block of talk pages on English wikipedia?

I am curious since I was - on Swedish wikipedia – subject to a 2 week ban on the mere suspicion of using a second account. Besides from being incorrect, it was done without any attempt to actually establish whether the account was indeed mine or not. Furthermore, the ban – as is regularly occurring on Swedish wikipedia – was done banning even "talk" on one's own page. Consequently I was not able to protest the blocking. The ban also extended to sending e-mail to admins, and unlike here there is no general page for unblocking requests is you are banned.

Does this policy seem similar to the one here, or Swedish wikipedia admins use much more severe rules? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does Check user exist there in Swedish Wikipedia? You can use your talk page. They think you are https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Hmcblockad. And you are not blocked indefinitely. Administrators here will not help you. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know the policy on Swedish Wikipedia, nor if they follow it, but here you're likely to retain talk page access unless you (or any related accounts) are known to be a time sink. The policy is at WP:OPTIONS: It says it normally requires "continued abuse of the talk page". But in any case, the English policy is not so relevant and as Spider-Man says, there's nothing we can do from here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely don't think you can (or ought to) do anything about the policies of Swedish wikipedia. I was honestly simply interested in knowing if this was a general for all of wikipedia (how to block), or if this was different. I know some other policies differs, so I was merely curious. Thank you for answering my question Marvellous and zzuuzz, it's much appreciated. (As an aside, the account Hmcblockad was one I created after being blocked in an attempt to access the e-mail function to send an e-mail to an admin and argue my case. Unfortunately, it was blocked due to "unsuitable name" merely 3 minutes after creation, too quickly for me to even use it to send an e-mail 😳) -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
If your description of things at sv:wp is accurate and routine, things are a good deal more severe there than here. Among other things, an acknowledged sockpuppet will not be blocked here as long as neither account engages in disruption. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT; the big problems with sockpuppetry are when you evade sanctions (of course no problem if your main account doesn't do anything wrong) or when you pretend to be a different person (not a problem with an openly acknowledged account). Not knowing how they customarily work, I can't say whether or not the situation you describe is routine. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
At first I thought this was routine, seeing multiple such blocks in a rather short period of time. However, searching through the block log, it appears that even for sv:wp such blocks are reserved for accounts that either use an obviously offensive name or starts vandalising as first edit. Consequently the blocks (mine and the others I saw) were rather out of the ordinary. -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (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.

Deleted article may have been recreated[edit]

I just moved Antonio Ibáñez de Alba, a newly created article, to its current title to fix the capitalization. While checking "What links here" to see if the article needed to be tagged as an orphan, I noticed there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba that closed as delete. Would an admin be so kind to check the current article to see if it's a recreation of the deleted article? Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FlyingAce, the text of the new version is almost identical (minus some placement) to the original. The refs in the "Other researches" section seem to be new, so if they push it over the GNG/BIO issues at the AFD I'd say it's worth keeping. On text alone, though, I'd G4 it. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it, Primefac. The article has been moved to draftspace in the meantime, so I guess that sorts it for now. Face-smile.svgFlyingAce✈hello 21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ECP of Kappa Alpha Order[edit]

I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.

Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No one has offered an opinion here or at User talk:Plastikspork#Kappa Alpha Order so I have changed the protection to semi. Yaris678 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yaris asked my advice on this since I closed the RfC that led to the implementation of ECP and I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Many people in the RfC expressed reservations or supported ECP with the caveat that it be used sparingly and in this case semi and possibly other measures look like they would adequately control the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request for Pkbwcgs[edit]

So ordered. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (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.

Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) is requesting unblock. He was indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Pkbwcgs on December 20, 2016.

I am copying his statement here: I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia because I fully understand that I have continued to make bad pages even though I have constantly been warned not to and I understand that I have been very disruptive and rude on the IRC channel and I promise I won't do this ever again. I am also no longer being disruptive on any other Wikis and I have also became an autopatroller on Wikimedia Commons and English Wiktionary. If I am unblocked, I will continue my work in editing the train articles and I am extremely sorry for my previous edits. I understand that if I break any of Wikipedia's policies, it will lead to a re-block again. After my 8 month block and reading Wikipedia's policies, I think I have learnt my lesson.

For disclosure: as an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia as well, I encouraged him to request unblock here. He was blocked there on January 17, 2017 under our "one strike" warning for users who are indefinitely blocked on another Wikimedia project. He requested unblock on Simple in August, but I told him to seek unblock here first. I have no view on the unblocking at the moment. only (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Standard offer seems appropriate here (not to mention WP:ROPE), though the editor should be aware that if unblocked, their edits are going to be under significant scrutiny for a while. I believe Pkbwcgs deserves a chance to prove that they have "learnt [their] lesson" -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I am not sure if the editor fully understands the problem, but perhaps I am reading too much into the text. I would suggest conditional unblock as long as Pkbwcgs receives mentorship, either someone from the train project or an established editor similar in age. Alex ShihTalk 11:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm a great believer in trying to help people who wish to become constructive contributors, and I see very little risk here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2017 (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.
Drmies, as a semi-involved user, I have already noted that there have been three edits made by that user that already have raised my eyebrows, for example this one to which the user (I assume mistakenly; taking their report on their talk page with a pinch of salt) tagged ANI for speedy deletion, one point the user was criticised on before the initial block, ref. WP:CIR. I note this was picked up by the (assumed) unblocking admin. The second being this one where he placed some additional content without sourcing. I reverted the edit, as what they added was incorrect, a ref further down the article stating that no trains were displaced in the procurement of new stock. I also have noted a third edit here, which is the user deleting someone else's comments off a user page. No matter how incomprehensible a user's comments may be, my personal opinion is if they are on the user's talk page, I leave them there, regardless of context. If I was the one who was interacting with the user, I would have added another note re verification and sourcing. I, overall would've opposed the unblock if I had known they had requested unblock, partially because of my previous dealings with the user. I also note that the suggestion from fellow user Jackmcbarn of taking a year off has not been followed, it has only been 8 months. Nightfury 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nightfury, those edits are troubling, and I left a note about two of them. But looking at their other contributions, I don't see any more that indicate we made a mistake here, so for now we'll let this ride. Mind you, I only determined a (quick) consensus here--feel free to ping the other admins who supported this. :) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Filter managers?[edit]

If you know how to do filters, first of all THANK YOU and second, maybe you can look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz to see if there's something you can do. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is the proper venue to request edit filters. --Jayron32 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic Minorities by Country[edit]

I AfD'd Dutch Yazidis recently and there have been several similar pages at AfD. After seeing yet another one of these (Liechtensteinian Surinamese) show up on NPP, I think it's time it got wider attention.

