THC Science

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

Start a new discussion

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 85 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 66 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard~~/Archive 439~~. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 59 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 49 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	9	33	14	56
TfD	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	2	0	2
RfD	1	22	3	26
AfD	0	1	10	11

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 68 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 66 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 61 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 61 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 57 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 56 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 55 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 52 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 44 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 41 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 39 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

(Initiated 435 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.

The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.

So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo and Happy to Help! and Thank You for your work on Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 81 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 53 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 9 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 6 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 7811 total) ^(Purge) WATCH
Page	Protected	Expiry	Type	Summary	Admin
Nir Oz	2024-06-09 03:41	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
List of ongoing armed conflicts	2024-06-09 03:11	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA	Anarchyte
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre	2024-06-09 02:43	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA	Daniel Case
Russian Air Force	2024-06-09 01:56	2024-06-16 01:56	edit,move	Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up	Robertsky
IDF Caterpillar D9	2024-06-09 01:48	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Front for the Liberation of the Golan	2024-06-08 21:41	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA	Ymblanter
Lok Sabha	2024-06-08 21:22	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND	Ymblanter
Template:Timeline-event	2024-06-08 18:00	indefinite	edit,move	High-risk template or module: 2530 transclusions (more info)	MusikBot II
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation	2024-06-08 16:51	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP	Favonian
Om Parvat	2024-06-08 05:48	2024-12-08 05:48	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement revise to ec upon further review.	Robertsky
Skibidi Toilet	2024-06-08 04:14	2024-12-26 20:45	edit	Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RFPP	Daniel Case
Black Sea Fleet	2024-06-08 03:56	indefinite	edit,move	Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR	Daniel Case
Vikrant Adams	2024-06-08 03:54	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	Daniel Case
Trinamool Congress	2024-06-08 00:47	indefinite	edit,move	continued disruption by autoconfirmed accounts; raise semi to ECP	Daniel Case
Drone warfare	2024-06-07 14:20	2025-06-07 14:20	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
International Solidarity Movement	2024-06-07 14:16	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war	2024-06-07 12:38	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
User:Aoidh/	2024-06-06 22:59	indefinite	edit,move	User request within own user space	Aoidh
Al-Sardi school attack	2024-06-06 20:53	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic	Malinaccier
Dance of Flags	2024-06-06 17:57	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Indian National Congress	2024-06-06 17:51	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Telugu Desam Party	2024-06-06 17:47	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Agent Galahad	2024-06-06 02:37	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	NinjaRobotPirate
Elsett	2024-06-05 22:22	2024-07-05 22:22	edit,move	Persistent sockpuppetry	Ponyo
Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference	2024-06-05 21:16	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	SuperMarioMan
List of Pakistanis by net worth	2024-06-05 16:48	2025-02-13 08:30	edit	Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved	Anachronist
Pors	2024-06-05 13:52	2024-09-05 13:52	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli	Rosguill

Philip Cross

Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a lot of noise about Philip Cross (PC) on the internet, with implausible claims of COI and such, and it is pretty clear that he's engaged in a Twitter spat with some of the subjects of articles he's edited. That may well not be a problem at all - I have sparred with Dana Ullman online, that dispute originated with his POV-pushing here, it's not an off-wiki dispute imported to Wikipedia, it's a Wikipedia dispute that attracted off-wiki activism from people dissatisfied with our reflection of an entirely mainstream view, and the same seems to me on the face of it to be true with PC.

The characterisation of PC's targets as "anti-war" is framed to invoke sympathy from a typically small-l liberal project, but is problematic. George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way. It's also worth noting that the three main sources for criticism of PC are George Galloway, Sputnik (where Galloway is a presenter), and the Russian state media conglomerate RT (which is the parent network of Sputnik).

Given the off-wiki profile of this, and the to me obvious involvement of non-public information in assessing whether any of the claims made by Galloway (e.g. that PC is an account shared by a network of paid individuals) are actually true, should we refer this to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow PC to definitively clear his name? Or is it a nothingburger? I'm rather leaning to the latter but I honestly don't know. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support referral to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow Philip Cross to definitively clear his name. The proposer has related some context, but from a point of view that clearly indicates, as he concedes, that he considers this "a nothingburger." I believe it's a something burger, and offer the following additional background.

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His first edit to that page was on September 15, 2005. Six and a half years later, on March 31, 2012, Philip Cross began trolling George Galloway on Twitter. Finally, on May 1, 2018, George Galloway struck back, calling Philip Cross "a gutless coward."

There ensued a lopsided exchange, with Galloway tweeting to or about Cross nine times, and Cross tweeting to or about Galloway 75 times. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he six days later called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Cross tweeted to Galloway, "George, I'm talking to you punk." He also acknowledged Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross again edited Wikipedia's BLP of George Galloway.

Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas has spread from Twitter and is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Philip Cross has violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." This applies not only to George Galloway, but to the other subjects of Wikipedia BLPs whom Cross has called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited.

But far worse, Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye. KalHolmann (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support referral to ArbCom, Good resume. Philip Cross (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that the conspiracy theories themselves are a 'nothingburger' that probably do not need an ArbCom case to "clear his name" (though if he really feels the need to clear his name, it should be allowed). That said, that doesn't mean there's no problems that need to be addressed. When your editing behavior causes controversy in the media, there's most likely some problem. In this instance, I think this for sure satisfies "significant controversy or dispute" with an article subject, an obviously-important stipulation of BLP that the user in question has acknowledged when confronted about it on Twitter, but has ignored in practice, as is evidenced above. This type of violation should uncontroversially result in a AE TBAN from the article at the minimum (especially if the user in question is the article's largest influencer, this obviously damages the credibility of our supposed NPOV), but if the user has additional COIs that they're editing articles in spite of, additional discretionary sanctions might be necessary. Is there some reason admins haven't addressed this yet? Seems like something that should have at least been reported by now. Support referral to AE to address the BLP considerations. Swarm ♠ 17:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, I first raised this issue on 18 May 2018. The discussion was closed before it could begin by User:NeilN, who advised "Go to WP:ANI, not here." On 20 May 2018 User:Drmies hatted —effectively disappeared— the section from Talk:George Galloway.

Next on 18 May, I filed a report at COI Noticeboard. It was closed within literally two minutes, with the explanation: "Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." (User:JzG determined this in the span of 120 seconds. Amazing!)

Later that day, I filed a report at ANI. It was closed five minutes later by the same Admin, with the explanation: "WP:FORUMSHOP." Forum shopping is defined at the relevant page as "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages," and is forbidden because it "does not help develop consensus." Duh! How can editors arrive at consensus if my every attempt to stimulate a discussion is instantly quashed? KalHolmann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would an RFC be a good first step? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look at actual edits, not at off-wiki garbage. If editors can be run off controversial topics by media mentions then various special interest groups will have a field day. On Wikipedia, we have a sock farm targeting Cross, KalHolmann who inappropriately canvassed before I told him to stop, and attacks by usually-dormant accounts [1] and IPs [2]. What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, I found three veteran, experienced editors expressing serious concerns about Philip Cross's edits. In December 2015, User:John (207,744 edits since 2006-01-08) wrote, "Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, and more especially on the apparent inability to see that comments like this will be seen as problematic." He later added, "Count me as a 'support' topic ban." That same month, User:Guerillero (18,031 edits since 2009-11-07) wrote, "I support a topic ban after this revert. Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article." In February 2016, User:AusLondonder (24,968 edits since 2015-04-17) wrote, "I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing by Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop." KalHolmann (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN takes a cheap shot, coming here to accuse me of canvassing. As I explained to him on 18 May 2018, I posted a notice to each of six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I did so to comply with COI Noticeboard instructions, which state: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." (Emphasis added.) I sought to follow, in good faith, the procedure as I understood it preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report. Now, NeilN tries to shift the focus of this latest discussion from the behavior of Philip Cross, where it properly belongs, onto me, a "sock farm," and "usually-dormant accounts." I encourage other editors to examine the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved. KalHolmann (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: Canvassing [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban. And you haven't presented any examples of problematic Wikipedia edits, only asserted that "Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye." How is that examining "the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved"? Pretty sure various editors have "disgraced" Wikipedia according to public special interest groups. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, thanks for providing diffs of my notifications to each of the six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section at Talk:George Galloway. I tried to follow the rules as I understood them, and made no attempt "to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban." As for your other point, I do not regard the proposal on which we are commenting to be about "problematic Wikipedia edits." Rather, it's about the spectacle of a conflicted editor waging war on Twitter against the "punks" and "goons" whose BLPs he has frequently edited and with whom he has admitted, "Well I have a big COI now." This is not about edits. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia as perceived by the public at large. KalHolmann (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice then to see some examples of this public at large, rather then the like of gorgeous George.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, Wikipedia page protection filters prevent me from providing a direct hyperlink to Twitter search results, which show exhaustively the ongoing public debate on this issue. However, as a workaround, please navigate in your browser to any Twitter page, and paste the following into the Search box at upper right: (Wikipedianhidin OR philipcross63 OR "Philip Cross" OR "Phillip Cross"). When results display, click "Latest" for full list. KalHolmann (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, here's a recent hacker news (news.ycombinator.com) discussion on the topic. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC) I'm a bit dismayed that people are not getting a good impression of WP :-/ [reply]

For the third time (and more bluntly), subjects of articles are not the "public at large". Parties interested in influencing our coverage about them or their causes are not the "public at large". If you can't produces examples of problematic editing then this is a nothingburger as JzG says. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom does not exist to review conspiracy theories on off-wiki websites. If anyone has actual evidence, they can file a case. If they do not, then we move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, you clearly violated the guideline against canvassing because your notifications were not neutral. I recommend that you apologize for that infraction. You are also wrong when you write "This is not about edits." It is always about the edits here, first and foremost. So, if he is the most active editor working on the Galloway BLP, but all of his edits accurately summarize what reliable sources say, then there is nothing at all wrong with that. Almost every developed article has a most active editor, unless two or three happened to be tied in the edit count at a moment in time. So, your task is to show, with diffs, that the editor is misrepresenting sources or violating BLP policy or core content policies. The self-admitted Twitter squabbling is a problem, in my mind. Personally, I consider that behavior to be very unwise and unseemly, and I am very interested in what other uninvolved editors have to say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328, thank you for this opportunity. I do indeed apologize for notifications that were not neutral. KalHolmann (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingburger. If anyone has policy-violating bad diffs please present them, but the diffs seen here don't seem to support a conflict of interest claim. I'm really not seeing evidence that this user is a "stalker-troll." But, if anyone has diffs of that, pony up. Andrevan@ 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this looks to be a well-organized attack campaign run by "the Russians". WP:RBI probably applies to their on-wiki activities. Separately, while Philip Cross probably could use a short vacation from a "quality-of-life" perspective, I haven't seen a single diff that justifies any action against him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the off-wiki site linked by Andrevan, the content at Piers Robinson actually is problematic; Cross's preferred version borders on an attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think Piers Robinson's was bad, go and look at Tim Hayward (academic) immediately after Philip Cross had finished with it. Ludemate —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unclear to me from this that there is a COI or POV pushing. This person certainly seems politically controversial. It seems the article has been cleaned per BLP, and I don't see Philip Cross revert warring to insert his content. Perhaps he could comment. Andrevan@ 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of content

