Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 20 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 81 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 79 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 79 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gigi Hadid#RfC: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

(Initiated 60 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Dorchester Review

(Initiated 31 days ago on 21 June 2024) RFC template has expired and conversation has died down. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	3	20	23
TfD	0	0	0	12	12
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	4	34	38
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 57 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 59 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 56 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 51 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States)

(Initiated 19 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 8083 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Weenus 2024-07-23 07:11 indefinite create request at rfp, redirect Lectonar Weenis 2024-07-23 07:11 indefinite create request at rfp, redirect Lectonar Rathore dynasty 2024-07-23 03:16 2024-10-23 03:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Rathore (Rajput clan) 2024-07-23 03:13 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Mughal–Rajput wars 2024-07-22 21:43 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; will log it under WP:GCASTE given the usual Rajput-related sockpuppetry and warring Abecedare Branches of Rashtrakuta dynasty 2024-07-22 21:38 2025-07-22 21:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock farms Abecedare Baglana 2024-07-22 21:37 2025-07-22 21:37 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock-farms Abecedare Second Battle of Shuja'iyya (2024) 2024-07-22 21:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign 2024-07-22 19:45 indefinite edit,move Make move protection following edit protection per this RfPP request Favonian Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 2024-07-22 05:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Taylor Small 2024-07-22 04:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per ANEW and GENSEX Daniel Case I Don't Wanna Cry 2024-07-22 01:13 2025-07-22 01:13 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Isabelle Belato Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header/core 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3197 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2957 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Klepon 2024-07-21 11:58 2024-08-21 11:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:List of country subdivision flags in Africa 2024-07-21 02:45 indefinite move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa (2nd nomination) Barkeep49 Endemic COVID-19 2024-07-21 01:52 2024-08-21 01:52 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Youngboi OG 2024-07-20 21:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Draft:Jim 2024-07-20 20:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD 2024 Israeli strikes on Yemen 2024-07-20 20:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/outercore 2024-07-20 19:26 indefinite edit,move per request Primefac Al-Mansi 2024-07-20 03:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Societal breakdown in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war 2024-07-19 20:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Ali B 2024-07-19 16:57 2024-08-02 16:57 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Dandansoy 2024-07-19 14:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Joseph Muscat 2024-07-19 10:31 2024-07-26 10:31 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per WP:RFPP Johnuniq Category:Amresh Bhuyan 2024-07-19 09:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz

Question re WP:NOSHARING

I recently came across a beautifully worded talk post from an editor who I have worked alongside for a long time.[1] It struck me as very strange, because throughout the time I have previously known him, his English has been very different [2][3][4][5]. It is the difference between a native and non-native speaker, a gap that cannot be bridged in a short period of time. Examples in the first link which I have not seen before from this user include colorful adverbs (e.g. aptly), particular latinate word choices (e.g. subsequently vs. “then/after/next”) and unblemished use of tense.

Is there any way to assess this further with respect to WP:NOSHARING, akin to an WP:SPI?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Please make sure that you notify the editor in question of this thread, as is required by the red box at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done this for you. SQL^{Query me!} 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[6][7]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Papirosn, last edit before someone else (the second diff in the comment just above mine)
• Mount Hope, Jaffa, last edit before someone else
• Arthur Menachem Hantke, last edit before someone else
• Félix-Marie Abel, last edit before someone else (the first diff above)

Do with these what you will. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Shrike for a long time. Onceinawhile is correct that it is quite impossible for Shrike to have written the indicated text without help. Nobody can advance from C-grade English to A-grade overnight. Nableezy raised the same question on Shrike's talk page, which Shrike (whose English level had somehow returned to C-grade) refused to answer: I will not gonna answer You baseless WP:ASPERATIONS is another example of you WP:BATTLE mode.But I will say this I certainly didn't broke any rules. I'm not alleging that Shrike violated a policy, but I do believe an explanation is in order. Zero^talk 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Related, go to this version (earlier this year) of Shrike's talk, scroll down to the bottom, and un-hide the collapsed text; you'll see people asking the same question. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to Onceinawhile: The post you cite and link to in your OP was not on a talkpage, it was on this noticeboard (AN) [8]. It seems clear to me that Shrike had someone else word the post -- someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia's ins and outs and jargon. It was a very long and detailed, six-paragraph OP about TheGracefulSlick's transgressions. Shrike's subsequent posts in that same thread reverted to his inadequate English. So something is going on. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Icewhiz as he may have some idea about this. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• This appears quite speculative to me, and why has this become a problem a month after the fact. Might it be a timely response to this? Also within days of all of this happening – also involving Shrike. For all intents and purposes, the only thing that may be demonstrated is that Shrike had some help writing the post. Proxying? potentially, but Shrike and TGS have overlap in the IP editing area, and for whom would they be proxying? Their personally filing the case is entirely unsurprising, given that they also started the Your unblock conditions thread on TGS' talk page. Proxying, thus, appears unlikely. GizzyCatBella proposes a more likely explanation that [p]ossibly the editor received some assistance in drafting the note in perfect English [...]. Not unusual, or prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike and I recently collaborated on a DYK. I noticed the line through TGS’s name on a talk page yesterday so traced back to find out why. I hope that is a clear explanation. It is the type of explanation I would like to hear from Shrike. His collaboration with the mystery second editor could be innocuous or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to AGF, but then you rounded it out with: or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Get evidence for the latter, or go do something else. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I don't quite understand why proxying is unlikely because Shrike was someone who we would have expected to file a case/has legitimate interest. If I were a banned (whether topic or site) or blocked editor or simply someone without active sanction who wanted to evade scrutiny, looking for someone to proxy for me I'd look for several things. One is someone who could be reasonably expected to file a case. I definitely would avoid choosing someone who had never ever been involved in the area ever before since frankly it would raise too many questions. Now I'd also choose someone who I'd believe would be compliant, preferably someone I was friends with to increase the chance of compliance, and someone who could reasonably have written the message I wrote for them. The first two could obviously apply if proxying were involved, there's no way for me to know. The last one clearly didn't happen. But it doesn't seem sufficient evidence in itself since frankly making sure that the person's English level and commenting style is similar enough to yours is probably one of the easiest things to miss. Remember that proxying is frowned upon, even if you had legitimate interest in what is being proxied and may have eventually written your own version of what's being proxied because banned means banned. At a minimum, it's reasonable that editors should disclose if what they're posting was actually written by a banned or blocked editor or even an editor in good standing who doesn't want to be associated with the complaint and they're posting because they agree it's a legitimate complaint. Note that I'm not saying this happened, but rather I see no reason to say it's unlikely from the limited evidence at hand. Personally, if Shrike at simply clarified when queried about it way back that they had help but the person who helped them wasn't blocked or banned, I would AGF on that. The fact they've been so evasive is what causes concern and makes me feel it would be best if they disclose to arbcom or whatever who helped them. (I'm not saying I would support any sanction if they don't but being part of a community means sometimes it's good if you deal with concerns even without any threat of sanction for not doing so.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne - I had forgotten that I had posted here and hadn't bothered to check whether someone had responded to me. In short, per WP:PROXYING, Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Shrike can do both. The discussion resulted in the community ban being reimposed (thus productive), and Shrike had reason to initiate the discussion (thus independent). If you have any evidence that Shrike was proxying for CrazyAces, even if it doesn't fall under proxying for the preceding reason, then post it. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done here. I'm not going to shove an editor under the proverbial bus without evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, by way of explanation: Some folks here do not seem to understand that it appears that Shrike may have been proxying for a banned editor. For those who don't know the whole long story, TheGracefulSlick was endlessly hounded and harassed by CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) and later by CrazyAces' numerous sockpuppets. If Shrike took the wording of that long involved AN filing from CrazyAces489 or his socks, that would be a breach. As it is, the only other person whom I can think would have the motive, knowledge, English skills, and wherewithal to write such a lengthy and detailed and nuanced and perfect-English filing of TheGracefulSlick's missteps would be Icewhiz, who had also apparently been observing his edits -- but there's no reason that Icewhiz would not have filed his own AN post rather than merely providing text to Shrike (who clearly does not have the ability to write what he posted in that AN filing). Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that the TGS was hounded. In that case, I think it's more imperative that Shrike explain either privately or publicly who helped them with that post. Failing that, I'd be willing to support some sanction. Perhaps a topic ban on bringing on participating in complaints about other editors to AN//I or AE. They may still participate in any discussions about them of course. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Nableezy, who brought the issue up on Shrike's talkpage last month. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• SHRIKE, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Y'all have too much free time. You're trying to rule on something you have no information on whatsoever, in order to enforce rules that are essentially unenforceable and fundamentally wrong. Hey, Shrike! Can I have the password to your email account? I wanna see who you've been chatting with. Oh, and please hand over your phone. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here Even if Shrike is copying, verbatim, a banned editor, that's not prohibited under PROXYING. What Shrike is doing (assuming of course that they didn't just ask somebody for English help/spending some time drafting) is taking responsibility for the contents of the post, and they must demonstrate that the changes are productive. Given that the discussion in question lead to the reimposing of an indef on TGS, I think that is prima facie evidence that the post was productive. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually I'll put it more simply. If it is true that Shrike is proxying for a socking hounder, and Shrike wants to take responsibility for that edit, then they are taking responsibility for hounding another editor. We are also free to sanction them for engaging in hounding. There should never be any reason why hounding is acceptable, even if the editor being hounded deserves sanction by independent action unrelated to the hounding. This is not simply a matter of semantics since it's completely understandable an editor may feel angry by the fact that they were sanctioned from a discussion started effectively by a hounder, even if were they to look at it fairly, they would recognise the sanction itself was entirely justified. There is absolutely zero reason the discussion which lead to the sanction had to be so tainted. This isn't a case where the hounder managed to evade scrutiny and post before we caught them but one where if it is true, they were enabled by an editor here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• One final comment on the issue for clarity, since I believe the AE case which was mentioned above has some similarities. If a sock initiates a case and it's closed as coming from a sock, I'm not saying the text has to be thrown out. Actually it may be okay to re-use the case verbatim. In such examples, at least it's disclosed and it's questionable if it's worth re-writing anything if it isn't needed. I consider this fairly different from an example where, unsolicited, an editor who has been hounding another editor to the extent of using socks, sends a case privately or semi-privately to an editor in good standing, and said editor in good standing posts it without disclosing this happened. IMO it should just be completely thrown out, i.e. I'm not even going to bother to read by any editor receiving it. But still, I could accept it if it was disclosed that it came or they believe it came from such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [9] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of WP:BATTLE behavior because I didn't allow his WP:POV a DYK nomination to be presented as he wanted--Shrike (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment Shrike: ok, let us accept your word, that you didn't get help of the banned CrazyAces489 or his socks, but you did indeed get help of someone, let us call them X, with your English. Fair enough. My problem is that with, say the sentence that Nableezy quotes below: that sentence reveal an intimate knowledge of not only English, but with Wikipedia matter. My non−Wikipedian native−English speaking friends would simply not have managed to produce such a sentence. My question is then, is the person(s) who helped you with your English a present or former Wikipedian? If so, who? You don't have to tell me, but I really think you should disclose it to some "higher authority" here. Huldra (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote this also wrote this. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state also wrote "a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated WP:BAN. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim?, please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an SPI-equivalent process for NOSHARING?