What is the standard of notability for these articles? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming they are of the list variety, WP:LISTPEOPLE. So if for example Dutch Yazidis had contained a number of notable (read: have their own WP article) Dutch Yazidis, then its a valid list article. (It didn't, so its not) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, the article is clearly a spoof of Dutch Surinamese. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. I'm sorry--only yesterday I got criticized for not acting soon enough on a racist comment, but y'all are letting this go by without a vandal report or a quick call to an administrator? The Liechtensteinian thing is pure trolling (there are Dutch Surinamese because of a history of slavery and colonialism--this obviously never happened for Liechtenstein), but surely someone noticed this racist edit and this also totally racist edit. I'm a bit disappointed in the editors who reverted without sounding an alarm. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Karlfonza[edit]

Getting buried and totally ignored at AN/I (maybe more applicable here anyway): I recommend stronger measures for Karlfonza (Commons page has more info/ad content). They continually keep uploading unencyclopedic (often highly artistic) images and adding them to broad-topic articles such as "Word", "Library", "Ant", and "Vase", all in cases where obviously useful images exist, and this editor just wants to tack on their own images. I've been trying to revert most of the edits, though there's a lot. A very small percentage of their photos or actual edits are beneficial, making the work tedious and yet making me hesitant to suggest a sitewide ban, but they clearly don't understand the rules and won't bother to learn them. Any advice? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@: Sorry about having received no response in the earlier post. I will take a look at this. Alex ShihTalk 01:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@: It's easier to receive quicker responses by presenting diffs. Some quick observation of recent contributions:
  • Word: Image was hardly relevant to the text, and the caption is almost nonsensical, adding minimal value. ([1])
  • Plant: Again, both the image and the caption is fairly irrelevant to the text, probably would serve better in succulent plant. ([2])
  • There seems to be a pattern of WP:OR in captions, and adding images when a number of other similar images already exists in the article. ([3])
The user is certainly contributing in good faith, but the long term problems with the editing pattern of this user is probably best reflected here: Talk:Primary color/Archive 1#Primaries in art. I see a case of severe WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and to some extent WP:OR, but I would wait for more opinions before moving further. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Diffs would be impossible. I'd say 90% of their 792 edits are problematic. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And I agree with your assessment, though "good faith" is kinda questionable. It's possible they want to brag about all of their photos that exist on Wikipedia, or something else similar, and the fact that they upload and add such artsy or useless photos to these articles shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. They're not improving the encyclopedia, and I don't see how they think they could be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: What do you think about the above? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@: I think that's speculation, although a reasonable one. I will issue a warning to prevent such edits from happening again if no one else comments. Alex ShihTalk 03:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts[edit]

(non-admin closure) Discussed more on ANI, closing here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2017 (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.

The issue that the closer:User:RoySmith was to decide:

  1. whether a policy argument had been raised for keeping,
  2. whether Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago,
  3. whether information was unrelated to any actual topic,
  4. whether the material had never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace
  5. what the time component was "for this to go.."
  6. whether the closer of the MFD discussion (User:PMC)interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  7. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  8. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  9. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  10. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
  11. Whether deletion supporting concerns had had any merit

In closing today in DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30, they applied WP:LOCALCON but also WP:STALE and WP:WALLOFTEXT in ignoring my concerns and the claims of WP:FAKEARTICLE. I believe that WP:STALE should have been taken more into account as neither WP:STALE nor WP:FAKEARTICLE were not ever intended to apply to issues such as this as my drafts were in already in user space draft disrupting editor nominated my draft as stale only 1.5 hours after my last edit! My comments were a bit disorganized but entirely valid and issues over facts or false assertions would have been easily rectified by viewing provided diffs, new evidence, and new WP policy of AUG2017.

My location is in a hurricane zone in the event I am unable to respond in a timely fashion. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note this discussion on AN/I, which seems to have prompted this. ansh666 00:47, 7 September 2017 (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.

Unblock request for Allen2[edit]

There is a clear consensus that User:Allen2 should not be unblocked. Just Chilling (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2017 (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.

Allen2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)

Allen2 was originally blocked on 3 November 2014 for competency issues (WP:CIR). After several failed talk page and UTRS appeals they have asked to take advantage of the WP:Standard offer terms now that 6 months have elapsed since their last block modification on 17 February 2017. In their unblock request posted at UTRS they said:

"I fundamentally wish to be unblocked on Wikipedia with a very clear reason. I read and agree with the Standard Offer that I refrained from Wikipedia for 6 months since my talk page has been revoked and exhausted again along with my email access (but I did not email users by that time while I'm still blocked before my email access is blocked), and I will promise not to continue my behavior like the last time before I'm blocked in the first place for competency issues. I know, understand, and will be confident and competent about what Wikipedia is now and I will comply with all the rules and policies of Wikipedia when I edit again. Furthermore, you could considerably give me another chance, a second chance on Wikipedia if you believe so, because when I'm successfully unblocked then I will be welcome to make useful contributions and help fix this problem on the encyclopedia. Thank you and sincerely, ~Allen (Allen2)"