I request that User:Andrevan explain his removal of content from this section. KalHolmann (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the IP's talk page would have told you it's a sock puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, content was added by a block evading anon who is now blocked, and consisted of copypasta from 2015 and 2016 of dubious provenance, structured to look like users supporting a topic ban in this thread. Misleading at best. Andrevan@ 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, well, wasn't that convenient? Four minutes after the IP posted his comment, you just happened to block him. I gotta hand it to you, Wikipedia admins sure know how to run (or is it ruin?) a discussion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kal, if you'd like, I can reblock the IP instead. Dumping comments here from a discussion years ago, and conveniently fitting them smoothly into this discussion, is not a good-faith contribution to the discussion — it's an attempt to skew the discussion a specific direction by making it look like these comments were made in this discussion, not a separate one. No comment on whether it's a sockpuppet or not, but the person behind this IP is significantly disrupting things, and as this IP's following project conventions (e.g. {{od}}) in an internal project discussion, we give a good deal less leeway than with an IP tweaking a few things improperly in an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Not sure why a reblock is needed. I've blocked them before as a sock of Hillbillyholiday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. Kal was complaining that you're using the tools inappropriately, blocking someone on the other side of this discussion in which you've involved yourself. My point is that if he really thinks it's wrong, I'll happily reblock, and he'd better be satisfied because I've not offered any opinions (and haven't formed any) on the merits of the complaint. In other words, I'm the "any reasonable administrator" of WP:INVOLVED. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quotations included in the reverted edit included timestamps that clearly placed them in 2016. I don't see any attempt to pretend they were more recent. Rather they demonstrated that people had been having trouble with Philip Cross's editing as far back as 2 years ago. NeilN really did write[9] "What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits." and the reverted post purported to show examples of exactly that (I don't know how experienced those editors were though). KalHolmann provided more examples, going back even farther,[10] and I do recognize at least one of the editors in KalHolmann's post as a sensible editor of very long standing. NeilN reverted KalHolmann's post[11] calling it "proxying". But it instead comes across as an attempt on NeilN's part to cover up evidence in a dispute.
As an outside observer, if someone like User:John makes a comment on a dispute, I'd consider his viewpoint to probably be credible and so I want to hear what he has to say. I don't care if John's comment is shown to me by a banned user: I want to see it anyway, and now that I've seen it, I think it is relevant. The rule about banned user edits (at least as I used to understand it) was that they MAY be reverted, not that they MUST be reverted, and in this case I think they should have been left to stand. In any case I see no evidence of KalHolmann proxying (acting under a banned user's direction) although the diffs might have originated with a banned user.
I would *really* like if those reversions were to stop. Wikipedia doesn't have an exclusionary rule and in any case we engage in some minor terminological abuse when we refer to diffs as evidence. The evidence is actually in the publicly accessible revision history of the wiki, and diffs are just revision numbers (formatted a particular way to tell the wiki software what content to retrieve) indicating where in the history the evidence can be found. It would make Wikipedia dispute resolution look pretty stupid if any user could destroy a case by getting themselves banned, then posting all the diffs favoring one side of the case, so that they would have to be reverted and nobody else could use the evidence that they point to.
I don't know the exact source of KalHolmann's diffs or what his thoughts were in presenting them, but if they originated with another editor (banned or otherwise) and KalHolmann wants to post them again explicitly taking responsibility himself for their contents, I'd be very opposed to anyone reverting them again. I haven't examined the AN page history for more such reversions but maybe it's worth it for somebody to do so, if we are to get a complete account of what's been going on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me to stop reverting the posts of block-evaders and those who proxy-edit for them, that's not going to happen (note that Andrevan removed the initial post). Article space is one thing - editors can take responsibility for edits they think improves the article - but blocked editors don't get to participate in discussions, either directly or by proxy. The diff is still in history if the post content needs to be referred to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to substantiate your accusation that KalHolmann was proxying, or else withdraw it. He looked in a spot that the other person pointed to, and reported what he found there. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Struckout because it's up to KalHolmann (not me) to pursue the accusation if he wishes. But WP:PROXYING is clear, it says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor..." where direction is italicized for emphasis. That happens when (e.g.) a blocked editor posts on their talk page asking for someone else to make a certain edit, or it can happen off-wiki. If you have evidence that KalHolmann did that, I'd like to see it. If you don't have such evidence then it's a baseless aspersion. You wrote "the diff is still in history if the post content needs to be referred to" and it seems to me that KalHolmann did exactly that. As for your reversions, keep in mind that you are abetting what some people including news outlets are calling a nasty and protracted BLP attack (whether it actually is one is still under discussion). So the BLP attack (if that's what it is) becomes partly your responsibility if your efforts result in prolonging it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

So, ignoring all of the other crap above, we do still have the most prolific editor of a BLP directly feuding with the subject of said BLP, and continuing to edit the article, in contravention of clear BLP guidance on this specific situation. That concern, to me, comes across as a legitimate one, even if everything else about the situation is complete BS. Are we going to address this or just look the other way on this one? Swarm ♠ 19:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The feud seems to be that the subjects of the articles don't like what has been written about them on-wiki, right? Is there an indication of non-neutral editing that we can pick apart? Andrevan@ 19:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki presented this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: the The Guardian, Robinson has said, should employ Beeley and another blogger, Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet). In so doing, it would become more "ethical, independent and glamorous" by doing so. sentence was mentioned in the off-wiki site (amidst other, perfectly good edits). I'm not sure if www.opendemocracy.net is a reliable source, but that entire sentence reads a lot into a tweet, and I feel it's deliberately intended to mock the subject. When Tibloc suggested its removal, Cross implied that Tibloc was a Russian agent. The current version of the article (after removals by Drmies) reads fine to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power, what about that website would give you any reason to think that it might be reliable? See their about page; they're activists, and their significant figures formerly included Anthony Barnett (writer) and Tony Curzon Price — just average journalists, with no evidence of scholarly review or expertise in anything except news reporting and (in the case of former editor Price) an unspecified area of economics. Unless I've missed something significant, if anyone used a source like this in a literature review, his committee would quickly begin raising questions about his competency. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. Newspapers with "average journalists" can be reliable sources, especially for fact-based claims. That said, I'm not claiming it's reliable, I'm just noting that Philip Cross used it as a reference. I have concerns, but haven't investigated it enough to claim it's not reliable. [12] is the specific article, which looks to be a contributed piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're almost never reliable secondary sources. You can often trust them with simple facts about recent events (e.g. "During yesterday's Question Time, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X"), but there they're primary sources because their writing comes at the time of the event; they're not summarizing and distilling at-the-time-of-the-event sources from a chronological distance. We mustn't use them significantly, because we risk placing undue weight on something that doesn't get covered by reliable secondary sources — WP:BALL, we can't know whether yesterday's Question Time will get mentioned in the secondary sources, since they can't exist yet? And when they're writing about past events, yes they're secondary, but journalists' credentials are typically restricted to covering the news, not providing solid retrospective coverage of something. You have to limit it to simple stuff (e.g. "Twenty years ago, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X") unless it's written by someone with credentials in that field, or unless it's reviewed by someone with credentials in that field, e.g. a retrospective on economics reviewed by the editor with the economics Ph.D. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell some of the editors on Trump-Russia related topics that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] NeilN, you linked to a revision, not a diff. Here is the edit resulting in that revision (a bot could do that), and while I've checked several edits before that, all I'm seeing is adding links, changing "he" to "Robinson", adding relative pronouns, moving content from one paragraph to another, etc. — nothing potentially problematic. What could possibly be wrong? Did you provide the wrong link by mistake? Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately linked to the revision. This would be the diff, almost all (if not all) the content changes in the 53 edits are by Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; thank you for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, no, the feud is not solely that the article's subject does not like what is being written about him in good faith. The editor is directly attacking the subject off-wiki. It's a direct interpersonal dispute, and diffs are not needed when the existence of the COI has been self-acknowledged by the editor. BLP policy specifically addresses this situation, and as of now, it is not being followed. The policy does not tell us to "examine the diffs" and determine whether there is actually non-neutral editing going on. It explicitly preempts the potential of problematic editing, by prohibiting editing during a direct dispute with a BLP subject. If someone's advocating that Cross should be allowed to ignore the specific BLP guidance on the situation, I find it hard to believe that his participation on the article is that essential. Swarm ♠ 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with your estimation of the situation, but if Philip Cross has self-acknowledged the COI and has indicated he will no longer be editing there as he now has a COI, do we need to enforce that through a sanction or a referral to ArbCom? Maybe we do - but it seems like there is a well-organized sockpuppet opposition pushing for such an action, which makes me suspicious. My cursory analysis of Philip Cross is that he is largely a well-intentioned editor who may have let his political POV creep into a few of his edits, but I don't see a sustained practice of POV pushing. Has he been continuously editing after he said he wouldn't? Andrevan@ 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: No, the policy actually says, "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." It does not prohibit editing (your emphasis) with good reason as there have been times in the past where editors have been targeted off-wiki and have defended themselves. Not saying that's what's happening here but saying policy mandates prohibition is reaching too far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I'm not saying we need to enforce it with a sanction (though a discretionary sanctions TBAN would be the most obvious way of enforcing it). The ideal scenario would be for Philip Cross to simply acknowledge the policy guidance on this issue and agree to abide by it. @NeilN: point conceded, it's not a hard prohibition, and it theoretically allows for the possibility of continued editing with good reason. But it is straightforward guidance from a policy that we generally take pretty seriously. So, that's fundamentally what I'm getting at. Is there a good reason for Cross to be ignoring the clear policy guidance on this situation? If not, he should understand why it's not ideal and agree to stop, at least until his issues with the subject die down. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Yes, he actually has edited the article since he acknowledged his COI, as evidenced by KH in his first comment. That's why I'm bringing this up. It's not a sustained problem, just something that I think should be addressed. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I agree that Cross should voluntarily stop editing the affected articles. I suggest he use edit-request templates if he has content changes to propose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I'm looking for from him as well. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, please specify the "affected articles" to which you allude. I would list George Galloway, Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. But there may be others. KalHolmann (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so folks will need to watchlist those and make sure they are not disrupted. Just in case someone was waiting until Philip was out of the way so they could insert their POV. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: This is not a formal restriction. Cross needs to use his common sense and stay away from editing the articles he believes he has a COI with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The primary concern is the George Calloway article, because he's directly in a dispute with George Calloway, and the policy guidance on that situation is clear. That's a valid concern. We're not going to start imposing blanket restrictions strictly because of opinions expressed on Twitter. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm I agree with your OP completely. I want to emphasize that we don't know (and cannot know) if the real person operating the Philip Cross Wikipedia account and the real person operating the Twitter account is the same person. If it is, in my view this would be very problematic with regard to BLPCOI, if the twitter account is actually interacting with the article subject on twitter. (Giving opinions is one thing; actual interpersonal conflict is another). I looked and have not seen if Philip Cross has disclosed here on WP if that is their tweeting or an imposter. (I know about twitter imposters -- i had one).