The original question was whether there is an SPI-equivalent process that could be used to get to the bottom of this. I am assuming from the above that the answer is no, but can anyone confirm? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The process should be expected in the space above. Technically, 'administrator' (or perhaps checkuser) is the process if any action is expected, but here's a fairly good place to find them loitering. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NOSHARING is meant to be, but if you mean the misuse of an account by multiple people, WP:ROLE I believe is the correct guideline, and if not SPI then right here is the venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARING is part of the username policy but also contains a prohibition on shared accounts. I would agree that SPI is the best place to deal with shared account issues. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

For his reports of other editors, Shrike has "gotten help with his English" from some undisclosed person who is obviously intimately well−versed in Wikipedia affairs. I think this other person should do his/her own reporting.

I therefor suggest the following motion: Shrike will in the future not be allowed to report any other editor to WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:AN/I.

• Support, as nominator, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment this ridiculous I am well versed with Wikipedia affairs so I don't need anyone help with this and as per Mr rnddude I did nothing wrong as I didn't break any policy.I think its time for WP:BOOMERANG as Huldra came here just because of our interaction in WP:ARBPIA to continue wage her WP:BATTLE here and make frivolous proposals. --Shrike (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support As explained in the examples above, Shrike is obviously being fed text from someone familiar with WP:ARBPIA—text that the author is unable to post themselves. ARBPIA is possibly the most contentious topic at Wikipdia and Shrike's doubling-down with a denial of reality shows this remedy is the minimum requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I dont know why Shrike cant just tell us the truth. Who wrote the report? No, it was not "getting help with his English", that is absurd. The entirety of that report was written by somebody else. User:Shrike, who wrote it? If you cant, or wont, answer that Id support the proposal. nableezy - 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence has been presented of any WikiCrime. Receiving help (from anyone of 360 million English speakers as a first language) translating/proofing is not a WikiCrime. Looking at the AN report it contains 526 words, of which only 294 are actual original text, the rest being user links, quotes of other users (5 extensive quotes), and diffs (around 18 of them). Compiling the 5 quotes + 18 diffs is the hard part here. As Shrike points out above, he knows WikiJargon. Seeing that some folk have been making fun of Shrike's English for years it is understandable he would want help translating/proofing.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Boomerang/regular admin action against Nableezy. Looking at the thread above - [10]+[11] is disgusting ethnic trolling, made after and right below where Shrike said he had help with English! Looks like Nableezy picked the baddest bits of English he could find (Mobile? Written fast?). Looking at [12] or [13] (mainspace creations, last diff by Shrike prior to another editor editing), contrary to Nableezy's words,[14] Shrike knows how to use commas (something that is not English specific), and while there are mistakes many of them are wrong spellchecker choices (lose->loose). Making fun of someone's English - HR employee fired for appearing to mock applicant's English, ABC News, 25 Jan 2018 - is ethnic trolling that in the real world gets people fired, and should not be tolerated here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

lol ok. Good luck with that. Ethnic trolling? What exactly are you smoking? nableezy - 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• On the same note - diff by Huldra saying "Shrike has "gotten help with his English"" or diff by Nableezy saying "it was not "getting help with his English"" - putting what may appear to be funny words in Shrike's mouth (by quoting) when Shrike had said no such thing AFAICT (he said diff - "and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude." Making fun of peoples' English is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It's clear that someone else wrote the entirety of the report. The only people I can think of who would have the motive and the knowledge would be CrazyAces489, Icewhiz, or Garagepunk66. CrazyAces489 and his socks have been inactive for two years, although some whackjobs do carry on their campaigns to infinity. Garagepunk66 is too mild-mannered, and just wants to be left alone and to not be subject to TGS's harassment; he's not the type of person to take such active measures against someone who had already promised to leave him alone, plus he is largely inactive. Icewhiz just posted an odd and apparently unwarranted rant against Nableezy (and now one against Huldra). In any case, whoever it was that wrote the report in absentia is unlikely to do it via a mouthpiece again. And Shrike is unlikely to have anyone write reports for him in the future. So I oppose this proposal, unless Shrike does this again -- posts something on a noticeboard he clearly did not write himself. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Unless Huldra can demonstrate that Shrike said somewhere that he has "gotten help with his English" (I searched - only Huldra) - then misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack. An "if you no speak English" was sufficient to get a guy fired from a real-life job.[15] Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Are you kidding me????? You do know that English is my fourth language, right? (Thats right: I grew up hearing 3 different languages every day; none of them English.) So I am acutely aware that there is room for improvement in my English. To my ignorant ears "gotten help with his English" sounded like a good rephrasing of what Shrike said; if I am wrong, then obviously I am open for correction, (and obviously it was a rephrasing: note the word "his".) Huldra (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  As "gotten help with his English" was in quote marks - it very clearly reads as an attributed quote to Shrike (who is the person being discussed - "For his reports of other editors, Shrike has "gotten help with his English" from...")."got help" would read better, however my comment wasn't on the grammar but on misquoting another editor - the choice to use quotation marks here has nothing to do with English (quotation marks, as commas, are the same in most European languages), misquoting someone is a pretty big deal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, you wrote that "misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack". (And that's an exact quote.) Thats a pretty serious charge against me. Huldra (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Then don't imply that other editors wrote something they hadn't. Beyond the has/had issue in the sentence, by quoting Shrike allegedly writing "gotten" you were implying Shrike speaks American English,Oxford - "the form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English", more -[16][17]. The American/British divide is a realm filled with national/ethnic tensions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Huh??? Shrike says on his user page that he comes from Israel, and I, by using "gotten" were purposely attempting to open the "American/British divide [..] filled with national/ethnic tensions"????? Yeah, rrrright...the American/British divide is of course much, much more serious that the Israeli/Palestinian divide (<sarcasm/>). You know, Icewhiz, sometimes when you are in hole, it is just best to stop digging. (PS, again: you wrote: "misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack". I still say that is a pretty serious charge against me.) (PPS: thank you for your trust in my English capabilities....I had of course no idea that "gotten" was associated with American English) Huldra (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz is way off-base here. The construction "has gotten help" is a common English phrase. I would be likely to use it as a native English speaker (and I'm not American either). (But I wouldn't say "he had gotten us tickets"; there is a subtle difference that is hard to pin down.) Moreover, it corresponds to Shrike's claims. So the worst offence Huldra might have committed was putting quotation marks around a grammatically correct and factually correct paraphrase. Calling it an ethnic slur is insulting and actionable. Zero^talk 02:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I will be back to examine this in greater depth but at first glance it seems to be a fairly uncorroborated claim that borders on WP:ASPERSION. The gist of the case against Shrike, apparently, is that someone thought his English sucked and suddenly it improved one time in a report (a high stress situation where one might take time to improve their language or request help on linguistic - not policy - grounds). The poor guy seems he can't win in this paradigm-- post normally and his English is mocked and he suffers the prejudice that is all too often inflicted on those who were not born into the fortune of never having to struggle with English, while if he puts in too much effort, he is subjected to rather unsubstantiated claims of proxying. I have been looking for the evidence and maybe I missed it but I can't seem to find anything worthy of conviction here, and far from it... Conversely, if sufficient evidence is not presented, this case, with all the implications of harassing someone for their English (it's good so it couldn't be you) is at the very least something that merits a heart felt apology from the poster.--Calthinus (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Just read the report. I seriously cannot believe that anybody can, in good faith, say that is anywhere close to the English Shrike has used both prior and after that edit. It boggles the mind honestly. nableezy - 17:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy it is entirely unsubstantiated, so much so that nobody even knows who this mysterious editor is, or if they even exist. One guy, CrazyAces, has been floated by someone who wasn't the OP, on incredibly spurious grounds, and not even any textual comparison to demonstrate habits that are particular to CrazyAces. Normally if this were an SPI, you would try to match his language to that of a banned user-- but not a single candidate has seriously been brought forward. The entire gist of this report is the offensive premise that Shrike's English is so broken he is incapable of fixing it with effort -- and that is itself demeaning. Now we can consider the case where, after years of having his English mocked, he goes for help. This is not unlikely, especially with all the implications present in the hegemonic Anglosphere -- that one who lacks the luck to have naturally acquired English is uneducated, stupid, etc... which are demonstrably unfair as can even be cited with RS. Indeed, prejudice against those speaking non-standard English has been compared in literature to racism, and can have similar unjust implications with regards to jobs, housing, et cetera. Now, imagine that, after experiencing this sort of bigotry for years, Shrike tries to ameliorate the situation and gets help with his English... only for editors to try to use that to link him to some imaginary banned editor they can't even identify, to sanction him. This deserves not a report, but an apology, and a pledge to refrain from such bigotry again. His English is not standard, but it is clearly comprehensible and that has always been what truly matters. --Calthinus (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not the premise. The premise is that for edits both prior to and following the report Shrike uses grammar and language that is in no way even in the same ballpark as what the report uses. Nobody called him uneducated, stupid, or any of the other things you think they are saying. What I at least have said is that it is obvious that he did not write that report. And you can stick your head in the sand and scream AGF all you want, but that is not a suicide pact, and if you spend even two minutes looking at his edits, both in this this thread and anywhere else on Wikipedia you will quickly find a level of English that is at odds with using the word "aptly" aptly. I dont think anybody mocked his English for years, or even now. I am not mocking anything, I dont begrudge an editor with poor English editing on Wikipedia. I wish they would not put poor English in actual articles, but that is something that anybody can fix. But, and heres the issue, the idea that somebody can go from writing second language level English to perfect prose for one report, and then somehow regresses back to that second language level English is a non-starter. Shrike did not write that report, full stop. This bullshit about bigotry is exactly that. Im a bigot because I question how somebody can go from writing Part are you unblock conditions that you have taken upon yourself was ... If you want to remove this condition that OK but you should ask permission to a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable and then shortly after back to, in that same discussion, OK lets asses the community consensus here is a three proposals? Bullshit. nableezy - 19:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because you didn't notice anyone mocking his English doesn't mean it never happened (see also "I never saw a racism in my life, I have black friends..." et cetera). Is it really so hard to imagine that someone put in effort (including asking for help) to improve their English? It's easy to imagine, let's say I purchase one of the many, many, many books available -- or web services -- to Hebrew speakers to help them express what they would say in Hebrew in English, so they can be just as eloquent. Or he even may have asked a friend "how do you say ----- in English exactly"... this is not hard to imagine in the slightest. AGF is a thing. And by the way, my reaction to this would be very different if you had presented credible evidence of Shrike adopting the peculiar habits of another user -- even if these particular habits are specific to people based on native language (native Slavic speakers omitting "the", native Chinese speakers confusing pronouns when they're tired, Balkanians using the infinitive for the past participle i.e. "he had to forgot"). What I am illustrating here is that the difference between those (acceptable) and this (not) is that the premise of this is that Shrike is unable to improve his English no matter how hard he tries. And you should really apologize for that, as it is, while perhaps unintended, a veiled personal attack. --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, thats what happened. A veiled personal attack? How about the outright one of calling people bigots? Get off it, yall can make these asinine leaps of logic, but Shrike's English has not improved. I dont know if you are purposely missing the point or not. Shrike's English, both before and after that edit is not the same as that edit. If Shrike's English had improved, magically or otherwise, then why in that same thread, after posting a perfectly written complaint, did he regress back to here is a three proposals? Oh, he must have had one of those temporary English lesson plans that are valid only for ten minutes, after which back to normal. Silly me, I should have assumed that. nableezy - 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy Someone can behave in a way shaped by bigotry subconsciously without being a bigot -- which I never implied. I bet if someone analyzed my French online they would find the proficiency is inconsistent. Sometimes I put in more effort than others, when I'm lazy I just use English grammar in French, knowing its probably wrong but typing quickly. The correct thing to do is to apologize.--Calthinus (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