I am presently taking no position on this request. I have restored Allen2's talk page for the sole purpose of allowing them to respond to questions on this application. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I remember this guy...it's already been 3 years, wow. This unblock request is not substantially different from the half dozen or so currently on their talk page dating back to 2015, all of which have been declined for the same reasons, most recently early this year. I'm no admin, but I don't think that any of the concerns with this user have really been dealt with. ansh666 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone please post any previous discussion which resulted in the OP being blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is still alot of CIR issues here and whilst I'm all for second chances I think come a few weeks or months time they'd shoot themselves in the foot and will end up reblocked again, Unrelated but I also have an issue with the quotation marks around every thing they post - It does read as they're being sarcastic and unfortunately if they do the quotation thing on talkpages they're probably going to piss off quite alot of people, Anyway as per the CIR issues the block should remain with TPA being revoked. –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Partially struck as not really relevant here. –Davey2010Talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Per Ansh666, can we see where the concerns leading to the block have genuinely been addressed? I don't really see that in the above statement. -- Begoon 00:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think all of the necessary reading materials are still on the user talk page. Initial discussion (1). First block, discussion (2) (many unblock requests and shopping later) Most recent discussion (3). It might be worthwhile to look at the revision history too. I am leaning toward oppose unless if the user submits some kind of long-term editing plan. Alex ShihTalk 01:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely not. This editor has not changed in any substantial way that I can see (or, rather, that I can "see"). He says above that he will comply will all the rules and policies, but makes no mention of what it is he actually wants to do. He was more forthcoming in the third diff posted by Alex above, where he said "The good reason I want to be unblocked is: I "want" to modify my own pages (and contribute occasionally with a substantial edit to the encyclopedic article or page I want to edit)" There's no reason to unblock them so they can fiddle with their user pages and now and then make an article edit. We're here to build an encyclopedia, I have no idea what this person is here for. Keep them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I may change my mind (doubtful though) if they provide an actual editing plan they would follow if the user was unblocked. One of the most important questions someone needs to answer when they go for a SO is: what can you contribute to the encyclopedia? If you want to just fiddle around with a userpage, perhaps you can make a blog or a Facebook account. Wikipedia is for building content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was the most recent declining admin and the same thing applies - I just don't think the competence is there. Any good content he might occasionally contribute will be far outweighed by the time we spend cleaning up after him. ♠PMC(talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Registering my opposition properly after looking through the history for some signs that there might be some "net positive" contributions which this block prevents, and failing to find any. -- Begoon 10:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The thing about using quotation marks in that strange way was discussed back in February on Allen2's talk page. It seems clear to me that he was not being sarcastic and was doing it as an unusual method of emphasis. He stopped doing it at the point of that discussion and appears not to be doing it in the latest appeal presented above by Just Chilling - so I really don't think that should be considered an important issue now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. Allen2 just does not have the proficiency in English to be a net positive here. Even their statements from earlier this year, after 3 years of being blocked, shows little improvement and smacks of less than adequate reading comprehension in English to the point that they're just not hearing what people are saying (not quite WP:IDHT, but close). Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose--In absence of any mentoring and/or long-term-editing-plans, I remain unconvinced to allow the user to avail the standard offer.I had strolled through his t/p some months ago and despite the time-gap, I had no difficulties in remembering the one hell of a journey.Winged Blades Godric 08:43, 7 September 2017 (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.

The death of Dr. Zadeh? (redux)[edit]

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.

Resolved: Professor Zadeh has died, confirmed by UC Berkeley

Harkening back to this, there's another report that Lotfi A. Zadeh has died, but, like the last time (which turned out not to be true), there's as yet no confirmation from a reliable source, just a user comment in a discussion group [4] and a report from Azerbaijan supposedly based on information from the same person [5], who is said to be a "friend of the family". (The Azerbaijan news outlet is one of the ones which reported him as being dead last time, so it can hardly be called "reliable" in any way that we'd accept.)

It could be true, Dr. Zadeh is, after all, 96, but these two sources (one source, really) are not sufficiently reliable to put a man's death in a Wikipedia article.

I've posted a suggestion on Primefac's talk page -- he's the admin who protected the article during the last incident -- but I don't think he's due online for a while. Could we have full protection of Lotfi A. Zadeh -- without the supposed date of death -- while we wait for confirmation from an impeccably acceptable source that the man is actually deceased?

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The latest person to post it cited Zadeh's Facebook page, but to me it looks as if that could have been posted by anyone - perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not strong on Facebook. In any case, it cites the Azerbaijan story linked above, and there are still no other sources reporting it (i.e. no hits on Google or Google News, and my Googe Alert hasn't alerted me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Protected for a week. Hopefully that will (again) allow the issue to be cleared up. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (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.

Something to keep in mind[edit]

In a recent spurt of well-meaning CSD nominations there were a huge group of G8 "bad redirects" that were actually a result of xqbot not hitting a double redirect before the first redir was deleted, as well as some obvious vandalism. I had to undelete a group of the pages that shouldn't have been deleted.

I suppose my point is just as a nice note that while the S in CSD does stand for "speedy", we should still be doing our due diligence (checking history, talk pages, etc) before pulling that trigger. Thanks to GB fan for also noticing that and helping clean up. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious offsite blog[edit]

Irrelevant to AN. Alex ShihTalk 03:09, 8 September 2017 (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 found a blogger on Medium (an alternative to Wordpress and Blogspot) who claims to be a feminist who wants the notability policy to be abolished. I think this is the work of a troll group. KMF (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is a troll because, well, it's pretty obvious. Using "it's racist" or "it's sexist" as an excuse and trying to get rid of a major Wikipedia content policy are both pretty suspicious. First they're trying to abolish notability; next thing you know, they'll be trying to abolish NPOV or NOR. KMF (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2017 (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.

Full prot for E/W and discussion needing closure (and PS about Marek)[edit]

(non-admin closure) The page is unprotected. A sanction was levied against Volunteer Marek and subsequently rescinded. There has been no recent discussion in almost a week; therefore, closing the thread. AlexEng(TALK) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (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.

Full protection is currently active at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for an edit war over the use of "illegal alien" vs. "undocumented migrant" or variations thereof. Since there has been no resolution of this dispute by parties including Home Lander, Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and the relevant substantial discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 has not been closed, I have extended full protection by another three days.

While there have been previous discussions on this issue, the current edit war started at the end of July (!).

There is clearly a desire by some editors to continue editing this article directly. I propose the following:

  • If no admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion before the full protection runs out, any further revert should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
  • If an admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion and a consensus found, any further revert against that new consensus should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort

The third possibility (discussion closed but no consensus) has no clear resolution in my mind. Policy would probably suggest further full protection if the edit war continues - an unsatisfactory outcome.

PS: Just saw since starting to draft this last night that talk page discussion has flared up again. IMO, Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership (both evidenced at just this one diff, but there's plenty more).

The IP addresses involved in the dispute with Marek that he alleges to be the same person, map to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, fwiw.

So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.

Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership - oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".
More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a WP:SPA IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).
In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP [6]). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them [7] [8].
A similar situation arose earlier on a different article [9], where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.
Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?
I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.
I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek  13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek  14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The page should probably be tagged for WP:ARBAPDS. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on WP:RPP, and b) raising the issue here instead of continuing the escalation on the talk page, reduce the protection to semi, and hope Samsura and VM can figure out how to coexist with less drama.

  • Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? What's wrong with "undocumented alien" or "undocumented immigrant"? What's POV about those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There might be some contexts where "illegal alien" is the appropriate term (like referring to a specific law which uses that term). But the whole point - and this IS the point, which the IP, Samsara and GoldenRing just refuse to hear - is that for sure on this particular article "illegal alien" is NOT appropriate. The people in question, under DACA are NOT here "illegally". They entered "illegally" (more precisely they were brought in illegally by their parents). But they have - or did as of yesterday - permission to be in the country. Even work in the country. They are (were) in no sense "illegal". This is why the IPs edits were in fact disruptive. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply, no one in the DACA program are "undocumented." They are by definition "documented" quite extensively as they register as illegal aliens seeking to defer deportation, attend school and work in the U.S. There is really no debate about their legal status. This is a different status and description from other immigrants that have not been adjudicated or registered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll just note here, without judgement, that an earlier version of the article used both terms, with one in parentheses. Samsara 19:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Broadening locus[edit]

Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at DREAM Act, an article which should equally fall under WP:ARBAPDS. I've indicated this fact on the talk page. Samsara 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Your judgment frankly. You have full protected an article which was being edited by registered users trying to prevent edit-warring by at best, 1 or 2 IP's from a small geographical area. You have made personal attacks against Marek and not substantiated them with anything resembling evidence - asking for an administrator who isn't enabling IP POV-warriors is perfectly reasonable when your actions are... enabling IP POV-warriors. You slapped ARBAPDS on an article which was not undergoing an edit war after Marek made a good removal of badly sourced info - in what clearly looks like a retaliatory slap for Marek daring to disagree with you. ARBAPDS has some of the most draconian editing restrictions, which you have now made a target for every IP POV-pusher who wants to edit war on it. The combination of 'consensus required' and '1rr' means functionally that random drive-by IP's can prevent improvements of the sort Marek made. Lastly you have brought attention to your inept handling of this by bringing it to one of the most watched boards. I don't know what your problem with Marek is, but you have come across here with showing no clue as to why you have managed to irritate numerous editors at the original article, and responded by attempting to shift the blame to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused about the complaints here. AFAICT, there has been no protection of the article, or any other administrative actions relating to the DREAM Act article other than placing it under DS. Samsara is surely correct that the article falls largely under ARBAPDS. So regardless of the merits of the edits, I don't see any reason to make a big deal over the reasonable placing of DS on the article. This will affect everyone who edits, both those adding the info and removing it, as it should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be placed under discretionary sanctions. That's not the issue here though. Volunteer Marek  14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You "received a complaint" from an anonymous IP POV warrior whose entire edit history consists of anti-immigrant POV-pushing. Interesting that they race to your talk page to report the serious offense of removing self-published anti-immigrant polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Wikipedia policies and being NOTHERE: [10]. At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: [11]. The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': [12]. Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.
So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang'd into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the behaviour I'm referring to. Please don't accuse me of being a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior without any evidence of me exhibiting battleground behaviours. Please don't tell me to watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG without any evidence of my wrongdoing. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A few brief comments about this:

  • APDS applies to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, whether a notice has been applied to the talk page or not. As such, any uninvolved administrator can impose any sanction authorised under standard DS (so long as awareness requirements have been met). Articles in this topic space can't be individual "placed under DS." They are automatically under DS.
  • That being the case, unless someone wants to present evidence that Samsara is involved per the terms of WP:INVOLVED (ie involved beyond taking administrative actions) then they are perfectly within their rights to protect pages. If someone wants to dispute the protection, after discussion with the admin involved, AE should be the first port of call and then ARCA is thataway.
  • An hour spent reading the history of this gives me some concerns about VM's editing. This series of edits removed entirely the section discussing criticism of the DREAM Act, on the grounds that it was unsourced sourced to SPS. This looks like POV-pushing; it seriously unbalances the article and it defies belief that RS could not be found discussing this. Mixed up in that series of edits is this which I just can't understand; the edit summary is "Can't say that in Wikipedia voice" but the edit actually removed a statement attributed to the Centre for Immigration Studies, sourced to a statement by the Centre for Immigration Studies. It looks like any excuse to remove content he doesn't like.
  • The argument over protection at Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals essentially amounts to, "Semi-protect because almost all the people we disagree with would be barred from editing." If the non-autoconfirmed/IP editors were warring against consensus then fine; when the dispute is about a term that was discussed at NPOV/N without consensus, it just looks like gaming the rules to win an editorial dispute.
  • VM's criticism of Samsara doesn't really stand up to much; if this is the best you can do to allege a PA, it's time to take some time out. VM describes this as "enabling the disruptive IP" - the only way I can construe it that way is if you necessarily regard use of the term "illegal alien"/"illegal immigrant" as disruptive.
  • ADMINACCT is a thing, but it's not an excuse to sling as much mud at admins as you can to see what sticks. Descriptions above of Samsara "enabling IP vandalism" can again only be understood as such if any use of the term "illegal alien" is considered vandalism - and, again, in light of the NPOV/N discussion linked above, it can't be.
  • Above, VM eventually just descends to personal attacks.
  • In light of the above, I'm imposing a three-month topic ban for VM from all edits and articles related to immigration in the United States, under AP2 DS. Violations should be reported to WP:AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm halfway through reading this--if this counts as a "personal attack" we might as well all pack it in. Same here--seriously? Tom Robbins said years ago that a story that starts with a beet ends with the devil. A thread that starts with an editor who only does shit like this, an edit whose repetitions confirm that they are not here to improve our beautiful project, is likely to end with unjust censure if not nipped in the bud. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No way are those personal attacks linked to two lines above. Imho, etc. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The removal of the 'criticism' section from DREAM act was with the edit summary 'actually this whole thing is SPS - find a secondary sources which covers this stuff' not 'unsourced' as you have claimed. Given you actually posted the edit summary, I assume you just didn't look at it, rather than being unable to read. Given that the criticism section was almost entirely sourced to an advocacy website whose purpose is to spread FUD about immigration, CIS here is *not* an independent reliable source by absolutely any standard, its an entirely reasonable content removal. Lastly the sanctions placed on the DREAM act were not merely a 'notification' that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, they include the 1rr and consensus required sanctions that is massive overkill for an article that was not undergoing any sort of edit-war and seems entirely designed to enable IP POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Corrected. It doesn't materially change the point. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#From_AN---> No, not from ANI, on ANI. It is not a personal attack to question someone's competence after numerous examples were given by User:Only in death at 08:29 this AM, thus evidencing the claims before VM actually made them. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am not actually saying that the remarks are in themselves accurate, merely that they do not qualify as personal atttacks. I will say that Samsara has always been nothing but straight up with me. It's bloody painful sitting on this fence :) — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sanction placed by GoldenRing. There seems to be very little and seriously debatable evidence to base this sanction on. Criticism of an admin and their actions is hardly a reason to place AP2 sanctions (and as said above, forcefully stated criticism hardly rises to the personal attack level that warrants sanctions). The removal of the section is certainly defendable, and the one "problematic" edit in that series seems to me that we can hardly claim "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" when the 1986 amnesty article doesn't even indicate such massive fraud. Without a clear pattern of unambigiously problematic edits in the AP2 area, a topic ban is not warranted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Could you please cite the exact line under which you believe you have authority to remove the sanction? I do not see any text in the policy section you cited when posting on VM's talk page, so I am wondering what you believe grants you that authority. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fut.Perf.'s interpretation here, though one might reasonably in good faith misinterpret that the section about placing restrictions might have some content about removing them, given the not-great wording of that line. (Reference OID's link below.) Fram, you might consider reviewing WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and withdrawing your attempt at removing the restriction. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the words of the relevant policies say, but if a discussion/consensus is required then I support Fram's removal of what I see as an unjustified sanction (for the reasons Fram gives). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately it's a colon not a comma. — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks Only. I guess it's down to consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support Fram's actions. WP:IAR applies.GR alone knows what led him to the topic, place a completely bogus sanction and stand out as the most incompetent editor in the entire thread.And, of course, the skins need to be thickened a bit.Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies to all, I have reverted my action, as I indeed misread the policy. I have informed Volunteer Marek of my mistake, and of the fact that this means that the sanction is still valid.