I think that editing on any of these Russia-related-populist subjects is very hard and I am glad we have people like Philip Cross doing it. But if it is the same person on twitter and here, and if the twitter interactions are actually interpersonal, then we are not in a good place. I think this should be referred to Arbcom so the issues of whether it is the same person, can be clarified. What remedies Arbcom would choose, I don't know. As I understand it this is not the same issue that KalHolmann has been raising. This is quite narrowly focused on carrying out a real world dispute here on WP, too. It may be that Philip Cross' edits are perfect, but if the same person is operating that twitter account, the optics are reproachable. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom. If the person operating the Twitter account and the one operating the Wikipedia account are the same person, then we need - at the very least - topic bans for Philip Cross on cerain BLPs here. I don't think this is even arguable. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog & Black Kite, as shown on his Wikipedia user page, Philip Cross advised: "You can contact me via email, see the toolbox on the left, or @philipcross63 on twitter." As preserved in a Wayback Machine snapshot of one of his Wikipedia-related tweets dated 7 May 2018, his Twitter profile bio then read, "My main published outlet is via my Wikipedia account as Philip Cross." On May 16, 2018, he changed his Twitter handle to @Wikipedianhidin and removed Wikipedia from his bio, but otherwise his account remains, in all essential aspects, identical. KalHolmann (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ping me. Do not write on my talk page. If you reply to this, I will not reply. I want nothing to do with you. You were advised below to drop this, and you absolutely should. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Philip Cross wants an ARBCOM case, it's reasonable, but I think that enacting a topic-ban here is both reasonable and sufficient. I'm not sure of the scope, but I agree with Black Kite that PC editing George Galloway is too problematic to allow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged here as a courtesy, but while I'm here I might as well say that I see no reason to allow Philip Cross to engage with this subject any further. I think it's NeilN above who is very curt on the topic ("unacceptable COI" or something like that), and I agree. And at the same time, of course, we should extend them all the protection we can: editors who jump on Cross one way or another should be dealt with. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Philip Cross should not edit George Galloway anymore. I noticed the COIN case and at that time since I didn't look in the details, assumed Guy's summation was reasonable. But having read in more depth here, I agree there's a clear problem. Even if GG is the one who initiated the 'feud', it seems clear PC responded in kind. Once you're as involved in a dispute with someone as PC appears to be here, it at a minimum causes major perception problems if you're continuing to edit their article. And more than that, there's a reason why we strongly discourage direct COI editing. It's very difficult to be neutral when you have strong feelings and having a major dispute with someone is likely to generate those feelings. When it's a BLP involved whatever 'fault' the subject may in starting the dispute we can't allow them to be punished for it. I can understand why PC may have wanted to push back if they felt the way they were being treated was unfair. And I do have concerns that subjects can pick a fight with editors who are potentially editing perfectly fine and try and goad them into a response to stop their editing. But we have to deal with these situations when they arise. And I see some signs it may have been PC who initiated the offsite dispute anyway. (Haven't looked at the timeline in detail since ultimately it's irrelevant.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Philip Cross has knowingly violated WP:BLPCOI on several occasions, jeopardising Wikipedia's reputation. That said, I'd prefer for him to voluntarily recuse himself, perhaps accompanied by a formal pledge here, from editing articles on UK political activitists and similar with whom he knows he has a profound disagreement, to put it this way. A tban would perhaps go too far as first punishment as I am not aware of any previous formal proceedings against this editor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Philip Cross can write on these BLP subjects from the disinterested/dispassionate angle that is required of BLP editors. So I agree that Philip Cross should stay away from these articles, especially the George Galloway one as the two are engaged in an escalating public spat. I'd like it to be a voluntary recusal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it wholly unacceptable that someone having a real life disagreement with a subject should edit about the subject. While I'd prefer Philip Cross step away on his own, the community might need to step between him and the article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Cross needs to stop editing George Galloway immediately, along with any other articles about people whom he is hurling abuse at. You can't be publically labelling someone a 'punk' and a 'goon' and expect people to see you as capable of editing disinterestedly with your Wikipedia hat on. If he can't do it informally then a formal topic ban needs to be imposed. Fish+Karate 12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above (about BLPCOI regarding Galloway) makes good sense. I'm not formally endorsing a topic ban because I've had only a superficial look at the happenings, but ZOMG, how is this even possible. Beyond that I think it warrants checking into whether there's a wider problem. I'm offline tomorrow but might look some more in a few days. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann

Reasonably strong opposition to enacting a TBAN on KalHolmann. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regardless of the merits of anything else here, I think KalHolmann should be topic banned from any further mention of user:Philip Cross, other than in the context of any potential ArbCom case. He is not helping. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to KalHolmann. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless there's a voluntary recusal from matters related to Cross going forward. He's derailing the process with his zeal here. Swarm ♠ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. When I pointed out a specific error that KalHolman made, the editor apologized. Although much of this incident may be based on baloney or worse, I am convinced that Philip Cross has shown extremely poor judgment by taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter for years, while actively editing their biographies. I simply cannot see that as acceptable behavior, and I am surprised to see editors I respect make light of it. Though there have been some fumbles, I for one thank KalHolman for bringing this to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Issue brought to our attention - good. Unable to realize that people/organizations with vested interests are not "the public eye" - not so good (otherwise, according to The Daily Mail, we're all completely useless, biased, etc.). I'd like to see how KalHolmann interacts with Cross in the future after this matter is settled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been co-editing (and arguing) with KalHolmann for a month or more at Joy Ann Reid. My strong opinion is that he/she cares about our Wikipedia project and puts effort into making this great encyclopedia better. You might disagree with his/her opinions (snd I often do) but their seriousness and good intentions should not (IMO) be doubted. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support and strongly. I find their constant pounding with the likes of RT and Sputnik so formalistic as to be approaching the Theater of the Absurd. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I fully agree with what Cullen328 wrote above: taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter...is simply totally unacceptable behaviour, IMO. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though I note that their further participation in this thread is unlikely to benefit to anyone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If asking the one editor to stay away from an article (or a set of articles) is not a big deal, it's also not a big deal for the other--per Jytdog, really. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Drmies, if any restriction be applied to Philip Cross, Kal Holmann also seems to naturally fall under said editing restriction. However, if both are to be warned to voluntarily not involve themselves with COIs and/or sensitive, politically charged topics and to use their best judgment, that also seems fair at this juncture, absent more current diffs of problematic editing. Philip Cross obviously knew he shouldn't have been Tweeting at article subjects and editing them, so I doubt he would have any problem with toning that down, considering he's a very prolific editor on many other pages that need work. Andrevan@ 02:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an editor should not be restricted merely because it is perceived that they are "not helping" (explicit evidence is needed) and a topic ban is not merely "asking [an] editor" to do something but mandating they do so or face punishment. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is getting ridiculous, although I agree with Andrevan (and others) regarding the need for both editors stepping as far away from any potential COI editing as possible, this is an editor facing severe harassment off-site. The least we can do is deal with their behaviour on-site following the rules of Wikipedia as opposed to "George Galloway said Phil was mean to him on Twitter therefor". If there are things to be answered for then let's deal with them and not get distracted/side-tracked by RT and a twitter-spat. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If KH continues to have problems with PC then it's worth reconsidering. But even if their approach wasn't the best KH had a very relevant point namely that there were significant problems with PC editing GG given their apparent feud (whoever initiated it). It's unfortunate it took us this long to deal with it. I do agree now that this has our attention KH needs to step away. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on policy grounds ~~but issue a formal warning to KH~~. We don't normally impose such sanctions for GF actions, whereas breaches of CIV or STALKING should normally require at least one warning before any bans. Additionally, I fear a penalty may also be seen as punishing an editor for bringing up valid issues with other editors' editing (even if we agree the manner WH did this was inappropriate). ~~Should a warning not work, a ban would be an option.~~ — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I do not see any proof submitted that this editor has been repeatedly disruptive WP:CBAN. And vis-a-vis his comment about Kal I agree with Cullen WP:AGF.– Lionel^(talk) 05:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proposal is bizarre - I see no evidence of disruption, merely the odd mistake any of us might make. I agree with Cullen above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per others above. The allegations made by said user and elsewhere in the media are highly serious, and threaten the integrity of the encyclopaedia. If it is found that they are untrue then fine, but the user shouldn't be chastised for making other editors taking them seriously. User:Jdcooper (posting from IP address cos I'm at work) 46.227.13.24 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Cullen328 and other opposers. Cross is the problem here. Jusdafax (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the above opposers, which is all I can really say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Off-wiki mentions

I saw this issue come up (having never heard of it before) on Hacker News here and later here. The first of those has a long comment thread and links to a "Five Filters" article "Time to ditch Wikipedia?"[13] that looks like a transplanted Wikipedia dispute (full of diffs etc.). I didn't look at it closely. The second links to a post by Craig Murray called "The Philip Cross Affair"[14] which has a time-of-day analysis of Philip Cross's posts and argues that Cross either spends ridiculous amounts of time editing or else is more than one person. Leftwing author Caitlin Johstone also has an article[15] and audio podcast[16] "Wikipedia is an establishment psyop" about the matter. I can't make much sense of the article and haven't listened to the audio, but they are there for those interested.

I'm not endorsing any of the writings cited above, but am posting the links here in case they are useful for further analysis. This sounds messy and even ignoring the political bias allegations, the level of editing activity attributed to Philip Cross is IMHO already a bad sign (people who edit nonstop tend to do more harm than good). The Wikimedia UK response was also unconvincing to say the least. So I agree with people above saying that it might take an arbcom case to figure out what is going on. I haven't looked into it enough (and probably won't) to say whether it's already time to file one. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for links. I saw Murray's article earlier and I am baffled with his use of aggregate statistics which unfortunately feels rather of the type, statistically, a man with his dog have three legs each. The chart might equally well show PC editing only one day a week on different days each year over seven years. PC's average 27 edits daily of an average of 52 characters each (62% being below 20 characters!) equals to some 30-60 minutes spent on WP a day. I see no statistical grounds for Murray's suggestions that this is an institutional account which edits round the clock 365 days a year. So, I propose we stick with considering PC as a single person (unless CheckUser tells us otherwise). (This of course has no relevance to PC's violations discussed above). — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea that Philip Cross edits 'nonstop' may be based on a misinterpretation of the timecard section in the user's editcount summary. The circles are of even, maximum size because the user's edits are pretty randomly distributed 9-5 Monday to Friday. The fact that the circles effectively fill the daytime weekday space doesn't indicate constant editing. George Galloway piggybacked the theory that the account is run out of GCHQ or the like on this 'nonstop editing' notion. William Avery (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasmiri and William Avery, thanks, that's a good point about the timestamps and I now realize the claim shouldn't be taken at face value, though ISTM that it's still worth checking out. There have definitely been cases in the past of people making apparently ridiculous numbers of edits with no breaks (in those cases it was imho bloody obvious that the people in question were actually running bots) but in this case it sounds like the numbers aren't that extreme. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stats end up being something like 30 edits/day for the past several years, which for reasonably motivated Wikipedians is not hard to achieve at all. nneonneo ^talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing every day with zero breaks for N years was pretty impressive. Does the guy have no life? Never travels, doesn't get sick of Wikipedia, no time crunches at work, spouse never wants him to go kayaking, etc? But yeah 30 edits in a single day is not much, depending on your style. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing

More recently, this showed up , which also mentions JzG: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html ; Note responses on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162057

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An outsider's perspective

Alright, I am hardly a prolific WP user, having been inactive for 5+ years. However, I wholeheartedly, as a complete outsider to this case, support a topic ban for user:Philip Cross. There can be no mistake here; Cross IS exhibiting a COI and has admitted so publicly. Whether he/she did on-wiki or NOT, or regardless of the machinations of interest groups, there can be no denying the credibility of the articles has been compromised. If we ignore this, we might set a bad precedent for WP Cocoliras (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway BLP

Despite acknowledging on the article's talk page that we have an "active discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross" User:Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway, explaining, "Old habits linger and so on." This strikes me as a middle-finger salute to the Administrators' Noticeboard process. KalHolmann (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is a problem. He *should* stop editing, but he also carefully explained why they were uncontroversial edits, and they are. Please stop making a fuss out of this. nneonneo ^talk 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross and any editor supporting his continuing contributions to his involved BLP articles needs restricting.Cross needs banning from all wp:blp articles Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose topic ban

There is general support (see also the ArbCom statement by by Cross himself) for an indefinite topic ban on editing the George Galloway article. Note that as this is a COI-related topic ban, talk page use is still allowed for requesting changes. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Clarified/expanded from original on 23:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Due to the overhwelming support for the suggestion that User:Philip Cross should not edit on the subject of George Galloway due to his real-life spat with him (and inevitable COI), and due to User:Philip Cross's apparent contempt for the opinions of the community, I propose that User:Philip Cross be topic banned from the subject of George Galloway, ~~broadly construed~~. I'll just note that the latest edits do appear to be uncontroversial, but an editor with a clear COI regarding a subject should not be the one to decide if something is controversial. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not sure "broadly construed" is needed at the moment, so I've struck that - but if others think it's needed, obviously feel free to add it to your comments. I'll also add that had this simply been George Galloway attacking Philip Cross in public, I would not be calling for a topic ban. But the attacks and insults have been going the other way too, and Philip Cross has got himself too deeply entrenched in a fight with George Galloway for it to be in any way appropriate for him to edit the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And just a comment for whoever assesses the consensus and closes this, Wikipedia has a clear policy which says "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest", at WP:BLPCOI. I assume the closer will take this into account, and will apply due weighting to oppose !votes which are not policy-based. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Caving to off-site pressure sets a bad precedent. If someone doesn't like their WP coverage, all they'd need to do is amp up a "spat" with editors of the article to disqualify them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And all an editor in such a situation needs to do is not respond in kind and continue to maintain a neutral approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nearly two thousand edits and he’s still at it after repeated taunting? Enough is enough. I say a full block if this keeps up. Jusdafax (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SBHB puts it well. The amount of unsubstantiated guff that has been posted about Philip (on wikiP and off) is a clue to why this would be a bad precedent. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but topic ban should not be limited to George Galloway, whom User:Philip Cross has publicly addressed as "punk." The ban should also include the other subjects of Wikipedia articles whom Cross has likewise called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens. KalHolmann (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Earlier above, I suggested to be lenient. But as Philip Cross is now showing his middle finger to all who are discussing him here, instead of offering an apology and recusal, I see it as a lost WP:SECONDCHANCE. It doesn't matter whether his COI edits are controversial; suffice that the community has requested him to stop editing. I will support a tban covering UK left-wing politicians and journalists broadly construed, i.e., to include political commentators, activitists, councillors, and similar. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious what the "middle finger" is - is he continuing to comment publicly about this? nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to subsitute "middle finger" with "contempt". — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still haven't looked at the edits enough to independently support a sanction, and I note that there are some good editors opposing. But I couldn't imagine this pattern of editing being allowed in a US politics article, under the AMPOL-based discretionary sanctions affecting all of those articles. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - PC is the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign. His opponents do not have a wiki presence, so there's no one from "the other side" to censure, yet they are POV pushers of the highest degree. Repeated edits by anonymous users, sockpuppets, etc. to these articles push the same POV as PC's accusers (see the page history for Oliver Kamm - dozens of IPs, then autoconfirm protection, then edits from a half dozen users with 10 nonsense edits, then 30-500 protection, then an edit from a user who made 200+ extremely minor edits in a day after a long period of inactivity, all pushing the same text). The vast majority of PC's edits have been to clean up this crap and push proper RS material into the related articles. If you TBAN PC, please carefully consider who is going to step up to assure the quality of the articles - because I can guarantee you that the "other side" will gleefully start pushing their POV once "the malign presence of Philip Cross is no more" [17]. nneonneo ^talk 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally not in response to anything except PC's own behavior, which has crossed into violating BLP policy. It's that simple. You're ignoring that, completely, while implying that off-wiki harassment is pressuring us into silencing him. That's such a ridiculous allegation. I sympathize with PC getting caught up in off-wiki drama, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he shouldn't be editing a BLP while in an active dispute with the subject of said BLP. That's just policy. Swarm ♠ 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Philip Cross should not be editing any biographies of people he is insulting in public as a self-identified Wikipedia editor. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable behavior should re-examine their position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is clear that the user is incapable of editing that page objectively. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the edits are uncontroversial, WP:IAR, and the fact that COIBLP is not a hard and fast policy but more of a strongly worded suggestion. If he makes controversial edits, and there are diffs, I will change my opinion. Andrevan@

User:Andrevan, are you saying don't ban because PC's most recent edits to GG are uncontroversial, even if earlier ones were controversial? Or do you mean all of his edits to the GG article have uncontroversial? Did you look at the Five Filters page?[18] It does have some ugly diffs, and looks to have been written by someone who knows their way around Wikipedia DR. If that person is here, can they speak up? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long overdue. We should consider a ban from a few other BLPs, too, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed. If George Galloway doesn't like it, I invite him to go piss up a rope. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read once again what the question is all about. FYI, this section is not about off-wiki harassment but about PC flouting the community's advice yesterday. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE read it, genius. Why do you assume I haven't? Again, I reiterate my invitation to Mr. Galloway. --Calton | Talk 03:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you're not looking good here. Did you really write that off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed, while endorsing Cross's off-wiki harassment of Galloway? BLPCOI is very clear, you shouldn't battle someone off-wiki and then attack their WP biography. Are you really saying it is ok as long as you do it in the reverse order? That makes no sense to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for you, Mr. Anonymous IP: don't put words in my mouth. It's dishonest. Unsurprising, but dishonest. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not anonymous so maybe you'll answer the question from me. Does your statement "Off-wiki harassment shouldn't be endorsed" apply to all, or just selectively to those you disagree with? Little Professor (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my extensive reasoning already-given above. This is a clear cut violation of BLP policy guidance. We need to enforce BLP policy, not fabricate reasons to ignore it, or pretend it's just a "suggestion". Framing PC as a victim who's being punished is also completely ridiculous. PC engaged the article's subject in an off-wiki dispute directly. Whether Calloway's actually in the wrong is irrelevant. The editor has a COI, and per BLP policy should not be editing the article, and this needs to be enforced. Swarm ♠ 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also ridiculous is contorting the meaning of COI into pretzel shapes to get a result, hey, you be you. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you seriously just say that? There's no COI? Seriously? The editor admitted to there being a COI, Calton, that's why I'm saying there's a COI. If you had actually read the thread you're participating in, you'd know that, and perhaps you wouldn't be misrepresenting the situation as "harassment" that we're giving into either. It's literally like you have no idea what's going on here, you're just shooting in the dark. Swarm ♠ 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes I did seriously fucking say that. Do you need new reading glasses?
And why yes, I actually did read the actual fucking thread: other than my failure to toe the line, what gives you reason to think otherwise? --Calton | Talk 03:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per concerns that this opens up other editors to increased off-wiki harassment. Lepricavark (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly vague statement that doesn't even make sense. This proposal has nothing to do with harassment. Where are you getting that? Did you actually read the thread? Swarm ♠ 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in explaining my position to someone who has already decided that I'm wrong. Lepricavark (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per above, Phillip Cross didn't have to fling attacks the other way, and we have WP:BLP for a reason Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There would need to be an astonishingly good reason for someone engaged in an off-wiki feud to edit topics related to their opponent. I see no attempt by Philip Cross to supply that reason. It doesn't matter if a topic ban appears as caving to off-site pressure and the only precedent set would be to confirm the obvious fact that those engaged in public brawls have a strong COI that disqualifies them from editing in related areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Swarm. Some of the oppose votes do not seem to be addressing the actual issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/caveat It does not matter who is right and who is wrong. PC compromised himself as a neutral editor the moment he engaged the subject off-wiki. If he were merely being attacked off-wiki without responding I do not think I would support a TBAN, nor do I believe there would be a consensus for one. Because of this I do not think the arguements which claim this would encourage bad actors to harass editors off-wiki to force them off a subject due to 'conflict with subject' hold much water.
I support s TBAN only on those BLP who PC has engaged/commented on off-wiki. If one can not restrain one's passions suficienty to avoid calling someone a 'punk' on a public platform then it is not reasonable to expect an ability to hold oneself 'above the fray' and maintain NPOV on that subject. There has, however, been no evidence I am aware of that PC has been making inappropriate edits so I see no need to restrict his editing on subjects other than those he is in direct off-wiki conflict with. Jbh ^Talk 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JBH, when you say "no evidence I am aware of", do you mean you examined the available evidence enough to say there's probably nothing convincing there, or do you mean you didn't look? Not a rhetorical question, just seeking clarification. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.166 (talk) More the later. I browsed quickly through the thread did not notice anyone systematically bringing up concerns to spark a discussion saying he was making BLP violating edits and considered that this proposal was made because of the off-wiki conflict rather than for BLP violation. If there is evidence he is making bad edits on the other articles I am willing to strike that portion. Jbh ^Talk 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Five Filters page (wikipedia.fivefilters.org) does have some diffs from other articles, though of course whether they're convincing is subjective. There's also been some posted on article talk pages. I feel like we all have "dispute fatigue" here since none of us want to go digging for them. Of course I don't blame anyone for that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen a reasonable number of diffs by now that indicate Cross has been editing Galloway's biography and other articles tendentiously enough to possibly justify a topic ban in its own right. The obvious next step is to tediously examine a bunch more diffs to get a clearer reading. That happens all the time in other WP disputes but doesn't seem to be happening here, and I find that a little bit perplexing. It leaves a significant unresolved question. On the other hand I don't have the energy to do much of digging myself, so I can't get after other people to do it. Question: does anyone here think Cross would be allowed to edit a biography of an American politician the same way that he's editing Galloway's biography? That is, I'm asking whether the AMPOL discretionary sanctions and the general enforcement regime around US politics would make the case get handled differently in practice. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, if somebody had a public spat with, say, Hillary Clinton, especially one that would have lasted for many years, I imagine that that person should not be allowed by the Community to edit the related Wikipedia article. Not sure why this such COI is not always perceived this way in the UK. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to examine edits in detail, as WP:BLPCOI policy is nothing to do with the quality of edits - it requires that an editor who is engaged in a public spat with a BLP subject not edit their biography at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, US politics is treated differently (it's under DS from two(?) arb cases) because of its history of long-term agenda pushers messing up its articles and editing environment. It's like sending more police into perennial high crime areas, pouncing on infractions (not good but sometimes necessary). The UK politics editors are apparently more ~~civilized~~ civilised than we here in the States, so the project can maintain a more normal level of AGF towards them and handle DR through customary processes. Philip Cross is accused of being a long term agenda pusher like we sometimes get in the US. So I'm asking how he would look under the AMPOL lens.
Boing, BLPCOI says if you're fighting someone off-wiki you shouldn't then start also attacking their Wikipedia biography. That leaves open an argument that it's ok if you do it the other way around (attack them on-wiki first and off-wiki later). I find that ridiculous but it seems to be what some of the TBAN opposing rationales amount to. And PC's editing is being painted off-wiki, with some plausibility, as a deeper problem than a personal spat between PC and GG. That's what only a pile of diffs can answer. BLPCOI is an easier way out but it leaves unanswered questions and keeps the door open for crappy editing in other articles. It leaves us still looking like we don't keep our house in order. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person" as implying any chronological condition. It really wouldn't make sense that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a stupid reading too, but you know what this place is like. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, support and keep investigating I'm convinced by Boing that PC should stop editing the GG article per BLPCOI (enough acronyms here?). BLPCOI should and does leave a little bit of wiggle room for scrupulously neutral editing, but that's not what we've been seeing taken as a whole (maybe the last few days of edits have been neutral). I'm not worried about the GG biography falling under the depredations of international communism without PC to defend it. Somehow I think enough other editors can keep an eye on a prominent article like that. There is also the unresolved question of possible wider agenda pushing affecting other articles, so discussion should stay open about that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