lol, sure buddy, this is just inconsistent proficiency. Like I said, keep your head in the sand if you want. I choose not to. Also, might want to crack open a dictionary. Or keep your head in the sand on that one too. nableezy - 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Systemic bias is not personal.--Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure what that is supposed to be an answer to, considering you said bigotry and not bias. My dictionary says bigotry: the state of mind of a bigot. And acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot. I dont really care all that much, there clearly is nothing that is going to be done about this. But the chances of my apologizing for saying something obviously true, that somebody besides Shrike wrote that report, is approximately zero. Which is also the amount of thinking I will give to bullshit accusations of bigotry. Have a good day. nableezy - 22:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even presupposing that the aspersions cast were 100% true, I would not support preventing an editor from being able to raise legitimate issues at the appropriate administrator's noticeboards without substantial evidence that they only used those boards to cause disruption. No evidence to that effect has so far been presented and that's with the presupposition that the aspersion cast was 100% true. The central allegation that "he didn't write it himself now did he?" (bogan Australian accent) Shrike has confirmed "yes, I had help; no it did not come from CrazyAces" which without evidence to the contrary is sufficient. You know, that whole principle of guilt needing to be proven. WP:SPI is that way if you want to prove your allegations – which has been stated in the above section by none other than a CU toting Admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Burn the witch! We need no further proof than that his English magically improved - it's clear that Satan helped him! Burn him at the stake (and make room for marshmallows)! François Robere (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Shrike says they merely asked for help with English. There's no evidence that this is other than the case. I'm personally of the opinion that it wouldn't matter if the person in question was a banned Wikipedian or not. The report (Shrike's) had merit, as evidenced by the consequent imposition of an indef. Shrike would have had independent reasons for making the report. Consequently, I would not see this as a policy violation, even if it was copied verbatim from a banned editor (although it would raise questions re HOUNDING, that requires further speculation on which particular banned editor... hardly actionable). In light of that, and the assumed truth of Shrike's statement (with a complete dearth of evidence to the contrary, it's quite possible correct English around a lack of policy understanding), I would say that any sanction here would be based on speculation and conjecture. All we know is that an editor got help with their English, off wiki, be it from a non Wikipedian or a Wikipedian. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this request and I am strongly in favor of a boomerang. This is more atrocious and just troubling. The "other side" just keeps coming up with ways to shut the opposition out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to help you with your English or your writing. This thread is filled with some serious jackassery. Leviv ich 03:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral as I've said before, I find it very troubling that people would think it okay for Shrike to "get help" which could be in the form of letting someone who banned write the report for them. Especially if that person is was banned for hounding the person the report is on. Shrike has offered some clarification of which is a little better then the previous one but it's barely satisfactory in my eyes since mostly although hopefully unintentionally, it's a non denial denial (as with their first comment). Shrike has said that "didn't post anything on behalf on banned editors" and " I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user" which of course could easily be true even if someone who is banned wrote it entirely since Shrike clearly wanted the same outcome so it may very well be true they posted on their own behalf something written entirely by a banned hounder from those comments. They also said "BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf" which is another effective hopefully unintentional non denial denial, since of course, there is no way a CU could detect most forms of communication. They never actually said "I've never interacted with CrazyAce489 except on wikipedia to my knowledge" or some other clear denial. They did say "yes I asked for help with my English", and I AGF that this means they gathered most of the evidence themselves. I still find it very trouble if they got help even if just for English from a banned editor, especially one who was banned for hounding the editor the report on. Again I am perfectly willing to AGF if Shrike will issue an explicit denial. E.g. "I do not believe the person who assisted me with my English is a banned editor" or similar and will then oppose this proposal. Note I do not care who the person they received help from actually is provided it's not a banned editor. Despite the problems that may exist in this topic area, I don't think it's it's right for us to get involved in that, provided the editor isn't effectively helping banned editors to hound other contributors. Note it's also none of my concern who Shrike received English help from in general. If they want to learn English from CrazyAces489, that's surely their right. It's only the intersection of the two that I find very concerning. (So I don't actually care whether they want to deny interacting with CrazyAces489.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Here you go : I've never interacted with CrazyAce489 to my knowledge and I do not believe the person who assisted me with my English is a banned editor.And btw per WP:EMAIL CUs can check if I sent mail to CrazyAce489 or his socks as far as I understand there was only way for me to communicate with him Shrike (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. And sorry for any doubt, it's just that your earlier messages weren't clear enough for me.

As for the CU issue, people have said you are experienced with wikipedia policy issues which is one reason for my concerns but I guess you're not so familiar with this specific area. I am not that familiar, but from my limited knowledge I know such a check is almost useless because 1) Initial contact is all that matters since once contact has been made, it could be continued off wikipedia. 2) Checkusers can only see that an email was sent not the contents. 3) While I don't know much about CrazyAces489, for the vast majority of persistent socks it's unlikely we have identified all socks. Notably if the editor was careful and had access to IPs which can't easily be tied to them there would be almost no way for us to identify socks which were only use to email you. 4) Checkusers could tag any contact from an editor with few edits as suspicious and ask you what is up with that, but they will need to consider all our intentionally and correctly strong privacy policies etc. 5) Even if they did that, it wouldn't work if CrazyAces489 was very careful in cultivating a goodhand account, perhaps in areas completely unrelated to whatever areas they've had problems with and never tied it their problem socks. 6) It's all pointless anyway since a quick check tells me CrazyAces489 has existed for over 2 years. I'm sure the email log is just like our other logs, only kept for a short time. Even if it's longer than the 3-6 months of our other logs, it's quite likely that it's not long enough i.e. any initial contact would not be in the extant logs. 7) Of course if your email or identity, or CrazyAces489's identity or email is publicly known, or if either of you use the same pseudonyms elsewhere, then this is even more pointless since even the initial contact could completely bypass wikipedia.

I don't know you, and AFAIK have very little interaction with you. As I said in various places, I have no problem with AGFing when you said you did not have contact. But I'm much more re-assured by you denying it then you simply saying check, I'm sure you'll find no evidence without actually saying it didn't happen. Maybe you don't have much experience, but that sort of thing is often used by politicians etc. On wikipedia, if there is reason to think someone may be socking, and said editor simply says CUs are welcome to check, they will find no evidence but doesn't actually say they didn't sock, I'm going to be very suspicious even though at least in that case it all happened on wikipedia. (But lack of evidence is not evidence of absence for good reason.) </p

Note in either your case or my example, someone saying CUs are welcome to check is not very meaningful. CUs don't do innocence checks so it's not going to make a big difference to them. IE for someone who is being malicious and is familiar with policy, they would know they can say this with little actual consequence. (This is sorta my point 8.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I feel, as a general proposition, people will ask people for help, and that's something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. Editors who are not fluent in English will sometimes ask people for help with their English both on- and off-wiki. I think looking askance at that because it might be meatpuppetry or improper proxying runs counter to the principle of WP:AGF. We should assume that editors are not violating policies, rather than, as a general principle, require them to explicitly affirm as much. Although Shrike has done so here, I don't think that was necessary, or something we should ask of editors. Nor do I feel it's appropriate to say things like, "This editor's English was better in this post than that post, there must be something suspicious going on!" That sort of attitude runs counter to WP:AGF, and impedes the collaborative spirit necessary to produce an encyclopedia. Leviv ich 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are aware this concerns an WP:ARBPIA topic? And the first diff in the OP concerns a beautifully written post at WP:AN seeking a strong sanction against an editor? Talk of AGF is inappropriate in a case like that. Obviously someone who was unable to post the text themselves gave the text to Shrike for proxying. I am not suggesting a sanction, just an acknowledgment of reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am aware, and I very, very strongly disagree that "AGF is inappropriate in a case like that". It's easy to AGF when things are going well. AGF is needed the most when things are the hardest–in disputes, at noticeboards, especially in DS and other sensitive areas. "AGF is not a suicide pact" doesn't mean we throw AGF out the window as soon as the going gets tough. In this instance, for example, a post on AN is exactly the time that non-fluent English speakers would be most likely to get help with their English. We should encourage that; it's much easier for the rest of us to read a polished AN report than one that is less polished. I felt, and still feel, that statements like, "obviously someone who was unable to post the text themselves gave the text to Shrike for proxying" (which is what you said, but also the gist of this proposal and this AN report) are inappropriate because it's not at all obvious, and, in my view, flies directly in the face of AGF. When there are two possible explanations, one innocent and one nefarious, you are assuming the worse one, instead of assuming the better one. For me, that's the reality, whereas what you're calling "reality" is actually just your own assumption of bad faith. Unless you have some evidence of proxying besides the statement itself? Leviv ich 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Levivich Sorry but I don't really give a fuck what you think is a general proposition. I already specifically said I have no problem with someone asking for help, provided it's not from banned editors, especially not banned editors who have been harassing/hounding the person which they're seeking help in dealing with. Since you're replying to me, I'm going to assume you read that part and you reply is relevant to what I said. If this means you feel it's okay for someone to seek help in writing a post about person X from person Y who was banned for hounding person X, then sorry but fuck you. I don't have any time for you and would prefer if you refrain from ever addressing me ever again. You are the sort of person who makes wikipedia are horrible place to edit, since you think it is okay to assist people in hounding. If you aren't saying that then the first part of your post has fuck all to do with what I actually said despite it being a reply to my thread. As for the second part of your post, you seem to be missing my point as well. People were concerned when they noticed that Shrike posted something that was clearly not written without assistance. These people came to this opinion based on their experience, and they were clearly right since Shrike has confirmed that it did not happen without assistance. (Funnily enough, in this wider thread and I think also in this specific sub-thread, there are people saying it doesn't matter what Shrike did because the outcome shows they were right. Yet someone people aren't allowed to seek clarification when they are concerned that something does not appear to have been written without assistance, by the person who submitted it, when they too were clearly right?) When they sought clarification from Shrike, Shrike was, intentionally or not, evasive about what actually happened, issuing only non denial denials. When someone see evidence there's some unusual going on, and asks for clarification and the person fails to address the concerns express, of course people are going to respond accordingly. By the same token, if someone sees a very unusual article or contrib which looks a lot like it is paid editing, and asks for clarification, and the person refuses to actual deny they were paid to edit, we will treat that accordingly even though there is no requirement for someone to actually deny paid editing. Actually in both instances, someone issuing non denial denials is even more concerning than someone simply ignoring the concerns, from experience when you ask someone something and they don't actually deny it but instead say stuff which is worded in such a way that it appears to be a denial but on careful reading it's not, often not an accident. Of course it can happen by accident, especially I suspect when people's English ability is poor, hence why I was neutral and not supportive of the proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate I was and am very angry now, including when I wrote the above, perhaps I shouldn't have written it. As I said a while back, and re-iterated above, I find it absolutely and completely disgusting if people think it's okay for another editor to effectively assist a hounder in hounding. E.g. by seeking assistance from a hounder in writing a post about the editor the hounder hounded. I have (as I think I mentioned a long time back) been staying away from this post for that reason. Still when you browse AN as much as I do (yes too much I know) it's hard to avoid stuff especially stuff which lasts as long as this and so I came across it again. In the new parts of the discussion I dared read seemed much more reasonable and so I decided to participate again. I now feel it's a mistake since I was pinged back here by Levivich who I seems to think it's okay to for someone to assist a hounder.