@GoldenRing:: seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple editors now, would you be willing to lift the sanction yourself and start a discussion to see if there is consensus for this (or another) sanction? Fram (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the admins commenting, GoldenRing's analysis convinces me as having a fairly complete understanding of the situation. His having spent an hour looking into the case strikes me as likely true. Samsara 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Then it is rather strange that his "fairly complet understanding" has led to a fairly wrong result. I have not commented on how long he has spent studying the situation, nor do I see its relevance (it clearly wasn't a 30-second look into it, beyond that a commpetition of who looked at this the longest seems not very fruitful). Anyway, I'll rephrase; "seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple uninvolved editors now...". Better? Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: - I'm sorry but questioning an administrator's competence - and I am NOT the only person to have done this (User:Chris Howard raised a similar point and User:Only in death was the first one to do so) is NOT a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than Samsara basely accusing me of article "ownership" simply because I reverted an IP. It is no more of a personal attack, less even, then an admin (Samsara) being rude and obnoxious to another editor (not me, another one) simply because they questioned their judgement [13] regarding full protection. Yes, Samsara is within their rights to impose full protection on a page. They are NOT within their rights to demand that someone be blocked simply because they question that decision. Volunteer Marek  13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The desire for ownership imo is evident in your characterising your opposition as a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses, which is the diff I provided (repeated here for convenience). And I have no problem with you criticising me. I do have a problem with you attacking newcomers in a scathing manner that can in no way be justified by having a different opinion, and have told you so before. So you do know what my objection is, you just apparently do not like it and will not take a helpful suggestion on board. Samsara 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not "ownership" not even close. When you have a WP:SPA IP editor who only repeatedly makes the same revert over and over and over and over again, and provokes pointless edit wars, that's exactly what they are (I assume you're not actually objecting to me characterising IP addresses as "IP addresses", since that would be, you know, silly on your part). This happens all the time. Editors using IP addresses or newly created accounts start edit wars on controversial articles. They revert as much as they want, because if they get blocked, it's no skin off their back. Just get another account. But established, long time users can't do that. So basically named and respected users are sort of screwed when dealing with these kinds of "IP addresses". The only thing we can do pretty much is ask for semi-protection (of course this whole stupid problem wouldn't even exist if we had flagged revisions/pending changes but that's a rant for another time and place). Which we did. But you decided to fully protect the IPs edits, and then came running here when that action was challenged by several editors. Thus, yes, you were enabling these IP editors. Volunteer Marek  14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, where are we with this? In the meantime I have blocked the IP whose ridiculous POV-pushing edits, complete with edit warring and making bad-faith reports, started all this. I agree that the sanction was hasty, that the criticism by Marek at the admin's address were not personal insults, that this is overblown and should be corrected. I appreciate Fram's intervention: we need to get this right. Seriously, you don't need to have heard half the shit I've been told by established editors in order to see that a. Marek's comments were serious charges but not personal attacks; b. this started with a BS report acted on improperly and too quickly; c. we need to do much, much better in staving off disruption from many, many sides--including POV warring IPs, sock accounts, and others. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    What he said. This is one of the worst cases of over-reaction I've seen for a while (this board is supposed to be for defusing conflict, not escalating it, people), and possibly the worst admin misjudgment I've seen recently - admins should be employing mops, sympathetic ears and soothing words - not boots and clubs. I see a strongly-emerging consensus among uninvolved parties that the sanction was wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support overturning VM's sanction. NE Ent
  • @Drmies: I've just read through a longish stretch of that IP's contributions and I'm wondering for which of them you have blocked? Their TP contributions look civil and well-reasoned. Their reversion of vandalism is rarish but well-founded. They exceeded 3RR once but it was over a month ago and well stale for action now. They have edit-warred without breaking 3RR several times, always over the "undocumented" vs "illegal" question. But if that is the grounds for the sanction, then it begs the question: why is not a similar sanction on those with whom he edit-warred appropriate? As far as I can tell, VM is doing so claiming consensus against "illegal" when it's been repeatedly pointed out to him that no such consensus exists, while the IP is correctly describing consensus (or lack of it). The only other difference is that the IP is an IP; last I checked, that wasn't a blockable offence. GoldenRing (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • GoldenRing, this IP has been at this since November of last year; besides this article improvement and this one, that's all they have been doing here. There is no single opponent of theirs in that edit history with that history of reverting, so that's easy. Such a focus is an obsession, and if you look at their talk page posts (5 until recently, against dozens of article reverts), it's obvious that they're not arguing anything about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. Here is another example of forumposting on a talk page, with that lame argument that popped up in their edit summaries: it's "like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt." No, the shoplifter stole something--but either way, they should be talking about sources. Then there's the "PC trolls" warning in the edit summaries, and finally that nice piece of red meat they threw out here, which got VM topic-banned, which I hope you will reconsider. No, this is the kind of troll that should have been blocked long before we got here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks. The substance of this dispute is that some editors object to the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant." VM labels everyone who uses it a vandaldisruptive (eg in this discussion among many other places), despite the fact that a recent discussion at NPOV/N on whether the term is usable on wikipedia reached no consensus; there was a majority in favour of its use, with support split fairly evenly between those who thought it should be the default term for those unlawfully in a country and those who think it is appropriate sometimes. So when you read "disruptive IP vandal" in this (and related) discussions, you need to bear in mind that it is code for "non-autoconfirmed or IP editor who dared to use 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant', apparently in line with consensus, and who objected to VM reverting them."