How deep could COI run here?

For the record, I popped onto a publicly shared document[19] that matches Philip Cross's Wikipedia edits to tweets from Oliver Kamm's Twitter account. The document suggests that PC's edits to WP articles on various public figures were closely timed with Oliver Kamm's public spats with them. By the way, this coincidence was puzzling to an editor as far as 11 years ago.[20] I am as distant as possible from drawing any conclusions on anyone's RL identity (as there might be many explanations for this coincidence). However, if we had a situation that OK and PC were indeed somehow linked (through meatpuppetry, etc.), we would be looking at an entirely different level of COI.

I am not sure how much we should concern ourselves with such deep-going investigations of possible COI in Wikipedia editing, so thank you to share your thoughts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although that document is interesting, deep off-wiki investigations are usually frowned upon. If there's an arb case it becomes possible to submit evidence to arbcom privately when stuff like real identities are involved. PC and OK have definitely communicated in the past.[21] If you have some thoughts or info that you can't post openly, you can send it to arbcom at any time (WP:ARB#Contacting_the_Committee). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I suggested punting it over there. I file this as "above our pay grade". Guy (Help!) 08:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree, I had same doubts. I won't pursue this up as my primary objective is to stop/prevent bias/COI in WP editing, for which a tban will be sufficient. I am not here to research people's indentities, especially that I have already received a formal warning from an overzealous admin for outing out a PR agency who did paid editing; so I need to stay on the safe side. But I will support the idea of investigating the matter further should anyone be willing to do it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, pointing to the "(Philip) Cross-Referencing" document, I should note that Diane Abbott, Ken Loach, Seumas Milne, Max Mosley, Alex Salmond, Nick Timothy and Mark Wadsworth were very much in the news when Oliver Kamm's tweets either preceded or followed my edits to Wikipedia. My diffs should be compared directly with Oliver Kamm's tweets and it may be noticeable that the viewpoints expressed are not necessarily in agreement. An exception does apply to my edits to certain articles, such as Edward S. Herman, where I generally share mainstream opinion expressed by opinion formers like Mr Kamm. Philip Cross (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw I'm not terribly concerned about the presence or absence of connections between Philip Cross and Oliver Kamm, so I see the stuff in that document as of at most peripheral interest in a possible arb case and here. It's an almost-irrelevant detail. Something like that came up in the World War II case but it just didn't matter and it might as well have been completely ignored.
If Philip Cross is multiple people as Craig Murray suggests (or even a GCHQ spy operation per some of Murray's followers), that would be much more alarming, but I can't take that theory seriously without stronger evidence than Murray gave (and if the GCHQ part is true, then I want Philip's help in getting James Bond's autograph). It's more a question of whether systematically biased editing (WP:TE) is going on, distorting our coverage of important topic areas (less ideologically obnoxiously than in the Noleander case, but far worse than that case in the aspect of how BLP's are affected). If that is happening, then Murray and others were right to call us out on it, even if the way they did so was not very nice.
Philip, I know you spend a lot of time editing, so on the theory that Wikipedia is important to you for reasons beyond how it presents current UK politics: are there other subjects you are interested in--art, history, architecture, or whatever--and could you be a happy editor working in those subjects instead? That might be a reasonable compromise, saving us from losing a good writer while getting rid of a bunch of conflict in the currently disputed areas. An arbitration case (if one occurs) might converge on something like that either way.
If anyone cares, https://www.google.com/search?q=craig+murray+philip+cross currently has 825,000 hits. :O 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.166, I care, and you've badly misused Google search. Change it to q="craig murray" + "philip cross" Voilà about 9,510 results. KalHolmann (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a less scary number. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.166, also, if you go to the last page of Google's 9,510 hits, you'll find that there were only 128 "relevant results," meaning 9,382 were likely duplicates. So this search is a useless gauge of interest in the topic. KalHolmann (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the duplicates may still mean something, unless they're literally multiple hits on the same page. If they are separate pages with the same stuff on them, they can have separate viewerships so they still affect the audience size. The 27 Reddit threads in different topic areas also basically duplicate each other, but they are seen by separate groups of people. Do you want to try similar checks for the Five Filters page? I'm about to step out but can run a search like that in a little while, if you're not up for it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.166, I'll leave further research along these lines to you. I honestly don't think this is a productive approach, since it is superficial and unscientific. KalHolmann (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Note that you don't need to link my contrib page, and if you're trying to ping me it won't work. One of the blessings of IP editing is that you don't receive pings. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § George Galloway. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: does the fact that Arbitrators have declined to hear this matter render the present AN moot? Specifically, does the eventual closing reviewer here retain the option of topic-banning Philip Cross? KalHolmann (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has not declined to hear the matter (only one Arb has, but it needs a majority). Any decision by the committee does not stop the community continuing to seek a consensus for the current proposal. The closer here has only one option, that of evaluating the consensus, and has no power to do anything else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for explaining that. I misunderstood the process, and will await votes by additional arbitrators. KalHolmann (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was thinking that a community topic ban would be sufficient, but the way discussion has been moving towards suggestions of things that should not be aired in public, I agree it's a good idea to at least run this past ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My statement for the case request is currently on hold here (permalink) if anyone wants to see it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.166, since you have apparently been cleared as a suspected sockpuppet, I presume it's safe to respond to your statement. At first I wrote off you as a fool because you misspelled my name 17 different ways before finally getting it right. But here you make an important point that merits discussion. "Wikipedia doing nothing about this," you write, "gives the impression we're not keeping our house in order. Jimbo and WMUK reinforced that impression by brushing off concerns (Streisand effect). So now there's a lot of internet outrage directed at us, maybe driven by an anti-Philip Cross propaganda operation in its own right, but people are finding it convincing." You then cite 27 Reddit threads and three Hacker News threads, rightly observing that "Wikipedia is taking a beating in all of them." Of course, 30 threads are not representative of public opinion. It would take a rigorous statistical study to demonstrate the extent to which Philip Cross has harmed Wikipedia's credibility and reputation. My intuitive sense, having closely followed the outrage on Twitter, is that Cross has hurt us immensely. If I'm right (and I pray I'm not), it will take years to repair the damage. And the longer Wikipedia dawdles, the worse it gets. You are absolutely right in concluding, "What people outside want most is for us to take the concerns seriously, check them out carefully and openly, and come to some reasonable conclusion. They mostly don't give a rip about left-wing UK politics … but they don't like the idea of Wikipedia ignoring long-running content manipulation from any corner." KalHolmann (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to reply to me in the presence of an open SPI report: you didn't have to wait for it to close. I'm sorry about the misspellings and I think I've fixed them all now. It looks like George Galloway is after us[22] and I don't especially blame him. Overall though, we can handle this, and even if our reputation slips a notch, that might be a good thing. Too many people treat us as infallible and we don't pretend to be that and we don't come anywhere close to it. It's better if they view us with their eyes open. If we're as good as the major traditional encyclopedias (which are not infallible either) and we're perceived that way, I'm satisfied. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush to judgment? This request for arbitration was filed at 09:37, 26 May 2018. Seven hours, 17 minutes later, User:BU Rob13 declined the request based on the statement by Philip Cross posted just 49 minutes previously. Eight hours, 48 minutes after the request was filed, User:Doug Weller likewise declined. I am unfamiliar with WP:ARC, and may be asking a newcomer's stupid question. But is it customary for arbitrators to decline a complex case without waiting for additional statements and further evidence? KalHolmann (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, the arbs have in all likelihood looked at this AN section. They know what is available. There's been solid evidence shown of Philip Cross's COI with regard to the Galloway article, but a much weaker case so far for improper editing in other articles (yes there's a nasty diff or two, but showing a few dozen more of them would be much more persuasive). AN just issued a topic ban on the GG article so that element is removed from the basis for the filing.

And the AN discussion is still open. Arbitration is supposed to be the last step of Wikipedia DR, which means it's not supposed to start until other avenues have stopped making progress with the dispute still unresolved. This case may be a little bit more arbitration-appropriate than others because of the privacy issues, but as described elsewhere I actually think the private stuff is fairly unimportant, and it's sufficient to ignore it and decide the case on purely the basis of public stuff. So that aspect of arbitration isn't really needed.

Being in an arb case is a huge hassle, almost like having a second real-life job for the weeks or months while it's going on. So it's something to avoid if you can, rather than relish the idea. You might look at the evidence sections of some past complex arb cases to see what is expected and imagine how much work it is. The stuff here on AN and on the off-wiki pages like Five Filters are maybe 1/10th of the way there. Philip Cross has around 130,000 edits: how many thousand of them are you ready to examine?

Finally, if a request is declined and then the situation changes, it's always possible to file a new request. So that there have been some decline votes is not worrying. It's somewhat reasonable to stand down now and see how the GG topic ban plays out, re-opening discussion if problems continue. I posted some advice on PC's talk page about editing more carefully going forward. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm encouraged that User:BU Rob13 has struck his decline. "When I wrote it," he explains, "this had been presented as a relatively simple issue on a narrow topic of Galloway." That's plainly what the filing admin intended, misnaming the request "George Galloway" when it ought to have been titled "Philip Cross," prejudicially framing the controversy, and misleading arbitrators into treating a complex case as something routine—a nothingburger to use his word. I'm relieved the arbitrators are catching on. KalHolmann (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it has been recent practice to avoid naming an ARBCOM case after editor names, as this has been found to be predisposition the case against that editor from contributing editors. --Masem (t) 03:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem, has the converse also been found—i.e., naming an ARBCOM case after an aggrieved BLP subject predisposes the case against him? Particularly when, as in this case, the proposing Admin has prejudicially denigrated that BLP subject by saying, "He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way" and calling him "a divisive and marginal figure with more enemies than friends." KalHolmann (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, it sounds like you want for there to be an arb case. OK, fine. What do you expect to happen during it? What do you think the outcome will be? The only valid purpose of such a case afaict is to thoroughly examine PC's edit history and present detailed analysis that might or might not support a sanction. That won't happen automatically just because a case opens. It's a hell of a lot of work, looking at 1000s of diffs one by one, identifying the interesting ones and writing up why they are interesting. You have to be fair and credit the good as well as criticizing the bad. And you need to look at a big enough sample to establish that there's a pattern of persistently bad editing rather than editors' usual levels of mistakes or poor judgment here and there.