If that isn't what they're trying to say, then I apologise to them, but as I said, I'm mystified why they wrote that in a reply to me. I already and intentionally made it clear I had no problem with editors seeking assistance from people who aren't banned (which to be clear, includes people who aren't editors) before Levivich replied. The first part of their reply therefore had no real purpose that I can see. It wasn't needed for the second part of the reply, relating to what AGF etc means in this case.

If people feel that AGF means that the community can't respond when they notice something clearly odd namely a post that was clearly written with assistance and ask a simple question, and instead of a simple answer get something else, and because of that, decide that they can no longer AGF and the editor should be forbidden from seeking assistance because they've failed to actual deny they received assistance in a way that is disgusting, then they should simply say that. There's no reason to bring up other irrelevant stuff when replying to me especially if I've already addressed it precisely to avoid any possible confusion. (I have a tendency to write very long posts, in part so I can address as many possible areas of confusion before they arise as I feel necessary.) I clearly disagree with it, but I can at least see where the editors are coming from compared to any suggestion that assisting with hounding is okay.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. Rereading Levivich's comment now that I've calmed down a little, it does come across as fairly similar in part to what I've now written below. So it's easily possible that's all they wanted to say, and they weren't trying to suggest it was okay for an editor to receive assistance in writing something about a second editor, from a third editor who was banned for hounding the second editor. While they did reply to me, replies are sometimes used when making general points, and of course when agreeing with what an editor has said. I have an unfortunate tendency to assume when an editor replies to me they are disagreeing with what I've said rather than concurring or supporting, or concurring in part and disagreeing in part. If that's the case, I again wholeheartedly apologise to Levivich, and also the community for any distraction cause by my post. While I feel my strong emotional disgust for any suggestion that assisting an editor in hounding is justified, which to me includes seeking any assistance from such an editor in writing a post about the people they hounded, I should have let myself calm down a bit then either ignored the comment or sought clarification before commenting further. (Somewhat getting into what I said earlier, I prefer to write long posts with everything I think matters and then never re-visiting. But often that doesn't work. I'm writing this because I definitely don't want to re-visit in case my initial reaction was correct.) The AGF/second part we obviously disagree, but as mentioned I disagree but understand where they're coming from. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't think it's OK for editors to hound editors, for editors to help other editors hound editors, or for editors to proxy for banned/blocked editors (regardless of whether it's for hounding, or if it's for making the world's best edit ever, proxying should not be allowed). My point was that, where the entirety of the evidence is that a user wrote something with better English than typical (even when that something is an AN report), we can assume good faith (help with English) or we can assume bad faith (proxying), and we should assume good faith absent evidence of proxying. That's all I'm saying. I think you and I agree on this? I note for the benefit of anyone else reading this that the original report, and the proposal we're discussing, wasn't about hounding or proxying or an appropriate case of getting help v. an inappropriate case of getting help. Some editors feel that if Shrike got help for any reason, that should result in sanctions, with the particular sanction being a prohibition from posting to noticeboards. The suggestion is that getting help with English was a violation of NOSHARING. That's what I disagree with, because it's not AGF. We can't punish people simply for getting help with English, and we shouldn't assume the worst about users getting help with English, either, because it's not AGF. Leviv ich 16:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That good faith might be merited if Shrike would just say who wrote it. If it wasnt a banned editor fine great Ill believe him. But he refuses to even do that. How am I supposed to believe somebody who wont actually say anything? nableezy - 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of my whole point. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "prove to me you're acting in good faith". Unless you have some evidence that Shrike is acting on behalf of a blocked user or banned user or otherwise proxying against policy, I don't think you have any right to ask him who helped him with his English. All you've got for evidence is that he wrote an AN report that was well-written and that he obviously had help in writing. That, alone, is not evidence of wrongdoing of any kind, and doesn't require any kind of follow-up proof of innocence. Because we AGF–we assume the report was written in good faith for good faith purposes, absent evidence to the contrary. That's my view. Leviv ich 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. If the person who wrote it were not banned from posting the complaint they could have done it themselves. Like I said earlier, yall can stick your heads in the sand, but I choose not to. nableezy - 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose For the reasons expressed by Levivich et al. There is nothing wrong with non-native speakers seeking help with English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• SupportOppose Based on confirmation from Shrike that they did not receive assistance from any editor they believed to be banned Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, You probably meant that you oppose the sanction against me? Shrike (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Shrike Sorry you're right. One of the perils of editing when emotional. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A better proposal

Considering that:

• The Mystery of the Improved English was over a month ago.
• No actual evidence of any actual wrongdoing has been provided. It's all speculation and innuendo.
• Onceinawhile (the filer of this report) didn't even participate in the discussion where all this happened [18]
• We should be cognizant of how the filer sees editing Wikipedia. In his own words - he considers himself a "footsoldier fighting [...] in one of wikipedia's battlegrounds"(emphasis mine) [19]

While it could be interesting to hear Onceinawhile's explanation on why he waited a month to submit this report and how he found out about the whole thing in the first place, it is very obvious this is a BATTLE attempt to get rid of an opponent for something the editor (or as he sees himself, the "footsoldier") wasn't even involved in. I suggest a BOOMERANG with a minimum sanction (in the spirit of Huldra's proposal above) of him not being allowed to report Shirke on any board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as completely unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, however I believe No More Mr Nice Guy deserves a boomerang for this partisan volley against Onceinawhile. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

• Move to close with a warning to Shrike to avoid having other people write his posts going forward. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Softlavender, there is nothing wrong with having someone help you with your English. Da fuq. Leviv ich 03:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's clear to me that's not what happened. Someone wrote the entirety of the 500+ word complaint, and Shrike posted it for them. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  Per my quick count above - 526 words, of which only 294 are actual original text, the rest being user links, quotes of other users (5 extensive quotes), and diffs (around 18 of them). Three entirely unconnected observations, and I am not implying any connection:

  1. Flatulence humor#Inculpatory pronouncements.
  2. According to Softlavender's user page they "have been a professional editor for over 17 years".
  3. Softlavender strongly opposed the unblock on TGS's user page [20][21][22], on the AN unblock discussion [23][24][25], and then supported re-blocking at AN [26][27].

  Looking at Shrike's post again, there are clearly two hands involved, as per Shrike's comments above. Most of the AN post is in stuffy formal language written in the 3rd person, like the way a student would write a formal letter. But in "Maybe I missed something and...." Shrike goes into the 1st person and informal language - likely per Shrike's explanation a change Shrike made after he got help. If there is anything worth warning about - it is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and making fun of a user's English (abuse that continued even after Shrike said he got help). Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with a motion to close, but with the caveat that closing with any action would be a supervote. There is no consensus that Shrike has done anything wrong, and thus no consensus for a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there are consensus for any sanction/warning in this thread to anyone but I did took User:Softlavender comments to heart --Shrike (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'll leave it to the closer to assess consensus, but for my part, support closing but oppose any sanction, warning, or boomerang except perhaps a reminder to AGF per my comments above. Leviv ich 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support close (oppose warning or sanction). For the reasons expressed by Levivich et al. There is nothing wrong with non-native speakers seeking help with English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support close but oppose warning or sanction. I think it's a great thing if editors seek assistance for any problems they have such as their English ability. There's no reason in general why editors should be discouraged from doing it, let alone sanctioned for it. Doing so is harmful to wikipedia and its contributors. It doesn't matter if that assistance is on or off wikipedia. The only problem arises when an editor seeks assistance in a way that is harmful to wikipedia and its contributors. As I've said several times now, for me seeking any assistance from a banned editor in a topic area they are banned from, particularly a highly diverse topic area with strong active sanctions, and especially an editor who was banned in part for hounding, and the 'topic' is a sanction of the editor they hounded, is a clear red line. But again, provided editors stay away asking assistance from such editors or in any other way that is clearly harmful, there is no problem and people seeking help should be encouraged not discouraged. From my view, Shrike has sufficiently confirmed there was no problem in the way they sought assistance, so there's no problem. The wider issue for how we should deal when people are concerned that a redline may have been crossed is something which we've clearly come to no conclusion here. Of far greater concern to me is the apparent disagreement that the redline exists. Both of these will hopefully be dealt with in future somewhere appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, for me the problem only arises when the assistance is related to something an editor has been banned from. To give an example, I don't know CrazyAces489. Clearly what they are doing on wikipedia, as described by others, is disgusting and there's no way in hell we should tolerate any involvement in it continuing. But maybe they are much better outside this specific problem area. And even if not, if someone wants to be friends with CrazyAces489 and learn English from them, that's ultimately non of our business provided it doesn't cross over into direct assistance in writing stuff here, and especially not relating to any editor/s? CrazyAces489 hounded in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.

I have queries about the closure of the RfC held here. The closing editor originally closed as "No consensus (whatsoever) emerged in this discussion! And It is closed with prejudice. Even while the participants have, only ever, acted in good faith." (diff) I queried the closing editor at their talk page about their rationale, as did several other editors, which saw the closing editor change their close statement to "...It is closed with aggrieve (The original use of "with prejudice" (as a qualifier) was a poorly thought choice. It was refactored to use "with aggrieve" instead)..." (diff) which sparked further confusion from myself and other editors at the term "with aggrieve". After further discussion with several editors, the closing editor once again changed their closing statement with an overhauled rationale (diff). While I belive no consensus is a reasonable outcome of the RfC, I still believe the line "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA." in the Naming convention in question contradicts MOS:US and a consensus at the Village pump. My questions are:

• (1) is the closure rationale appropriate in each of the three versions the closing editor has given, particularily given the closing editor's annoyance that a request to close was made in the first place in their first two closing statements and their claim that the RfC was not publicised wide enough for their liking despite the fact it was advertised in the relevant WikiProject and the Village Pump.
• (2) does the editor's closing mean an RfC on the same topic cannot be initiated again? The terms "closed with prejudice" and "closed with aggrieve" would seem to indicate that I or another editor is prevented from bringing up the issue again, but I (and another editor stated the same in discussion) could find the rationale or further detail for this.