Mix this in with the attempts to game protection levels to win a dispute and outright falsehoods in edit summaries (both evidenced in my statement above) I think this topic would benefit from VM's absence for three months. If VM wants to appeal this, he can do so at AE, AN or ARCA.

I'm a bit surprised by the focus in comments above on VM's statements about Samsara's adminship; in the same diff, he also questioned his competence as an editor. In the second PA diff, he called another editor an "opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior with a grudge" with nothing whatsoever to support it, because that editor dared to comment on this thread. VM complaining about weak claims of PAs rings pretty hollow when he himself accused Samsara of a PA because he asked someone, "Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?" If that's his standard of personal attack, it's a line he himself has stepped a long way over. GoldenRing (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor in question has now been blocked for repeated disruptive editing — precisely what VolunteerMarek said it was doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I consider it likely that the IP reciprocally had the same opinion of VM, given that they edit-warred directly with each other at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Samsara 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
What 'outright falsehood in edit summaries'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There are growing problems with POV-pushing IP editors on a number of politically-related articles, as more and more people discover that in the name of assuming good faith, we put up with far more disruption from anonymous IPs than we ever would from registered users, which is precisely backward. It is not "gaming protection levels" to argue that more and more of these articles should be under long-term semi-protection or pending changes. It is common sense that will only become more common. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! This is getting ridiculous.
" VM labels everyone who uses it a vandal" - completely and utterly false. Show some diffs or strike the accusation GoldenRing. Here, here is the talk page. Do a ctrl-F search for "vandal". It occurs ONCE. And that is not by me. It is a statement - "We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals" - by User:Muboshgu. So that's YET ANOTHER user who thinks that full protection of that article is ridiculous and that Samsara dropped the ball big time. Regardless, I am not calling ANYONE "vandal". Here is the article history with my edit summaries. Do a ctril-F search for "vandal". You'll find some. BY OTHER EDITORS - not me - REVERTING IPs and red-linked accounts. So stop making shit up GoldenRing. Or maybe you want to go and block User:El C, User:Serols, User:Dan Koehl, User:Muboshgu or even the good ol' ClueBot, since they actually DID call IPs "vandals". I didn't. Stop making shit up to excuse your own mess. Take some personal responsibility, admit you screwed this up and rescind the sanctions as numerous users and admins have advised you.
Oh, and guess what? The only person who used the term "IP vandal" in this discussion is... YOU.
But let me keep going.
Your characterization of the discussion at NPOV/N is also false, as I've pointed out repeatedly on talk to the IP. That discussion was regarding whether the term "illegal alien" should be BANNED from Wikipedia. And yeah, it shouldn't. But that "not banned" is not the same as "should always be used". That in fact is what the dispute is about - which terms is appropriate for THAT ONE article. It's a legitimate content dispute. Whatever "code" you're seeing is in your own head. But I shouldn't be sanctioned for the stuff that goes on your head.
Re: last paragraph. YOU. JUST. SAID that "The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks". And in fact there were no personal attacks. Yes, I questioned Samsara's competency. So did NUMEROUS other users. Because they acted incompetently. Seriously, does anyone think that fully protecting that article ESPECIALLY NOW was a good idea? All over some edit warring by an IP against multiple users? What the hell? Where are you getting this stuff from?
"Outright falsehoods in edit summaries" - put up or shut up. Show me the diffs. As an admin you should know better than to make WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence. Which edit summary had an "outright falsehood" in it? Remember, "outright" means that it's not a matter of interpretation, it's not a mistake, it's me supposedly and purposefully lying. So... show me the diffs buddy or strike the attack.
And "gaming protection levels"??? Buddy, at least four other users SAID THE SAME DAMN THING as I did. Are we all "gaming protection levels"? Are you going to ban them from the topic? What the hell are you doing?
 Volunteer Marek  21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I apologise. I've struck 'vandal' since the term you used was indeed 'disruptive'. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.
The falsehood in an edit summary was evidenced above but I'll give it again; in this edit you claimed you were removing content because "can't say that in wikipedia voice" when in fact you were removing a statement clearly in the voice of another organisation.
AFAICT, your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
" your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute." - Arrghghg! FOUR other users said the exact same damn thing! Since then additional users have chimed in to point out that fully protecting the article was dumb! Stop making excuses for your own mistake.
And this: [14]? AS ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OTHERS yes it sure as hell says "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" in Wikipedia voice. Even if not, that is not an edit you sanction somebody for ffs. And that is categorically NOT a "falsehood". You can disagree whether or not that text should be in there, that's fine. But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that. And the more you do it, the worse and worse you make yourself look.
Stop making excuses for your own mistake. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Are we looking at the same diff? The diff I'm looking at removes part of a sentence that runs, "The nativist-leaning Center for Immigration Studies has raised concerns that..., that..., that it would result in massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty, that... and that..." How is that not a statement in the voice of the Center for Immigration Studies? If it's an honest mistake, fine, say so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass. I just happen to think that AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE it's not appropriate (which is perfectly valid position given discussion at NPOV/N). I'd appreciate it if people stopped telling me what I do or do not believe. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
TL; DR, but I was pinged. I am not fully aware of the editing history of DACA. I just looked into the history right before the article was protected and saw IP edits being reverted, and may have assumed too much about the cause of the full protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If it's only a question whether it's appropriate at that one particular article, then why were you edit-warring over it on multiple articles? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption, then what makes you think you have a right to an opinion on it while the IP does not? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption but rather a question of editorial judgement of what's appropriate for the article, why is protection in response to edit-warring "enabling IP disruption" and not an entirely appropriate response? GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
And just because I'm feeling defensive (being falsely called a liar tends to do that), if you want to bring up the DREAM Act article as an example where I removed "illegal" (one revert, not "edit warring") then I just got to point out that... the two articles are freakin' closely related! Jeezus pandas. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Re the sanction placed on VM - I have to join others who find it unjustified. I do think VM should tone it down a little sometimes on talk pages (although given the rampant disruption on many pages dealing with controversial topics, I understand his frustration). But the rapid hammer on him was not good, not good at all. I think it's especially weird that criticism of an admin (deemed as unjustified) was explicitly cited as justification for a topic ban (!). If that was sanctionable, there would be dozens and dozens of editors who would be sanctioned. Frankly, the best thing to do now would be for GR to withdraw the sanction, and for VM to agree to dial it back a little bit in terms of heated disputes. Then everyone can move on with grace. Neutralitytalk 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with Neutrality but was pretty much about to say a similar thing; I think the bright line for topic bans in such areas needs to be (and generally is) set higher than the behaviour observed here. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Neutrality. Well said. And then I hope this topic could be closed and the admin(s) could address the issue of whether to now lower the protection level to semi (or extended confirmed) which has been raised on WP:RFRPL. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in to agree with Neutrality, Black Kite and Chris Howard. This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate topic ban. GoldenRing, if you're going to insist it's taken to AE to get lifted, so be it, but with this amount of opposition here, including so many admins, you are making yourself look bad by not simply undoing it right now and saving the red tape. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen: Recently Hidden Tempo was given an indefinite block under Discretionary Sanctions for a 3RR violation. You endorsed that block but offered to convert it into an indefinite AP2 topic ban. It is difficult to see how an indefinite and broad topic ban is appropriate in one case but a narrow and finite topic ban is out of bounds in the other. Both editors were accused of tendentious editing and battleground behavior and disruption in both cases is confined to politics. Is the 3RR violation the difference? Neutrality (also objecting here) found the indefinite block "within discretion." This seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden, you are mistaken about the discretionary sanctions; MastCell's block of Hidden Tempo wasn't per ds, and if I should convert it to an indefinite topic ban from American politics, that wouldn't be per discretionary sanctions either. In the normal course of events, there are only two ways a topic ban can be placed: either by a single admin per discretionary sanctions, or per community discussion on AN or ANI. However, there's a third, rarer way, inasmuch as an admin can negotiate anything they want in return for an unblock — a topic ban or any other sanction they believe would work. The only condition is that the blocked user agrees to the changed sanction. I don't suppose the discretionary sanctions thing was the main aspect of your question, but I still felt I needed to clarify it. For the rest, MastCell blocked Hidden Tempo "for repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior", and the immediate occasion for the block was this ANI discussion. I understand you're making a comparison (a misleading one IMO), but I don't think this thread is the best place for going into detail about Hidden Tempo's block. (There's already a lot of discussion on HT's talkpage.) I'll just answer your question the way you put it: no, the 3RR violation isn't the difference. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Samsara's edit[edit]