Usually before there's an arb case, there's enough feeling of urgency among interested observers that at least a few people have spent a solid evening or two looking at diffs instead of debating or spouting opinions like we're doing here. And we would have seen at least preliminary results of such analysis already. At present nobody seems eager for a case because nobody is interested in doing that work. Since you're the one who seems to want a case, are you volunteering? You should read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration if you haven't. See particularly the "evidence" paragraph of the "open cases" section. Please don't take this on if you're after a particular outcome. The allegations against Cross are, at the moment, plausible but unproven. It's far better for the project if you can start the analysis with an open mind and a presumption of innocence, than with a prosecutorial mentality where you try to reach a conclusion that you've already decided on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but "nothingburger" is a term used by US politicians to deflect attention from scandals they are in, after the scandal gets too big to ignore but before the indictments come down. So I wouldn't freak out when people use it. It has the opposite effect from the intended one. There's a similar thing when the US President says they have "full confidence" in some official who has come under public criticism. "Full confidence" in that context means the official will be fired within a few days. You can set your watch by it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann and Boing! said Zebedee: I always prefer that the community handle what it can, and I see that there is now a community topic ban. Because of that I'm sticking to my decline until I see a need for the Committee to do something that the community can't do. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced the term nothingburger at the head of this thread. I am not American. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor is at risk of being outed? On 28 May 2018, arbitrator Euryalus removed a list from the George Galloway request for arbitration because "some of the links are to pages which encourage outing of an editor." I request clarification as to which editor is in such danger as the result of our discussion. Surely it cannot be Philip Cross, whose user page from at least August 2011 listed his full name and year of birth as Andrew Philip Cross (born 1963), and by December 2017 insisted, "Any claim my user name is an alias, or a meatpuppet account, is entirely false." He added his Twitter user name, @philipcross63, in June 2012. His Twitter profile in turn listed his location as UK. Wikipedia has already published personal information about Philip Cross, and kept it online for years. In order to avoid outing the other, unidentified editor to whom Euryalus alludes, it would help to know his or her Wikipedia user name. KalHolmann (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for the removal is here. Please also read WP:OUTING. The list remains available in the page history for review by Committee members if relevant to consideration of the case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you refuse to identify the editor supposedly at risk of being outed. Got it. KalHolmann (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal practice to remove or redact offline speculation as to the real-world identities of anonymous or pseudonymous Wikipedians. There are excellent reasons for this. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're alluding to off-Wiki speculation that Philip Cross is Oliver Kamm, Mr. Cross has already denied that, here on Wikipedia. Cross has also denied that his Wikipedia user name is a pseudonym. KalHolmann (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: I think the above posts are unhelpful. We don't out people here, and I think you can see why more specific guidance, like "we don't out people but let's be especially careful not to out user so-and-so" (that seems to be about what you are requesting) would be counterproductive. As for Philip Cross's post about not using an alias, we WP:AGF but as scientists we have to leave open the hypothetical possibility that he's being untruthful with us. In that case, as before, we don't out people here. If someone has evidence of something like that going on, they should send it to arbcom. Arbcom could then use the info to decide how to handle the situation, but it wouldn't publish the info.

If "Philip" is actually an elected politician or government spy operation, maybe that's a big enough breach of public trust to be a matter for outside of Wikipedia, in which case again don't post it here. But it "Philip" is really Jane Bloggs, hairstylist from Whatevershire, then they're just someone derping around on a web site. In such a case we'd handle it internally, possibly going as far as to boot the person from the site, but we don't go after them in real life. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier complaint

I was the IP address that complained about Philip Cross's behavior here on 24 November 2017, initially in respect to the article on Luke Harding.

I ask that this earlier complaint, which went nowhere, be joined to any ongoing Wikipedia investigations into what is now generally known as The Philip Cross Affair.

I think the complaint speaks for itself but I would like to add some pertinent comments.

1. Sufficient evidence as to the facts and scope of the issue was present in the complaint. The matter could have been addressed then, but nothing was done.

2. It's not just about George Galloway and never was. This bogusly narrow framing, exemplified by the token ban on Mr Cross editing George Galloway's page only, will not succeed in sweeping the scandal under the carpet. It's a mistake even for its promoters.

3. There's a broader policy issue that Wikipedia treats "opinion formers" (to use Mr Cross's apt term) like Mr Kamm who work for what Wikipedia is pleased to call "reliable sources", i.e. up-market western corporate media, as therefore reliable in themselves. But mere opinion is no more reliable for being expressed in oligarchic media. Wikipedia's policy allows a biassed opinionator/editor like the Kamm/Cross nexus (whether a single person or a close couple) to effectively be its own "reliable" source for furthering its (employer's) point of view.

4. Your procedure here displays what will inevitably be seen as bias, and remember that the administrators' discussion is public and has already attracted public interest.

I will single out the editor Guy only as an example. Twice he has expressed bias in favour of Mr Cross.

Once shutting down a complaint with an absurd non sequitur: "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)"

And once in the administrators noticeboard discussion expressing textbook prejudgement: "And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right."

Yet he takes an active part in adjudicating the complaint, promotes punishment of the whistleblower, guards against the creation of the inevitable Philip Cross page and misleadingly frames the proposed arbitration case as about Mr Galloway. And this seems to be seen as ordinary. But how do you think it will go down when exposed to hostile public scrutiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.186.141 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check the difference between "whistleblower" and "whistlebellower". I have no bias in favour of Cross. I barely have an opinion on him, other than that he is clearly the victim of a coordinated off-wiki campaign. Whether that campaign is justified, is the exact question I put to ArbCom. Friends of mine think it may well be. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG, have you now stooped to schoolyard name-calling? I presume it is I whom you denigrate as a "whistlebellower." If so, your conduct as a Wikipedia Administrator is deplorable. KalHolmann (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am disinclined to assist with your comprehension issues at this time, but thanks for asking. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG, your contempt for me is duly noted. Thanks for confirming. KalHolmann (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole thread in contempt of Wikipedia! I trust the Wikipedia bailiffs will deal with it. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the IP who they meant. You should also know that of the handful of people I actually hold in contempt, none, to the best of my knowledge, currently edit Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly a somethingburger here.

I doubt he is paid to do so, but IMO Philip very much edits Wikipedia articles with a right-wing neoconservative and pro-Israel partisan point of view and once this theme is achieved on an article, closely martials said articles to make sure that they remain bias against the subject. Specifically this occurs on articles relating to UK left-wing figures who push back in some way against Blairism, neoconservatism and imperialism; George Galloway, Seamus Milne, Craig Murray, Jeremy Corbyn, especially that I have personally noticed/encountered. The dodgy stuff surrounding the Western backed anti-government "White Helmets" in Syria too.

Obviously, everybody is welcome to their own political views, we all have them and I personally don't have a problem with people stating them on talkpages, or whatever and arguing for parity between different viewpoints in articles, a project the size of Wikipedia is going to attract people with many different views. But Philip specifically does this in the article main space and tries to pass off neoconservative political views and sources as somehow objective and normative, which is contrary to NPOV and BLP.

George Galloway is completely right to complain in this context and the fact that the largest number of edits made to his Wikipedia article is by somebody who has clashed with him on social media absoutely needs looking into. Maybe we need to completely rewrite Galloway's article from scratch? In any case, I am glad this is now being looked at. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unbanning MafazOfficial

An editor whom I blocked in November 2016 has requested an unblock in emails to me. In order to make the process visible to the community I have posted about it on the editor's talk page, User talk:MafazOfficial. My first thought was to offer to unblock provided that the editor agreed to some conditions, but looking into the matter further I have found that he has an extensive history of having multiple sockpuppet accounts blocked over a long time, and it goes further than what I regard as the limit for an individual administrator taking an unblock decision alone. In the past I would have asked other administrators to express views on the editor's talk page in a case of this kind, but a change in the blocking policy in March of this year requires editors who have repeatedly used sockpuppets to evade indefinite blocks to be treated as community banned (See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans for repeated block evasion. The section of that policy on community bans gives Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as the "preferred" place to discuss such bans, so I am bringing the case here for discussion.

The accounts have been used virtually exclusively to create self-promotional pages, mostly in user space, but at least once as an article. The editor said in email that he was "a young childish kid who was trying to be funny", that he regrets what he did, and that he wishes to move on.

I am a great believer in giving another chance to young editors who have been blocked but who now say they wish to change. We all change very rapidly when we are young, and I have many times seen former vandals turn into constructive editors in this kind of situation. However, in this case the extent of the sockpuppetry may lead some editors to have doubts. Here is a list of the accounts, as full as I can provide.

The earliest account that the editor mentions has never edited. Since it has not edited, and since it dates back to well before any of the other accounts were created, there was no "abuse" of the account, and I think we should ignore it, but I am mentioning it for completeness. The account is "Maazzz", which was created on 5 February 2009. It was renamed to Maazzz~enwiki on 21 April 2015‎.

The other accounts that I know of are:

Mafaz729, created 3 August 2012 and blocked 9 September 2015

Mafaz729 Mohamed mafaz, created on 8 October 2013. This is another account which has never edited. The editor has not mentioned that account, but comparison with user names of other accounts he has used make it inconceivable that this is not another of his. (I don't think we should read anything into the editor's failure to mention the account. An editor who has used a number of accounts may well fail to recall one among many, especially in the case of an account created over four and a half years ago and never used.)