I would appreciate some further guidance and clarity on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I will not clutter this discussion with a response (at this time) as the questions are not directed to me. I am, nevertheless, willing, and standing by in case I am needed for any reason regarding this matter. Thank you. And best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to John Cline, given the confusion, I think it would be best if this is re-closed by an admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this is a typing error alluding to an unquantified level of respect (I am not trying to imply that I am due any respect at all) or if it's a duly noted request that I voluntarily concur with the suggested corrective measure (seeing that the OP did not formally challenge the closure or ask that it be overturned). Before I respond, I'd like to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his intent. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo fixed, sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we have some more eyes on this thread, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am reasoning, as a result of the strongly emerging silent consensus (with which I do find intrigue); that the "more eyes" that surely must have indulged this thread by considering it, have: delivered a poetic answer in demonstrating that every other wiki-thing one could find reason for doing would inherently warrant the doing (before and far more) than what needs doing here.

  It's only ironic that all of the time spent coming to this rises from my wanting merely to suggest with the initial closure that it's not out of process or wrong for the discussion participants to reach consensus and closure without ever needing to actually have it formally closed, and the main protagonists for getting it done in such manner has to be the RfC's initiator.

  I'd be ashamed if we three couldn't find agreement ourselves that this whole matter is best served by moving on. There's nothing about this AN/request that wasn't already resolved in earlier conversation and with earlier actions, and it's well within policy and suggested best practice. I'd like to see if we can drop this tiniest twig and mark this one

  Resolved
  --John Cline (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• The revised closure looks fine to me. A no consensus with 6-5 in opposition, with supporters having slightly stronger arguments, but with the opposition arguments not being unfounded as to result in a minority consensus. And, the 'with prejudice' clause has been removed. That's a reasonable assessment, and I don't think a re-close by an admin would realistically change the assessment. In fact, John Cline would definitely be an admin, for even longer than I have, if not for his idiosyncratic style of communication. He definitely has an interesting manner of speaking, which sometimes results in confusion. That's nothing new. But that aside, I can strongly attest to the fact that he is a highly affable, reasonable, and competent editor who is experienced and trustworthy in closing discussions and properly assessing consensus. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Run a deletion script

Hi, could someone run a script to delete all 88 pages that are linked from User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/archive box? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, if you have Twinkle, it is the "d-batch" tab. Killiondude (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't run scripts. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good grief! Your poor fingers! Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously! You're a madman Nyttend. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sourced information removed by administrator

Hi, I've already provided a link sourcing the Algerian origin of Merinids in a previous talk related section. http://books.google.ca/books?ei=8AG9TI64HsH78AbnyNj0Dg&ct=result&hl=fr&id=EQJFAAAAIAAJ&dq=Les+civilisations+de+l%27Afrique+du+nord%3A+Berb%C3%A8res-Arabes+Turcs.&q=ouacine+aur%C3%A8s+

196.117.101.240 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Regards

1. I see from the history of Marinid dynasty that you've been edit-warring with another person not using an account.
2. I don't see an administrator removing sourced information. Which administrator, and what edit? Please provide a diff, or if you don't know how to do that, go to the page history and say what time and date the removal happened.
3. Remember that sourced information is very often not appropriate. I could expand the Marinid dynasty article with information about astrophysics from a scholarly journal on the subject, and you'd do well to remove it because astrophysics isn't relevant to medieval Moroccan history.

If you don't provide more information, nothing can be done. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably the OP is just confused because an admin protected the page. Or maybe they still think we're the French wikipedia and are complaining about fr:Mérinides (there was a complaint a few days here about their edits to that article being reverted) although it doesn't look like the people reverting them are admins either albeit they are established editors. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, from a policy perspective, being reliably sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for some information to be included in an article. That is, unsourced information should not be there, but merely because it has a reliable source doesn't mean Wikipedia is forced to include the information. There also needs to be consensus that the information is relevant to the article, and is presented in a neutral manner. Merely having a source is not sufficient to force others to accept an addition. To wit, from WP:V, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". I have no idea if the OP's proposed additions have a reliable source, but even if they do, other editors may contest their use for other valid reasons unrelated to the sourcing. --Jayron32 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Manning naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To consolidate and clarify gender-related discretionary sanctions, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:

1. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case is amended to read:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology GamerGate case, not this one.

2. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
3. The following amendment is added to the Interactions at GGTF case:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Manning naming dispute

Cydebot (adminbot) replacement

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot III, where I am requesting to take over Cydebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) at Black Falcon's request. Since this task is already being performed by an adminbot, I believe this should be uncontroversial. Any comments are welcome. (Also posted at WT:CFD.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Iqra Umar Hayat

User keeps removing the u5 template. Can a admin please delete this userpage? Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The U5 seems kind of bitey. The editor had just created their page, their first edits on Wikipedia. Maybe in that situation it could be more helpful to point them to the guidelines for what should go on a user page? Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Page move request

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

---

Hi. WP:RM/T isn't the right place to put this since its a file, but {{rename media}} only works for moving within the file namespace. Can an admin please move File:Ilayda Nurkan.jpg to Draft:Ilayda Nurkan? Its technically a description page for a non-existent file, but its the start of a draft about Nurkam as far as I can tell. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Makes a junk draft. A student athlete with two edits writing about themselves. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought I'd try it, but I got the following message:

The page could not be moved, for the following reason: Cannot move file to non-file namespace.

As Legacypac notes, it's not a good draft anyway, and since it can't possibly be moved without copy/pasting, I have no hesitation about speedying it under G8 (file description page with no file). Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Coincident relevant discussion: WT:CSD#Talk pages of nonexistent articles that are written as articles and would be speedy deletable as articles. —Cryptic 01:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: wait a sec - even admins couldn't move it? Then its not a permissions thing, its a mediawiki thing. Maybe that should be changed to allow sysops to move files to non-file namespaces? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yep, looks to be a harcoded restriction. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks. Do you think there would be any objections to allowing admins the ability to move (make an exception to the restriction)? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is such a rare issue it's not worth changing. A copy paste is such a simple work around, and attribution can be handled with a edit summary. Only a rookie editor would put an article in a file name and not quickly correct the problem themselves. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[ec] I don't remember the last time I had reason to move a File: page to another namespace. (Same with a Category: page, which if I remember rightly also can't be moved elsewhere.) If you could move a File: description page to another namespace, what would happen to the file itself? If it ended up attached to another namespace page, you'd have a real mess (imagine if a file were attached to a page in Template talk:, for example), and if it didn't get moved at all, you'd suddenly have an orphaned file with no description page. Either option would be a very bad idea, especially since someone could make such a move by accident (just click the dropdown by mistake) or by vandalism. Also, it would need to be reciprocated (if you could move File:A to A, you'd need to be able to move it back), and the people accidentally or intentionally moving articles into filespace is a good deal bigger of a risk. Filespace pages with no files are rather rare, and they almost never need to be kept; there's no real benefit to allowing them to be moved when there's almost never a benefit and when risks are a lot more likely. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User only here to promote a political candidate; unresponsive to warnings

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

---

B P G PhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:B P G PhD has been here since February 2018. They are a single purpose account whose only activity here has been to promote Ammar Campa-Najjar, a losing candidate in the 2018 congressional election who will probably run again in 2020, and to denigrate his opponent, Duncan D. Hunter. Literally every single one of their edits has been directed toward those goals, with the exception of their first ten edits, which were necessary to acquire auto-confirmed status so they could create an article about the candidate (their eleventh edit). Their record at the piechart tool speaks for itself (see “top edited pages”). [28]

• On July 14, 2018 they were asked on their talk page about conflict of interest and possible paid editing with regard to Campa-Najjar. They did not respond.

• On July 16 they were told they could be blocked if they did not respond to the question. They still did not respond.

• On August 25, 2018 I blocked them for 24 hours for particularly disruptive and promotional editing.[29] They took no notice and continued to edit only articles related to Hunter and Campa-Najjar.

• They have continued to make multiple edits to the Hunter article. Today, February 24, they made two edits deleting thousands of bytes from that article.[30] [31]

I am WP:INVOLVED with this user and this article, so I bring the issue here for evaluation. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Took me a bit to figure out why I'd been pinged to a discussion on a California legislator, but now I see. Support an indeff for WP:NOTHERE and or WP:UPE. At this point, the distinction is moot, but his refusal to answer the direct questions about his PAID status is probably a clearer route to the indeff, which is definitely merited. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

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

Dogsbite.org dispute

Dogsbite.org is under a editing dispute about the neutrality of the quality of the sources and tone of the article. I would like one of administrators to resolve it once and for all. I won't interfere otherwise I will be accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article.Dwanyewest (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins have no special authority to deal with content disputes. If you don't find agreement on the talk page, try Wikipedia:Third opinion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD backlog

Hi. There's a bit of a backlog at CfD, with some discussions open from the start of the year. Appreciate if someone could make a dent into this please. Thanks in advance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever beat the backlog back from January 1 to January 2. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes to User pages guideline

This diff shows this month's changes to the guideline. These have been implemented with a minimum of discussion among a handful of editors. I commented that I thought an RfC was needed to make these changes, and I was shut down. I have been involved in these kinds of disputes as to whether changes to a policy or guideline are sufficiently substantive to require a larger discussion than a "normal" talk page discussion, and it's frustrating at best. Then, what sometimes happens in the future is we get stuck with changes that often administrators have to follow with the obvious question "when did that get changed"?

Many of the changes in the above diff are organizational and do not change the substance of the guideline, so I'll highlight the ones I believe are substantive:

• Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing -> Divisive material not related to encyclopedia editing
• Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. -> Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia. A non-contributor may not post an autobiography.
• If you wish to delete your own page, tag the top of the page with {{db-u1}}, and an administrator will delete it for you. However, note that user talk pages are normally not deleted. -> If you wish to delete your own page, tag the top of the page with {{db-u1}}, and an administrator will delete it for you. However, note that your main user talk pages will not normally be deleted.

With that much moving material around to different places, I might have (1) put in something that didn't really change or (2) failed to put in something that did change.

I'm unwilling to try to push the RfC point on the guideline talk page. Nor am I willing to start a "negative" RfC myself as I'm not advocating any changes to the guideline. Often these kinds of changes are triggered by one or more editors being frustrated by a particular interpretation of the guideline and moving from micro to macro to try to "fix" the problem. Anyway, I've done as much as I feel able to do by bringing this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shut down? You said something, I responded.