(and I would still like an explanation for this edit. Especially given the big hullaboo that Samsara is making about me reverting an IP. If it was a mistake, then that's fine, but then one should think about stones and glass houses.)  Volunteer Marek  14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I can diffuse that for you. Look at the time stamp of the next edit and ask yourself how likely it is that I could have made the correction myself before the other party got to it. If you want to make the case that the banners were helpful, I'm interested to hear how many will agree with you. Samsara 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
They would have been helpful if you had just changed "article" to "section". But whatever. So if I understand it correctly you restored misspellings into the article because you wanted to make other changes and didn't look at it closely. Fair enough. Volunteer Marek  14:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Review (by uninvolved editors) of the topic ban of Volunteer Marek[edit]

User:GoldenRing has posted to VM's talk page rescinding the topic ban. I won't close the rest of this yet, because I haven't read thru it all to see if there are any dangly bits still to be dealt with, but this section definitely no longer needs to stay open gathering more signatures. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) added, only because I initially said the struck out bit above: After reading thru it all, I'm not sure closing the rest of the thread above is a good idea right now; my inclination was to close per "more heat than light", but there is still discussion going on in some of these sections, and I don't want to artificially shut it down. Plus I'm likely not around this afternoon if people complain. No objection if someone else closes the whole thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2017 (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.