Mafaz Official, created 27 November 2014 (not blocked)

MafazOfficial, created 30 September 2016 and blocked 14 November 2016

MafazOfficials, created 15 November 2016 and blocked 8 December 2016

MohamedMafaz, created 14 December 2016 and blocked 14 December 2016

MohamedmafazOfficial, created 14 December 2016 and blocked 14 December 2016

EngineeringMafaz, created 15 December 2016 and blocked 16 December 2016

Actor Mafaz, created 15 December 2016 and blocked 16 December 2016

Mafaz Galle, created 4 January 2017 and blocked 4 January 2017

Artist Mafaz, created 28 August 2017 and blocked 28 August 2017

As I have said above, I am a believer in giving second chances in cases of this kind. With editors who have a history of sockpuppetry but who say they will change it is common practice to invite them to take the standard offer, which allows them to be considered for an unblock if they wait at least six months without sockpuppetry. The last known sockpuppet account used by this editor was blocked nine months and one day ago, so the standard offer requirement has been more than satisfied. The editor has already stated ~~that he will not write about himself if unblocked, and~~ that he will stick to using just one account. I am in favour of offering to unblock on the understanding that any breach of those two undertakings will lead to the block and ban being restored immediately, without further warning, but I shall be very grateful to anyone who is willing to express a view, for or against. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me, we can swiftly reimpose the ban if he starts self-promotion again. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if but only if the user explicitly agrees not to write about themselves. Looking at User talk:MafazOfficial, the response to this question appears to be "i am mafaz. from sri lanka. i am a Editor On Facebook. born 24.04.1995" which is not at all answering the question and not at all committing to avoid writing about themselves. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You are right. I remembered that the editor had said "Agree to use only this one account", and thought that I also remembered that he had said he would not write about himself, but I clearly misremembered. I shall post again to his talk page, insisting that he give a better response to that point, and I fully agree that we should not unblock unless he does so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak support and only because of the being a child bit. Otherwise this would be a case where we should show someone the door and not let them back in. I am sympathetic to kids being kids, however, and I don’t think we should hold actions of a minor against them years later if they’re trying to actually get into Wikipedia. That being said, I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if they stayed banned. Also, in addition to Yamla’s conditions I suggest requiring a rename. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I agree. I had been so busy considering all the other aspects of the case that I didn't think about the user name, but I am totally against any user name with "official" in it. We could unblock one of the accounts without that in its name, or we could require a change of user name: it comes to much the same thing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either works for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more small detail for the record. There is a sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mafaz729/Archive, but it adds nothing to what I have said above. It mentions only four of the twelve accounts that I know of. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but weakly. Giving the number of sock accounts they operated and virtually nonexistent meaningful article edits it wouldn't change much if they remain blocked; as it seems very likely they will be reblocked on CIR ground in the near future. But I nonetheless, believe in giving people a second chance to rectify mistakes. I hope they're reformed. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This editor has been abusing socks continuously for years. The last account was blocked at the end of August of last year. The excuse of 'being a kid' would have been mitigating if the abuse had occurred years ago and stopped years ago. I do not find it likely that this editor all of a sudden went from a 'kid having fun' to maturity in nine months. I would look favorably on an un-ban request if they refrain from socking for another six to nine months and if they can show they have made a couple months of consistent, non-problematic contributions to one or more of our sister projects. Jbh ^Talk 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can he explain, in his own words, what the goals of this project are, why his previous edits are contrary to it and how he will contribute to the encyclopedia if unbanned? MER-C 19:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per "Competence is required". No indication he's got any idea of what it even means to make useful, non-self-promoting edits; obvious lack of English language skills, evident breakdown of communication on being asked to no longer write about himself; no realistic prospect of useful contributions. BTW, he's not a child as some have assumed above; according to what he just wrote on his talkpage he's in his early twenties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts exactly. Unblocking someone who replies to "promise no more self-promotion" with "I am Mafaz from Sri Lanka" would serve no useful purpose. The editor's English significantly improving should be set as their #1 unblock condition. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - With great trepidation, I have to !vote the opposite of TonyBallioni. Kids can be kids, but they should only edit Wikipedia if they're able to act like adults. Kids acting like kids don't belong here -- we're not a playground. The editor can return at some time in the future when they're more mature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly understand that view, and as I said, it really is only a very weak support. I tend to be more lenient on second chances when the original offense was when someone was a child, a ROPE approach if you will, but normally I’d be with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm all for second and even third chances especially when it comes to having bad starts here .... but as noted by Jbh the editor was only blocked in August last year ..... the sock accounts don't really help their case either, Anyway in short what with the sock accounts and self promo articles I personally think unblocking would be a bad decision, They're moire than welcome to retry in 5 years time when hopefully they would've grown up. –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two more usernames, very similar to the ones listed above: Mohamedmafaz (talk · contribs) was created 14 November 2006 and and Mohamed mafaz(Actor) (talk · contribs) on 13 November 2014. Neither has edited or been blocked, as far as I can tell. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed mafaz(Actor) did make one edit on 13 November 2014, the same day that the account was created. That edit was the creation of a self-promotional user page, which remained in existence, apparently unnoticed, until it was deleted in December 2016. From the contents of the page it is clear that was indeed the same person as the accounts listed above. Mohamedmafaz has never edited, and since "Mohamed" and "afaz" are common names we cannot assume that that account was the same person. The account dates from several years before any of the other accounts, increasing the likelihood that it was a different person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need a little help here...

So a while back I salted the article CupcakKe because the artcile had gone through the afd process (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe) and it was closed as delete. Now I find out that two seperate version of the article look to have existed for some time - one at CupcakKe and one at Cupcakke, but for some reason both are listed as being part of earlier afd. On top of that the article's have both been deleted and recreated - the latter one dramatically so. Setting aside my sockpuppetry concerns for a moment, I now have a dilemma: do I count G4 as being toward one or both articles, if not do we need separate afd's for this, and if all looks to be notable (and frankly given the logging history and the deletions several different admins I have my doubts) is it better to leave it as it is or undelete and merge the histories? What do you guys/girls think? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the content was the same, the AfD would apply to both. It's about the article/topic, not the title. Natureium (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does apply to the topic rather than the title, but the contents of the article currently visible in mainspace looks nothing like the contents of the version deleted at AfD two years ago, so I don't think you could delete it under G4. I'm not convinced the subject is notable though and another AfD may well be a good idea. Hut 8.5 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current version has substantially more content and references than either the last version of CupcakKe that was G4'ed or the version that I deleted after closing the AfD, but after a quick look most seem to be primary or passing mentions (a lot of Twitter and Youtube). The AfD and last deletion was 2 years ago and most of the !votes cited TOOSOON so there may be reliable sources out there now. I would suggest either letting it stay provided better sources are found and added, or taking to AfD again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging histories? Is that something that should be done, considering that both are on the same topic? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging histories is only done after a copy/paste pagemove, which in this instance doesn't seem to have happened. There's no reason to merge a deleted page into a live page simply because they're on the same subject. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and listed this at afd. Thanks for the help, everyone, I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with emails sent to the Arbitration Committee

This cross-post is required by the Arbitration Committee's procedures: Due to the large volume of spam messages the Arbitration Committee's email address receives, the Committee occasionally tweaks its spam filter. Unfortunately, a recent update to the spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia (e.g. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. This issue is now fixed, but the discarded emails were unable to be recovered.

If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Issue with emails sent to the Arbitration Committee

Did you know queue has not been updated

Hello. The DYK update is running almost five minutes late as the next prep has not been moved into the queue. I'm posting this here since attention is urgently required and despite a message I left at WT:DYK and another one at WP:ERRORS, no attention has been done here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question on enforceability of voluntary editing restrictions

Is there a current consensus on whether voluntary editing restrictions are a) enforceable b) whether someone who has agreed to one requires a community discussion to end one they have agreed to? I have assumed, due to the existence of WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary, that they were the same as any restriction placed by the community as a WP:CBAN. So, it would be possible for an editor to make a promise of 'I will do/not do X; If I do not I will be blocked until I agree to do X'.

The reason I ask is I have been considering a potential, opt-in, solution to community recall and the current RfA has brought my attention back to the issue. In essence the 'opt-in' binding recall is given teeth by an editing restricting which says 'I will be subject to this process and if I am recalled I will resign. If I do not I will be blocked until I do'. I wrote a more detailed draft of the idea a couple of days ago at Jbhunley/Essays/Binding community recall.

I am more interested in input on whether the basic idea of whether it is possible to make an agreement between an editor, entered into voluntarily (as sometimes happens at ANI) and the community can be enforced than I am on the details of the process. Although I would appreciate any input, particularly from administrators, on the essay talk page about how the proposed 'contract' can be modified to make it more appealing to sign up to. If the concept is viable I hope it will allow us to address a perennial issue in an organic, bottom up, manner rather in the all-or-nothing way which has failed so often.

To everyone who has read this far; thank you for your time. Jbh ^Talk 13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? We have a couple logged at Editing restrictions/Voluntary but no guidance at WP:CBAN. Is this practice now generally and non-controversialy accepted or is an RfC needed? This page is more widely watched than CBAN so I hope for a bit of input to make sure what I think consensus is is accurate before making BOLD changes there. Jbh ^Talk 16:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jbhunley: I reverted your change to WP:BAN. Since this practice is so rare and is virtually never logged, I don’t think we have an established policy on this. How I would view it as an admin would depend on the circumstances it was agreed to, how long ago it was, and how disruptive the violation was. If it was disruptive I would consider it a factor weighing towards a longer block, if it wasn’t, I would view it as them no longer voluntarily agreeing to the restriction. I would also never personally log such a sanction as I think the whole concept of a logged voluntary restriction means it isn’t voluntary, so it defeats the purpose of informally asking people about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from CBAN talk to keep things centralized: "voluntary restrictions are enforceable simply by saying they are and sanctioning their violation. The community has already accepted this tacitly by recording bans at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. You seem to be saying those restrictions no longer valid. Is that the case?"

In re your comment: The issue is that the logging page does not indicate that the restrictions logged there are in any way different from one another. In fact the Rusf10 one has been treated here precisely an a community imposed CBAN would be. I see no indication that this restriction would be treated as 'unenforceable' either. Also, please note that this 'voluntary' ban explicitly requires an appeal to lift it.

As you say, policy follows practice and practice is that a voluntary ban is enforceable. If there is general disagreement on this then an RfC should be put together before more restrictions are logged as 'voluntary'. This thread was up for five days before I made the edit at CBAN and not a single editor opined on the matter so it seemed relativity uncontroversial – maybe more will chime in now to get a better sense of how editors see these types of bans. Jbh ^Talk 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! We cross posted twice, I think WT:BAN is a better location, but for anyone who is curious, I basically said there that policy does indeed follow practice and the practice of enforcing voluntary bans as community sanctions is virtually non-existent. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terri McCormick isn't satisfied with article about her

Factcheck1024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Terri McCormick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Factcheck1024/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I became aware of this at Articles for Creation. I would report this at COIN, but the COI editing, which is really self-promotional editing, has all been reverted, and there doesn’t seem to be any question about disclosure, since User:Factcheck1024 says that she is Terri McCormick. (We don’t know that for a fact, but ….) The sandbox appears to be a clumsy attempt to contact editor User:Shellwood, who was one of the editors who reverted the edits. The subject is saying that “Wikipedia” is edit-warring against her efforts to put “corrected info” in her biography. Having read the material that she tried to put in, it isn’t neutral and isn’t purely factual but is promotional. She requests that if she can’t update the article (which, in my opinion, is neutrally presented), then she wants it taken down. We have sometimes been willing to permit article subjects of biographies of living persons of questionable notability to request that articles be deleted. However, McCormick satisfies political notability as a former state legislator. I don’t see any issues of factual correctness that she has identified. She hasn’t tried to edit the article in the past two weeks, so it doesn’t need edit-protection. I just thought that this ought to be reported. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her beef seems to be that it under-represents her post-politics career ("a lack of information that distorts my role as a Leadership Expert and Research in the field of Government and Policy Leadership")—which may set off potential PROMO alarm-bells, but only later...for now, if these activities are reported neutrally in RS, then I assume adding them will resolve the issue? On the assumption such sourcing exists, of course. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the language that the author was trying to insert was rightly setting off promotional editing alarm bells; it was blatantly non-neutral. Second, it is up to a neutral editor to find whether her "leadership expertise" activities are neutrally reported in reliable sources. Third, I see that at least one neutral editor, User:Jytdog, and one unregistered editor are tweaking the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editor has been trying to communicate at User:Factcheck1024/sandbox, I left a message there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a sleeper?