A minimum of discussion? A minimum of discussion would be zero discussion. There is more than zero discussion.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on. Spare us the vocabulary lesson. It's obvious they meant "little" discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, this should be brought here, and thanks to Bbb23 for doing so. And also, yes, changes such as these should have a RfC and been advertised at WP:CENT: they comprehensively affect every new page patroller, spam / vandal fighter and yes admin on the project. FWIW, I agree, at first glance, with some of the proposed changes—for example emphasising the disruption caused by PROMO/WEBHOSTing userpages (indeed, perosnally, I think it could go even further); on the other hand, redefing what is "Divisive material" in the absence of a major discussion could be seen as, well, rather divisive. ——SerialNumber54129 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I would generally be in favour of full-protecting every page that is classified as a policy - changes, even minor ones, should not be made to sitewide policies without discussion. In this instance what I see is mostly just moving things from one point to another, but things like changing "very divisive" to "divisive" are changes with inherently major consequences, the "amount of leeway" bit should not have been added without much wider discussion (it violates WP:ANYONECANEDIT as worded, for one thing), and creating a WP:FIGHTINGWORDS shortcut seems like it's inviting conflict. I endorse everything SN54129 said above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  I thought this was overkill until I saw the history. There are a lot of undiscussed changes there, and had they been discussed in a public place (where people that do not have every policy page on their watchlist would notice) I would have opposed. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  I generally agree, the current system is seriously flawed. Paradoxically, your suggestion to tighten the protocol would make it more difficult to correct problems resulting from 17 years under the looser protocol. Smarter folks than I would have to figure that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, these changes needed far greater publicity and transparency, and policy changes should not be made by small numbers of people who happen to hang out on talk pages of policy pages - such things should be more widely advertised. My thanks to Bbb23 for alerting us to this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't necessarily disagree with the changes, but they need much wider discussion because they are indeed a significant change tot he existing guidance. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• The bit about The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia. A non-contributor may not post an autobiography., while possibly reflecting current usage, is rather a daring addition in the absence of centralized discussion. An RFC couldn't hurt. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Echoing the above; it should have been RFC with publicity. GiantSnowman 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Piling on here: yes, although I agree with certain of the changes and disagree with others (and at least one appears to be seriously POV and pointy), they should not have been implemented without an RfC. I suggest that all the cited changes be revered to the LGV, and am RfC (or multuple RfCs), advertised on CENT, be started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I do agree give the importance of this guideline and the amount of change, it needs more discussion than it has received. This will hopefully also help deal with untagged redirects. For example, WP:SHITLIST currently redirects to polemic even though the most relevant part has been moved out of that table entirely. (I know this because I tried to refer to it but was confused when it didn't exist earlier today. Funnily enough, I also did refer to something which I find now does exist i.e. that people are likely to be more tolerant of stuff coming from established editors although I did add even if they shouldn't be. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I was surprised to find that I am suddenly in violation because of these changes.

The guideline now says "User categories must be subcategories of Category:Wikipedians".

I and several other editors have

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

on their user talk pages.

I also have added

Category:WikiProject Technology participants

and

Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors

and have have various templates add me to cats like

Category:User Assembly Language-4,

Category:WikiProject Cryptography participants

and

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected user and user talk pages

without me explicitly adding a cat for them.

None of these are subcategories of Category:Wikipedians, so all are technically violation of the guideline.

I also don't think the paragraph telling us to not include copyrighted files lacking a free content license should have been removed without discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted files? Why should a guideline be paraphrasing the policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy dot point #9? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point Guy Macon. See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Remove_the_Usercat_reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to go against the grain here and just say no, an RfC should not be a first step for something like this. First, there are a bunch of different changes there. Some were very minor. Some were just organizational, without changing content. Some were a little bigger. None were major. A single RfC on all of them would just be a bureaucratic mess, and having a bunch of RfCs for each proposed change is, well, a bureaucratic mess in a different way. I don't agree that any edit to a policy is a major edit that needs an RfC. I would be curious to hear what great effect "Very divisive" being changed to "divisive" would have that can't be resolved on the talk page, for example (which is not to say that there's not a difference -- it's just not a huge change that demands refraining from standard levels of boldness in projectspace). There was discussion about some of them, and anyone else can jump in, contest, discuss, etc. Regarding the two additions that codify practice, I don't see where anyone has contested them. If instead of that SmokeyJoe changed the guideline in some way that was a leap from the way things are currently done, then sure, best to discuss beforehand, but not this stuff. Come on now. This is squarely in the domain of the sensibly bold (and barely bold). I'm not trying to endorse the changes here, btw -- just saying there's no reason for all of this hubbub. Make a change if it's not radical; if someone objects they can undo, and it goes to the talk page. If they're unsatisfied with the discussion, then think about posting to VP or, eventually, an RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Holy hell, no, you can't just boldly alter policies and guidelines like that based on local discussions, and attempting to is egregious. You can't just add clauses to policy and claim they "reflect practice". You can't just "improve" the wording in a way that changes the meaning. Policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect the highest level of community consensus, thus trumping any lesser rulings. Beyond the most minor aesthetic or wording changes, policy alterations need to be as widely advertised to the community as possible. If hosting RfCs is too "bureaucratic" for your liking, then stay the hell away from editing policies! I can't believe this even needs to be discussed! ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• ^File me under everything that Swarm said. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose an RFC. There is nothing earth shattering and the section needed a good rewrite. If you don't like something propose a specific change on talk or fix it and see if it sticks. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• The suggestion that users should apply "be bold" to editing policies and guidelines, and "see if it sticks" is unbelievable. Policies and guidelines are the highest form of community consensus. "Seeing if it sticks", on the other hand, is the weakest form of consensus. This may not seem "earth shattering", but if everyone started doing this, our fundamental system would completely break down. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I broadly support those changes. In recent months, I have seen marked increase in the number accounts created purely to user the userpage as webshost, so some tightening up was long overdue.

I have some sympathy with the calls for an RFC, but that may be excessive. It seems to me that for policy/guidleine changes we need some process which essentially offers wide notification without necessarily requiring a discussion.

That is used in the UK and Scottish parliaments, where it is called the "negative procedure" (see Scottish statutory instrument#Negative_procedure and Statutory instrument (UK)#Negative_resolution_procedure). In both cases, the action proceeds unless a moation is passed to stop it.

On en.wp, we have some processes which are similar in that they proceed unless objected to, but have a lower thrshold of objection: one objection can stop a WP:CFDS within 48 hours, and one objection can stop halts a WP:PROD within 7 days. In each case, there is the option of a full discussion on a contested proposal. Both process are lightweight, but have in common some combination of of local tagging and central listing.

Something similar could be implemented for guidelines, giving us a step in between a local talkpage discussion and a central RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Procedurally, if you can't agree, start an RFC. Being a "negative question" doesn't matter, the wording can be "Should we revert to the version of DATE". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• While folks sit here and dither about what to do, more changes are being made. I haven't been following them as I don't see the point. It's easy what should be done. All the changes in February should be reverted. Any substantive changes should be made by RfC. If there are multiple substantive changes that need to be made, then there needs to be multiple RfCs unless there is a way of handling them in one. As for supposed procedural, minor, and/or organizational changes, surely they can wait. There's no urgency to any of this. Somehow - I'm sure I don't know how - we have survived all this time without these changes, and we will continue to do so even if no changes are made. We don't need an RfC to remove the changes. We're here. We just need to do it. As for the future, I agree with Ivanvector that the policy on changing policies and guidelines needs to be tightened. This sort of thing happens more often than it should.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree that we need to tighten our policy on changing policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • +1 Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It would be my preference for any proposed changes to a policy page (it's occurred to me that WP:USERPAGE is not actually a policy, so consider this a general comment) to be proposed through an RfC and advertised on WP:CENT as a basic requirement. Policies are supposed to reflect widespread consensus and practice, so an updating process in which a tiny subset of interested users can make changes without wider review is inherently broken. For the current situation, splitting the changes from the last stable version to a subpage draft might be a good approach, such that the guideline remains in its most recently agreed-upon version while the changes are being proposed elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  And of course, in case nobody else has observed it yet (today is payroll so I'm not reading everything), the problem here is that the tiny subset of users have made a controversial change (the user categories thing) and I have no doubt some are already going around making changes to other editors' userpages that don't comply with their new directive. It's only a matter of time before someone pushes back and we have a new drama-fest at ANI. These changes should be undone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'm passing the buck, obvs, but frankly, unless it's done by an admin as an admin action, I doubt it will last an—hour, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I just don't want to throw fuel on the fire unless there's a clear consensus here. Someone uninvolved should probably evaluate this thread. There's no rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that on 20 Fby, Legacypac made a change which—certainly at first glance—seems to reflect current AfC practice, which was then reverted with the edit summary Rv bold removal of content that comes out of many past discussions! A reversion to "last stable version" as suggested by Bbb23 qualifies under those grounds also. ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• These changes are obviously challenged. The status quo ante should be restored, and a proper RfC should take place. Nihlus 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Done Page has been restored to 21st February 2019. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: I've reverted your close. First, I think an admin should close this discussion. Second, I don't think your wording matches the consensus so far. QEDK, unless there are instructions to the contrary from the closing admin, all of the changes in February should be reverted. You did not go back far enough. To prevent confusion and because of my unclose, I'm going to revert your revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, No worries, As I said I had absolutely no objections to anyone reverting it,

Just my 2c but changes to guidelines and policies IMHO should be discussed on talkpages first but meh that's my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It's the same revision as the one latest of January. I know what I did, there was no mistake, all the changes in February were reverted. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: You're right; my apologies. I was confused by two things: (1) your edit summary ("Restore to 21 Feb 2019 in lieu of RfC") and (2) the fact that you restored it to a February version (not the one in your edit summary), but one that was effectively the January 22 version because of a prior revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PGBOLD is policy. So, go start an RFC about changing that if you don't think bold edits to policies and guidelines should be made, or that changes can't be made because of some concern about how few people were involved.

On that note however, editors who make bold changes to PAG should expect to be reverted and per PGBOLD should generally keep to 0- or 1-RR. I don't think that bar was met here by the editors interested in making these changes. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of re-block