Yesterday, User:GoldenRing issued a 3-months topic ban for Volunteer Marek under the AP2 discretionary sanctions. Such a topic ban may not be overturned by another admin on his own, and GoldenRing doesn't seem willing to overturn his topic ban and bring it here to get a broader consensus for it. This only leaves us, according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions with two options, getting "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN" or going to ArbCom. So, in light of the above discussion where multiple uninvolved editors agreed that the sanction wasn't warranted, I'll try the first. The proposal is to remove the sanction against Volunteer Marek. Fram (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I didn't see this section, which had just been started when I posted. As I said, I think the topic ban is inappropriate. Fram, perhaps you can just summarize the opposition above? I'm pretty sure it amounts to a consensus of uninvolved editors, and it seems a little awkward that everybody will have to repeat what they've said. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
    • Yeah, well, I was somewhat wrong when I first overturned the sanction, so I try to do it by the book this time. I know that quite a few editors (who as far as I am ware are uninvolved) have expressed misgivings about the sanction, but I would rather have them repeat it here to avoid including involved editors or people who don't really want it overturned anyway. Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose I should put it as by the book as possible, then: Support overturning the sanction. But I also appeal to GoldenRing to just do it and not insist on the red tape. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
I support it too, although whether I can now claim to be uninvolved is- questionable? Since the discussion veered wildly between here and my talk while the above was taking place. But pace GR, I think this was heavy handed; I also don't think he needs to be kebabed for what is- whilst wrong- no worse a heavy-handed use of admin-tools than other admins have shown. And some of them, ironically, are in this thread. I echo the request above for a non-process closure, per NOTBURO, as it would demonstrate the utmost collegiality. I also note that VM patrols some of the most toxic and politically virulent pages on our project, and that he should be thanked for it rather than punished. Uuurggh. — fortunavelut luna 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note In light of the criticism above, I am reconsidering this (having also slept on it), but would like another hour to read through a bit more history, please. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this section even existed when I commented above, but, at the risk of redundancy, since it's requested, I'll reiterate here: This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 10:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there already is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors above, but to formalise it, I think the sanction placed on Volunteer Marek was misjudged and I support removing it. (I also appeal to GoldenRing to simply remove the sanction and save the timewaste of having to forcibly overturn it by consensus.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec with B!sZ) Having spent nearer three hours than one reading diffs, I'm still personally inclined to leave this sanction in place. I got as far as the third week of August through VM's contribs, skipping over some obviously non-AP2-related stuff. My overall impression is that VM has a noticeable political POV but that most of the time he does a decent enough job of not pushing it in disruptive ways. Something about immigration and its intersection with race relations (and in this particular instance the "illegal" vs "undocumented" alien/immigrant debate) gets him hot under the collar and the subject would be better off without his input for a bit. He also has very little time for new and IP editors; fair enough, the proportion of disruption that comes from them is, well, disproportionate; that doesn't mean you get your way solely because the other guy is new or an IP. If anyone desperately wants diffs for the above, ask and I'll do it, but it'll take a while and I'm waaaaay out of time for this today.
  • That said, I can read the writing on the wall above and won't waste people's time further by insisting on a formal close to overturn the sanction. VM, please show a little patience with new and unregistered editors and cool it on the illegal/undocumented thing for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There are better ways to back down than that. Some of those ways even include a proper apology. -- Begoon 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Marek's feistiness is frequently mischaracterized. It has been years (OK, a very long time, certainly) since I have seen them be uncivil or unreasonable. Their comments and criticism are versed in policy, and the topic ban should be rescinded--not out of charity, but because it is the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2017 (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.

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Sarmeh[edit]

resolved (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2017 (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.

There appears to be sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Sarmeh, and admin attention may be appropriate briefly. A good closer can discount the unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Disregard that. The closer ignored the unregistered editors and deleted the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (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.

Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation (again)[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked for a week by Seraphim blade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2017 (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.

There is already a discussion regarding this editor, but as this was a different article I made a new report. Feel free to add this to the current report if that's better.

This editor is subject to a 1RR/72 hours on anything related to BLP. [15]

They have already been reported [16] however, it was a little stale.

However, this editor seems to have broken the 1RR/72 hours again. (hardly surprising, as they said they would break it - [17] )

Here are the two reverts within 1 hour 13 mins.

[18] [19] (this was a cheeky revert - (-7,388)‎ but marked as a minor edit?)

There is a discussion regarding this content on both the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard, this editor has not attempted to join either discussion, despite having that course of action recommended when the 1RR/72 sanction was imposed on them.

This most certainly isn't a case of removing vandalism, it's a mere content dispute - content that is correctly, reliably and verifiably sourced.

Sorry, but I can't think of a more blatant example of being here just for drama, than someone who got an editing restriction two weeks ago, stated that they would break that restriction and then broke it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Does Hillbillyholiday think that BLPVIO means leaving absolutely nothing negative whatsoever? — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Multiple editors have removed the section already, it's at the BLPN, but Cowboy is editwarring to keep the material. As I explained on Cowboy's talkpage, this part in particular is highly problematic:

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."

The given source, kdramastars.com, is not good enough. In fact the entire section is cobbled together from primary sources of varying quality. One is a copyright-violating youtube clip. It needs to stay out until a consensus has been reached on whether to include it, and if so, how it should be worded. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard." [20]
Sorry, but not liking ONE SOURCE, out of many that include The Times, The Guardian, NBC etc is not a good enough reason to break your editing sanction.
Let me quote this one section from the sanction "except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources" which this most certainly was not.
you should have gone to either the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard and discussed this. But hey, at least you're honest, you said "I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby." and now you're doing exactly that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As this is the editor's second violation of the editing restrictions (first violation resulted in a warning rather than a block), I've blocked for one week and warned them that future violations will result in more severe sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 8 September 2017 (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.

Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked after second violation (below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2017 (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.

Please enforce as a final warning. It's a little late for a block and might be too extreme, especially since they took it to the BLPN, but I did want to get it on record in case this happens again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, if this hillbilly claimed the BLP, Black Kite might have something to say, considering this edit. Black Kite, I'm a bit disappointed with that removal--don't you think the world would be a better place if we all kissed a bit more? Esp. if we kissed billionaires? 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
"Claiming" BLP has nothing to do with this. The user violated his restriction on reverting BLP articles. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be, but that edit was mainly to stop the BLP focusing on the subject's criminal past; the removal of the tabloid gossip stuff was a by-product. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the BLPN thread I agree a 4IM-style warning should be placed on HBH's talk page leaving no room for doubt that claiming BLP without citing a specific complaint does not give them the right to violate their editing restriction. If they are going to try and push for getting an exception to their editing restriction they need to be on 100% solid policy ground and need to be able to cite the exact policy, section, and commentaries to make their case. It be better for them to appeal the case to something like the Talk page or BLPN before breaking the editing restriction as now we're considering the editing restriction (the conduct) over the content (potentially BLP violation). Hasteur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. A block now for an edit that was a week ago and hasn't been repeated is simply pointless, but they really need to not do it again. If they have a serious BLP concern that isn't vandalism, after 1 revert it must go to BLPN or be pointed out to another editor. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Hasteur: As the person who drafted his editing restriction, it was meant to prevent him from edit warring by citing the BLP exception. That was the entire purpose of the restriction. He is not permitted to use it or to get around his edit restriction in any manner except obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khilus Kryik: as the person who drafted the editing restriction and the one pushing for sanctions now, I have a question: Why didn't you jump up and down on the violation quicker? Demanding anything more than the 4IM is Punitive over Preventative. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I never demanded anything more than a warning. I actually explicitly said I didn't want one. So I don't understand what you are getting at. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User has made their intentions known to ignore the editing restriction. Will an administrator please handle this? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Complaining about the restriction isn't a violation of it. In this case, we've got one incident a wee