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

---

I am seeking comment on a 60-hour block recently made by BrownHairedGirl and described and discussed here: [32]. The blocked editor previously had a 31-hour block for violating WP:CIVIL, made an unsatisfactory unblock request, and the unblock request was declined, described here: [33]. To be clear, I am only asking for comments on the 60-hour re-block, and not on any other blocks or administrative actions that occurred around that time, and not on civility in general. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• My own take is: Bad block. Please let me begin by saying that I am not in any way defending incivility. I fully accept that it is appropriate for administrators to block for it in some cases. But as I see it, the first blocking admin, Cullen328, determined a 31-hour duration for the initial block, and the unblock request, which was cited by BrownHairedGirl as the reason for the re-block, had already been reviewed by another admin, Drmies, who while having quite rightly declined it, also did not decide on the basis of the request to extend the duration of the block or to revoke talk page access. A few hours after that block had run its course, BrownHairedGirl made the new 60-hour block, under review here, attributing it specifically to the unblock request. Had the blocked user made any further violations after the end of the first block, a new block would have been entirely justified, but that did not happen. In context, the re-block seems to me to be more punitive than preventative, and it raises serious issues about whether admins are free to keep adding new blocks on top of a previous block when additional violations have not occurred. I question whether BrownHairedGirl should have unilaterally overruled the duration of the original block without first consulting with the two previous admins. Although it was not wheel-warring, it raises problems similar to why wheel-warring is not allowed. There was a considerable escalation of the conflict as a result of the re-block, and I think that admins should seek to deescalate, not further escalate, conflicts. In her decision to lift the block, BrownHairedGirl said: "OK, 2 admins requesting an unblock, so I will unblock. But I stand by my point that the community has had enough of MJP's sweary personal attack stuff. It would have been best for the prev block to have been extended as a response to the sweary unblock request, but I accept that at this point it's worth giving MJP some WP:ROPE." I would appreciate if she could clarify whether that means that she did so only to stop the requests by other admins, or also because she recognized the issues that I raise here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see very little benefit to having this discussion; it was 4 days ago, and was reversed within a half hour when she realized there was disagreement. And if you have questions for BHG, perhaps her talk page would be a good place to start? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No one has to comment if they don't want to. I waited a few days before starting this in order to let the dust settle. I expect that this will be a step before taking it to a request for arbitration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're just ticking boxes, and plan to go to ArbCom no matter what, then shouldn't you start with the box "discuss the issue with the editor prior to coming to ANI"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It seemed to me that there was already discussion in the links above. Maybe I should in fact have gone to her talk page first, but that's now water under the bridge; it certainly isn't a reason to say the block was OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree with your "that's now water under the bridge" conclusion. You should have at that point withdrawn, closed, and collapsed the ANI thread and gone her talk page as soon as you were made aware of the requirement, then reopened it if the talk page discussions did not result in an agreement. It is important to talk things over before going to ANI. Maybe she would have immediately agreed with you. Maybe you would have immediately agreed with her. And even if you couldn't reach an agreement, the talk page discussion would have really helped to focus the ANI case. --Guy Macon (talk)
• She unblocked when people disagreed. Now the editor is oversight blocked indef. Why are we here? Natureium (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • She had no way of knowing about the oversight block that would happen in the future. There is a difference between lifting a block because people disagreed and lifting it because it was a mistake. And the escalation caused by the re-block may well have led to the future oversighted drama (not that it excuses it). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I admit that I was a bit surprised at the 60 hour block, but I am not calling it a bad block. As for the venting against me by the blocked editor, it really didn't bother me at all. If my skin wasn't thick enough to take this type of thing in stride, I wouldn't have agreed to become an administrator. We usually allow a fair amount of leeway for recently blocked editors to blow off steam. I do not object to moving this discussion elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I see it, blowing off steam, followed by the decision not to extend the original block, raises serious questions about the need for the new block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we can really re-litigate BHG's block now that it's been superseded. I wouldn't have agreed with it myself, but she did rescind it once it became clear that it didn't have much support. I can't see that it made any difference to the drama that followed. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• In the actual train of events, it very much escalated the situation, and although we can only speculate whether it affected the subsequent conduct of the blocked user, I know that user pretty well and I'm pretty sure that it did. I think this needs to be discussed because it raises significant policy considerations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Um. If you believe it raises policy considerations and you believe there was admin misconduct then the best thing to do is go straight to ArbCom, because neither of those things are going to be decided here. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I figure ArbCom wants to see efforts elsewhere before a case request is made. But I agree with you that the conclusion here is going to be that the discussion will not lead to everything being settled and that ArbCom is likely to need to deal with it. And getting comments from other editors is potentially informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Someone close this pointless thread please. GMG^talk 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No it is not pointless. I object to your saying that. Let people discuss it. It's not like the sky is falling because I opened this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    It's pointless. I was completely against the block as you can tell by my messages left on the talk page, but I see absolutely nothing that can come from this discussion at this point. Nihlus 00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you still are completely against the block, then it's not pointless, just not something that will reach a final resolution here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: I see absolutely nothing that can come from any discussions on this topic. Nihlus 01:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are free to keep re-blocking editors as many times as they want if they don't like something the editor did, even if there was no repeat of the offense. They have to lift the block if others complain, but otherwise, just keep on blocking. I hope I'm not the only one here who sees a problem with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that actually stated somewhere in a guideline for admins? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Heavens, no! I was being sarcastic, to explain the problem succinctly, in the context of someone calling it pointless. But if the conclusion drawn here is that there's nothing wrong with the re-block, then the conclusion effectively means what I put in italics. And I shudder to think that could happen! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Atsme] I agree with what's said above. Seeking sanctions here, or seeking to use a discussion here as a basis for sanctions from Arbcom, leans strongly toward WP:PUNISH. Either BrownHairedGirl did nothing wrong, in which case this ought to be cut off immediately, or she did something wrongly, in which case it doesn't particularly matter because the block has been superseded. You say that you're only seeking "comments on the 60-hour re-block, and not on any other blocks or administrative actions that occurred around that time, and not on civility in general." The only reasons to review admin actions are (1) to fix continuing problems, which aren't happening due to the later block, or (2) to fix broader problems, which you say you don't want to talk about. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think she did nothing wrong, you should be able to justify why you feel that way. It sounds like you are confounding WP:NOTPUNITIVE with WP:ADMINACCT. The point here is not to get the block lifted, and that would obviously not make sense. I didn't say that I don't want to talk about broader issues, but I said that I was not asking for comments on other blocks. If you want to point out any problems with those, don't let me stop you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment/Opinion: I perceive that some people feel a need to (for lack of a better word) vent about the circumstances leading up to MPants' indef, but I do not think this is where to do it. Nor is the MfD of MPants' edit-notice. In my opinion there is nothing to be accomplished at AN by reviewing a block that was reversed by the blocking admin 35 minutes later. The blocking admin gave a clear rationale for her block and her original decline of the appeal, and after feedback/consensus she reversed the block 35 minutes later. Four days after the fact there is no cause to either admonish her or to desyssop her or to take the case to AN or ArbCom. If people want to continue to hash out the entire scenario that led to MPants being indeffed, I suggest some sort of neutral territory that is not an administrator's noticeboard. Perhaps someone's talkpage, or user subpage. In any case, my view is: We are all adults. MPants is an adult. MPants was the orchestrator of his own demise. (BTW, I will not respond further here.) Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC); edited 01:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I finished venting a few days ago, and I waited a few days before coming here because I wanted everyone else to finish as well. As for MPants being responsible for his own actions, of course that's true, and it's also not the issue here. This really isn't about him, and what he ultimately did to himself was after the block under review here. But if we are going to conclude that: Administrators are free to keep re-blocking editors as many times as they want if they don't like something the editor did, even if there was no repeat of the offense. They have to lift the block if others complain, but otherwise, just keep on blocking, we have a big problem here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And she wasn't the one who declined the appeal, so please get the facts right. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: I unblocked because it was clear that there was strong opposition from some other admins.

I recognise the concerns that you express here, but having heard what you and others have to say, I stand by my analysis of the situation, viz

1. MJP has along track record of being aggressively hostile and uncivil, contrary to the core policy WP:CIVIL.
2. MJP was blocked for an extreme act of uncivility
3. MJP's response to that was not to in any way apologise, withdraw or pull back, but one hour later to make an unblock request which was also offensive
4. After about another hour Drmies rightly declined the unblock request
5. The block expired ~ 29 hours after DRmies's decline, which gave more than a whole day for MJP to respond with some retraction of either or both outbursts
6. By then there was no indication that MJP was in any way inclined to moderate his conduct.
7. I appreciate that editors may "let off steam" when blocked, but in this case the "let off steam" was a repetition of the conduct which had led to the block in the first place. In this situation, I believe that the preventive purpose of blocks should be foremost, and that where an editor is clearly determined to continue on the same course, further preventative measures are appropriate
8. This was not in any way wheel-warring. It was addressing the situation which arose 29 hours after the unblock request was declined
9. Given the strength of opposition, I lifted my reblock per WP:ROPE
10. Only hours later, MJP made an even more extreme breach of civility, with sever personal attacks
11. For that, MJP was rightly indef-blocked. Guy Macon described[34] it as an apparent Suicide By Administrator.

In hindsight, I think that my judgement was vindicated. Allowing MJP's return when he was clearly in a destructive frame of my mind turned out to be his undoing. It would have been better for everyone concerned to leave him blocked until he showed some signs of capacity for the anger management which is crucial to a collaborative project.

I am also very saddened to see that in the aftermath of this, Tryptofish's concern is focused on whether my reblock is appropriate, rather than in MJP's long-term pattern of aggressive conduct.

This is a persistent problem on en.wp: some favoured editors are actively encouraged to behave as aggressive wild beasts, and those who seek to challenge them are problematised instead.

The aggresive culture which this breeds is well-documented as driving editors away from en.wp, esp women, who find the culture "sexualized, misogynistic, and aggressive".

I have personally communicated with scores of women who are skilled researchers and fine writers, but whose contributions to en.wp studiously avoid all the centralised discussion fora such as XFD, AN, ANI, VP, precisely in order to avoid these forms of extreme aggression. I think in particular of one woman with whom I had private discussion some years; she edited in an obscure corner of en.wp, keeping out of the conflicts, but actively encouraged her daughters to resist calls for more women to edit en.wp, because she did not want them to expose themselves to such a hostile environment. Litt;le wonder that en.wp's gender gap remains so huge.

When she was Exec Director of the WMF, Sue Gardner made tackling these cultural barriers a priority. Sadly, she made little progress, and her the priorities of Sue's very fine successors have lain elsewhere.

It is deplorable that when en.wp is getting on for two decades old, we have a situation like this where an enabler and encourager of a serially uncivil and aggressive editor comes to complain that his favourite aggressor was treated too harshly. I see no sign that Tryptofish anticipates any boomerang effect from this exercise of trying to problematise someone who tried to uphold WP:CIVIL ... and sadly, I fear that in that respect alone, Tryptofish's judgement is right.

I doubt that I will participate any further in this discussion. I have seen this phenomenon several times before over the years, where the misconduct of a serially aggressive editor is normalised even as it escalates, and eventually reaches a point where even the defensive capacity of a team of enablers is insufficient ... and then the enablers turn on those who dared have the shocking and appalling impudence to try to restrain the ogre's misconduct. It's all great fodder for sociological researchers, but no way to run a collaborative project where civility is a core policy.

So I'll repeat that in the same circumstances I would probably make similar judgmenets again. Where a highly aggressive editor continued their aggression while blocked, I would consider extending the block or-blocking for the new offence. And if there was a similar response, I'd likely follow up as I did here, by lifting the block. I continue to hope that some day en.w will treat WP:CIVIL as if it was actual policy rather than a piece of pious poetry which should not be allowed to impede the aggressive posturing of a big beasts with a battleground mentality and a fan club; but I am not holding my breath. I expect that those sociologists will be busy for a good while yet.

Codladh sámh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. I mean that: thank you. I have no argument with much of what you say about civility: yes, it is a serious problem. I don't justify what MPants did after your block – but you had no way of seeing into the future when you made the block. And if anyone thinks that I deserve a boomerang for raising the issues here, go right ahead. But I want to focus specifically on the issue of the re-block itself. You say that you made the re-block because "The block expired ~ 29 hours after DRmies's decline, which gave more than a whole day for MJP to respond with some retraction of either or both outbursts" and he did not. Actually, it was only about an hour or two after the end of the block, not more than a whole day. And he made no edits at all during that time, so he never had any opportunity to say anything about it. So: you issued a new block because he made no edits in the short time after the first block was over. You say that you "recognize" my concerns, but it sounds as though you do not agree with them. It also sounds like you are willing to make other re-blocks in the future when editors who were incivil do not issue an explicit retraction within a given amount of time after the first block, even if they have not repeated the incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a boomerang is warranted. You're trying to get someone punished, and you feel so strongly that you demand that I explain my reasoning for saying that BHG is innocent: you didn't even read to see that I was offering two options, innocent or not-innocent. When you leap on someone so hard that you assume that neutral parties are your opponents, it's time for someone else to get blocked 60-hours for personal attacks or harassment. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you threatening to block me? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's over the line. You know full well that such a block would be forbidden by WP:INVOLVED. Any editor is free to discuss or even call for you being blocked under WP:BOOMERANG It comes with filing a report at ANI. (Note that I have not expressed any opinion about whether you should be blocked). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: Thanks for your civil reply. I have said what I need to say about my views, but will correct you a point of fact on the timeline.

I referred to situation which arose 29 hours after the unblock request was declined. You responded with a different measure Actually, it was only about an hour or two after the end of the block, not more than a whole day.

In reality both points of fact are accurate, but your reply misrepresented my assertion. I hope that was unintentional.

Here's the timeline.

1. 03:28, 20 February 2019: Cullen328 blocked MFP for 31 hours
2. 03:28, 20 February 2019: Cullen328 notified[35] MJP of a 31-hour-block
3. 04:07, 20 February 2019‎: MJP posted[36] a sweary unblock request
4. 05:18, 20 February 2019‎; Drmies declined[37] the unblock request
5. 10:28, 21 February 2019‎: the 31 hour block expired
6. 12:01, 21 February 201: I re-blocked MJP

So at the point of my reblock, the elapsed time since the unblock decline was just under 31 hours. That is a little more than the ~29 hours. It was just under two hours since the block expired, which is similar to your claim of an hour or two.

You have taken the opportunity to open an ANI thread alleging misconduct on my part. Much as I disagree with your focus on criticising someone who made best efforts to restrain a miscreant, you are entitled to express that view. But when you are posting prolifically about my alleged badness, and assembling a charge sheet against me saying explicitly that you expect that this will be a step before taking it to a request for arbitration, then you have a responsibility to take more care with the facts. Unlike a few days ago, this is not happening in real time, so there is no urgency; you have all the time you want to check before you reply. Waywardness with facts and misrepresenting the person you are complaining about are unlikely to be part of a good strategy for avoiding the boomerangs.

Codladh sámh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right about the time sequence, and I was actually in the process of correcting what I said about that when I edit conflicted with your reply. It sounded to me at first like you were referring to the time after the first block had expired. I question whether we can really read anything into a blocked editor's not posting anything during the time they are blocked, once the unblock request was declined. So I continue to hold the opinion that he never really had an opportunity to say anything before your re-block. Again, my concern is not about whether editors should be blocked for incivility; it's about making re-blocks in the absence of evidence of continuing problems, and that's not the same thing as silence meaning that problems will continue. I really wish that you would simply acknowledge that. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If civility is a problem, a serious problem, and I certainly think it is, then having sysops who are willing to make tough decisions in trying to hold that line is a good thing. If a sysop oversteps and then accepts the feedback of other editors that they have overstepped that too is a good thing. Either BHG read the situation currently and MPants was not ready to be civil or the reblock so upset MPants that he decided to get himself thrown off the project. If the former well good for her. If the latter well that seems truly unpredictable and I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that now. I hope that Cullen and BHG will continue to make tough decisions, in whatever direction that might mean, to uphold civility going forward. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Tough decisions, absolutely. Wrong decisions, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• This should be called "Re-review of reblock", since it was already reviewed and undone by the reblocker. I feel a bit in the middle of this--somehow my unblock request has become a stick to cudgel BHG with--like, "if Drmies didn't lengthen the block or revoke TPA, who does BHG think she is?" That ain't right. We're admins because we're supposed to have minds of our own, and while (as we all saw) I didn't increase the block despite the insulting unblock request, that doesn't mean I was right. (I didn't lengthen the block because I figured Cullen wouldn't be bothered by the attempt to insult him, and because I generally am fine with some venting, but that's just me.) Re-reviewing this as if we're ticking a box before going to ArbCom is disruptive. I will not, like Nyttend, suggest this is blockworthy, but I do think this is needlessly inflammatory. Tryptofish, I know you as someone with plenty of sense. I hope you don't take this to ArbCom. If you do, I am pretty sure it will not be accepted, nor do I know what your charge might be--that the reblock was voted down hardly means that BHG has lost the community's trust. But needlessly taking a well-respected admin and fine colleague to ArbCom damages your own credibility. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, but I honestly do not think that I am being disruptive. I have sincere concerns here. And I am listening to the comments from others here. As for my credibility, I don't think that should be damaged by having sincere concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have sincere concerns, you sincerely discuss them on the user's talk page. This just comes across as retaliatory griefing. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm hardly a griefer, but I'm closing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm of the mind to add WP:RECHEW as a shortcut to AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Main article: Cud --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Further information: User talk:Tryptofish#Post-ANI, re MJP. And please keep the cud to yourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

General sanctions procedure

A recent discussion on this noticeboard established consensus that non-extended-confirmed editors are prohibited from editing articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict (link). Several administrators have since begun enforcing this, using EC-protection. This prohibition is, however, not documented anywhere else that I am aware of. Do we need a page to log these protections? Or, at the very least, a page documenting this discussion, where people unaware of it can be pointed? What about documenting these at WP:GS? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The relevant measure could have been taken under the existing India–Pakistan discretionary sanctions, which were authorised by ArbCom. However, if this is an additional community-authorised general sanction, then yes, it should be documented at WP:GS. I would suggest that a better option might be to petition ArbCom at WP:ARCA to 'take over' this new community measure, and incorporate it into the existing ArbCom sanctions...that seems to be a more satisfying result, and avoids the problem of multiple overlapping bureaucracies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

These are different from existing sanctions, in that even ARBIPA discretionary sanctions would not normally allow preemptive protection, which is what this was all about. I'm not keen on asking ARBCOM to take this over: the effort involved would outweigh the reduction in bureaucracy, IMO. I'm willing to do the paperwork of documentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that this is a completely new regime. It should be logged at WP:GS. However, I find it unfortunate that this was not implemented under the existing authorisation. In any case, I guess that's that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added the restriction to WP:GS#Community-authorised sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to BLPs by Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome

Editor Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome (contribs) has been adding unsourced claims to bios of entertainers for some time, despite being repeatedly warned about it including two level 4 warnings. In this edit to Adele Romanski, she actually removed a reference added by an anon editor an hour earlier, and added a pile of unsourced claims about awards won. A few hours later at Tony McNamara (writer), another unsourced claim of an award nomination. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with a rangeblock

So we're getting constant vandalism on Return of the Jedi from a set of moving Costa Rican IP addesses. This vandalism goes back many years and is always the same pattern. It's a bit like playing whack a mole, but this editor is the only disruption on the article. We have it set to pending changes, but it's still a constant battle. I'd rather not protect an entire article for one editor, so it looks like a rangeblock may be in order. However in all my years I've never done a rangeblock so I'd like some assistance, or someone else to do it as I could be determined to be involved here as I do occasionally edit the article other than just reverting the vandalism.

In the last year or so we've seen these edits from the following IP addresses.

• 186.26.116.133
• 186.26.127.152
• 186.26.127.176
• 186.26.116.223
• 186.26.127.128
• 186.26.127.185
• 186.26.116.7
• 186.176.253.197
• 200.122.170.70
• 201.198.246.145

The last one appeared to be static for some time, but hasn't been edited from in a while. I'm seeing mostly the 186.26 ranges but I'm unsure as to the impact such a range block would have. Any advice, help? Thanks in advance. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor is only targeting the one article, right? Maybe semi-protection would be a better choice. Anyway, blocking 186.26.116.0/24 and 186.26.127.0/24 won't stop this person from editing, but it would probably slow them down considerably. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NRP, but a block of 186.26.116.0/24 looks like it would cause some collateral damage. Semi protection would probably be a better option than either rangeblocks or the current PC1. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try a semi-protect. See if that discourages them enough to not come back when it expires. Hasn't in the past, but maybe they'll finally get bored with this. Thanks all. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation re-branding discussion/planning

See the recent Foundation blog post at Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030 and the ongoing discussion on Meta at m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. Just dropping a few public notifications since I'm not sure this project has been otherwise notified. GMG^talk 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Jews and discretionary sanctions

An IP editor added to Talk:Jews warnings for Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement and Syrian Civil War sanctions. [38] I reverted these, as I didn't think that a survey article such as this would be included in those DS areas, and the edit appeared to me to be a POV one. Should I have left them on the page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The same IP requested Indefinite extended protected for 30 articles on the basis of the Arab-Israeli DS. Many of the articles also appear to have no relationship to that subject. [39]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I am an editor who is active in the IP-conflict field, and I agree with your decision. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 for a month for disruptive editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken page move

It appears that User:Mordebee was trying to correct the title of Family Tree DNA, but mistakenly moved ii to the Wikipedia namespace as Wikipedia:FamilyTreeDNA. I'm not sure if the title change is warranted and also not sure if simply reverting the move is sufficient or if an administrator needs to do the clean up. FWIW, I think the "move" was made in good faith, but it probably should be discussed on the article's talk page first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. No opinion on whether is should be changed or not, but it was requested to be moved to that in 2013. Nihlus 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Nihlus. Does the redirect from Wikipedia:FamilyTreeDNA need to be tagged for speedy deletion as a cross namespace redirect or is it OK as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagged. Nihlus 01:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, deleted G6. Thanks, ansh666 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Reporting harassment

I will report Diannaa and Reaper Eternal for sabotaging my work on Lindha Kallerdahl and Olli Soikkeli, and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also report DoRD for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled. Knuand (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knuand: You've been here a while so you avoid the level 1 template reminding you to "assume your fellow editors are here to improve rather than harm the project", but it's pretty poor to accuse people of "sabotage" when WP:COPYRIGHT is clearly a policy with legal considerations and Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

Personally I'd be taking their advice, and, indeed, asking them for more: but if you really feel the need to make this complaint, you should move it to WP:ANI; bearing in mind, of course, that once there, the filer's behaviour is examined as well as those they file against. Be mindful.

On the other hand, if you don't want to file there...you should withdraw this WP:ASPERSION immediately. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: Also see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PPS: Actually, having reviewed your edits, I'm very tempted to file the case for you; your talk page is an absolute litany of advice/reminders/instructions as to the importance of copyright and attribution on Wikpedia going back at least to 2013. Over five years later and you have clearly ignored every piece of advice, every remnder, and every instruction you have received, instead responding with specious incivility. Mind you, I think by now, even an acknowledgement that there's a problem might be too late. ——SerialNumber54129 15:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying Serial Number's reply from the AN Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am very happy to receive critisixm and advice on what i write. The problem here is that the texts in matter was deleted, and the advice was that the text included close paraphrasing and plagiarism, with no posibility for me to go into the substant matter. What I call for is a more creative way of giving critisism and advice. Just "using a fist" in this way, is subjected to create a sharp response. Open the evaluation system up, and it will give much better result! Knuand (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• • PS! My editing is not happy, when deleted ...