Is there any legitimate policy under which I can (indef) block an obvious sleeper? User:Tranceline113 made one short series of edits 14 months ago, then went dark until a few days ago when he created a cryptospam article. If that's not a deliberate sleeper account, I'll eat my mop. But what to do about it? Is WP:NOTHERE justified? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article you just deleted. Indef'd for violating WP:NOTSPAM in addition to the concerns you raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to block for advertising, then the account having previously made useful edits in the past should be a mitigating factor, not an aggravating one. (Opinions may vary on just how useful those edits were, but I note they aren't deleted, nor currently proposed to be.) When the previous edits are deliberately trivial just to get autoconfirmed status, it's another story. —Cryptic 02:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Cryptic: no one creates this as their first edit on the project. It's commissioned spam as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - His first edits were on ruwiki, and this is apparently a translation of the article there. (They were much more proactive about getting rid of it than we were.) I'm not objecting to the block, in any case, just the initial motivation for it. —Cryptic 03:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) Ah, misread your reply then Anyway, yeah, both pages are/were marketing promo speak and I've also PRODed the original article. Also, fwiw, I actually disagree on your point: old compromised accounts are very much a thing used by paid editors, and it can raise red flags worth getting a CU to look at, but in this case I'm pretty sure it was the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yea, the untranslated templates like Книга give that copy-paste away. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange talk page posts

Can someone take a look at I.P User:45.49.226.155 please? They are asking almost gibberish questions on natural science related article talk pages and now at WikiProject Portals. I'm not sure if they are trolling, are artificial intelligence, or are just genuinely asking odd questions. Kind regards, Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My orgone sensor is detecting Time Cube levels of peculiar here. Fear the IP who only posts on philosophy and physics talk pages while making zero sense... if they erupt into mainspace I think some swift quelling may become necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admins needed on articles under discretionary sanctions

Assault weapons and AR-15 style rifle are both under discretionary sanctions (US gun control), but that doesn't stop certain editors from revert-warring on them, to either keep non-neutral/undue material in them or remove material that is being added to make them comply with WP:NPOV, i.e. POV-pushing. So would one or more uninvolved admins please try to make everyone there understand that articles are supposed to be neutral, and that the discretionary sanctions don't apply only to those who want the articles to comply with WP:NPOV, but to everyone else too? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most uninvolved but I've full-protected both for a week. Of course this does not preclude anyone else from taking other kinds of action. ansh 666 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are very heated discussions at WP:RSN (and to a lesser degree on each of those articles, plus Assault rifle) about decidely non-neutral material that has been repeatedly added to all three of the articles, and hopefully those discussions will be over, and a consensus reached, before the protection expires. The protection will also give people a chance to discuss all of the other changes on the article talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK queue

Seems to be empty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

RFC on speedy G13

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Request for comment: Promising drafts. Admins will probably want to know about this, the proposal is that any editor can tag a draft with {{promising draft}} and at that point the template can't be removed and the draft can't be deleted under G13. The discussion goes into questions of review of G13s which bear directly on admin discretion and may suggest improvements in how we review tagged articles before deletion. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To put a finer point on this - they mean a promising draft tag can not be removed by anyone under any circumstances unless the page is deleted at MfD or promoted to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive report regarding copyright issues

It is quite common to use this board to report backlogs require an administrator attention. This report starts out with two strikes against it because it isn't a matter that requires administrator attention and it isn't a backlog. Nevertheless, I persevere.

I think most reading this would agree that keeping Wikipedia free of copyright violations is extremely important. While investigating potential copyright violations is not something that technically requires the admin bit, the majority of editors working on these problems have years of experience, and I'd prefer not to post this request at a place where some editors with little experience decide to "help".

The CopyPatrol tool is an excellent tool used to detect potential copyright violations as they occur.

While it doesn't technically have a backlog, if you clicked on the link, you'll see that the majority of cases closed are handled by a very small handful of editors. Too small.

Frankly, I'm running into a bit of burnout, and while my contributions pale compared to Diannaa, heaven help us if she decides to take a break. I think it would be good if a small handful of editors pitched in and handled a few of these items, which would help ensure that we don't run into a significant problem if a couple regulars decide to take a break.

Think of this as a proactive report, a badly abused term that might actually be appropriate in this instance.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is an extremely important issue now for Wikipedia. I wonder how many here have actually sought to clear up some of the plagiarism cases in the Wikipedia backlog? (I can readily defend "simple restatement of dry facts", but I ran across people who stole entire newspaper articles verbatim, and then did not even cite their sources <g>.) A "Creative Commons" license does not "cure" provable infringement. Collect (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a blockable offence?

To summarize Beeblebrox: this is pointy and blockable; let's hope that this sort of behaviour doesn't happen again. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deliberately placing incorrect speedy deletion tags on a small number of pages, in order to see what a percentage of admins will decline them, is in a delicate area ~~ethnically~~ ethically. But is this a breach of community norms? One editor goes as far as to see this as bad enough to be worth a block. What are the opinions of others? – Uanfala (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean "ethically"? Natureium (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:NEWT. This was a horrible idea a decade ago, it’s even worse now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh. After reading the first few sentences, I thought this was satire. I was very surprised to see it actually happened. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Where was a block threatened? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m assuming the reference is to this statement by Premeditated Chaos, which did not threaten a block because the actions were stale, but said if they were ongoing she would have blocked, which seems justified: ongoing bad faith deletion nominations to prove a point are disruptive editing.

Also, the question asked here was whether it was outside of community norms to make bad faith deletion nominations in order to run an experiment on how admins handle deletion. The answer there is yes: it is outside of community norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tests was not G13 yet but it was a clear G11 Draft:King Slim Soul reverting my G11 tag shows poor judgement. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for those who haven't been aware of this story, I assume what we are talking about here is this. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts align with Premeditated Chaos and TonyBallioni. This is a textbook example of the kind of behavior that WP:POINT was written to dissuade: intentionally applying a process incorrectly to try to prove a point, such as that the process is inconsistently applied. It is indeed outside of community norms and can lead to a block. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the admins who've commented here indeed reflect the opinion of the wider community, and conducting small-scale tests of admin behaviour in this way is indeed outside of community norms, then I think we need a precise, community-sanctioned way of conducting such tests. A community ethics committee? I really hope the problem is with the specific way the test was done, rather than with the general principle: if it's a problem of general principles, it would seem to imply that admin actions should be exempt from community oversight, which I don't believe is a proposition that the community would support. – Uanfala (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for any such committee, except to you. Admins are already fully accountable—that's implicit in the conditions of their RFA and ADMINACCT—and suspicions that they are not upholding their contract to be, so already have the necessary oversight and mechanisms to address failure.

And from a close re-reading of this thread (which I see you started!) —to clarify—I think you should be aware that this isn't an academic discussion based on an interesting set of proposals from you, but, rather, has evolved into a discussion where you have been told by multiple admins that, yes, you can be blocked for what you did. That should be your takeaway—not ethics committees... —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy section or subsection would be cited if I were to be blocked for that? – Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTION for one. MarnetteD|Talk 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, for two. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if you have to ask 'is this a blockable offence' the answer is going to vary and by the time anything definitive is decided its well past the point where a block to prevent disruption is warranted. Warn them "Dont do it again" and move on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, OiD, although in this particular case they were talking about their own actions. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is also not appropriate is the User:Uanfala repeatedly stating "alternative facts" about how so many wonderful pages get deleted G13 by admins who blindly and robotically delete everything in sight. (I paraphrase). I find it hilarious that one of the chief targets of such allegations User:RHaworth actually rejected one of his test incorrect taggings. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented on either the quality of the deleted drafts, or the reasons for their deletion. I was simply sharing the results of the experiment as well as my thoughts on what it implied for the way we should handle drafts. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution history disagrees with you. You did this to prove Admins don't pay attention to the quality or timing of deletion. By missing an obvious G11 you proved you are not paying attention to what you are tagging and by reversing my tagging of that G11 you proved you should not be doing CSD Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this perfectly clear, so we can stop this discussion: Yes, this is blockable behavior. Unauthorized unscientific experiments with other people’s contributions falls under the umbrella of disruptive editing, per WP:POINT. The rest is just noise. Don’t do this. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblock appeal from Hawkeye75

There is a consensus to unblock. Per my unblock conditions and the discussion here, I will be renaming to Computer40. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hawkeye75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has submitted an unblock request which I am copying from his userpage to be discussed by the community. Note this is NOT Hawkeye7, and to avoid potential confusion, a condition of his unblock would be that he be renamed to Computer40. The appeal is below, and I am bringing it to the community for consideration:

Hi there. I would like to make a plead to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I originally got banned for having a battleground mentality and harassing other users. I felt like I put a lot of effort into editing different articles and I got mad when someone either reverted or removed my edits. It was very frustrating seeing the work disappear. I failed to look at both sides of why my edits were removed. If I do get unblocked and me edits are reverted, I will either let it be or start a civil discussion on the article talk page. Another reason why I originally got blocked was my anger towards IP users. I was angry that the same person could have different IP accounts and it was hard to tell who was who. I read over some of the Wikipedia articles and learned more about dynamic IP's and other stuff. After getting blocked, I selfishly made a sockpuppet. I did this because I really wanted to edit Wikipedia. That is the truth. It was very frustrating to see mistakes in the encyclopedia and not be able to fix them. It was a very poor decision. I then did a lot of thinking and decided to take the standard offer. During the 6 months that I was blocked, I did not sockpuppet and thought about my actions. I learnt that with the power of editing comes responsibility as well. I will not continue my old habits and I hope to make positive edits in the future. I hope I get the chance to contribute to Wikipedia again. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user has been blocked twice at ANI, in 2016 and in 2017. Their sockpuppet account JudgeJake40 (talk · contribs) was blocked on November 28 2017, 6 months and a week ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hell to the no. It sounds like he plans on going right back to his original editing choices. His request needs to address what he is going to edit, and I'd strongly suggest minimally a TBAN from amusement parks, reality TV and hockey for at least three months be imposed as a condition, just to see if he is capable of writing from sources. Further, a 1rr restriction and zero tolerance for NPA. Not hopeful. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important thing here is for him to be renamed first. I think there's mechanism that prevents creating account that closely resembles existing account; and this surely shouldn't have slipped through. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If he is unblocked, I will rename, and picking an acceptable rename was a condition of my copying this appeal. I didn’t rename first because renaming an indef’d account is controversial and it also makes it more difficult for the community to review the appeal because the new name makes the person more difficult to identify for some. I’m neutral on the outcome here, but did want to clarify the renaming point. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, no point in renaming account that's still blocked. But I was just nonplussed by the manifest similarity, hence my comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the main issue, I Support unblock, figured out the user has made otherwise good contribution before he digressed. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I can be blunt, their actions were often—sub-par?—a year ago, and the socking was dumbass; but the SO exists for a reason—and as does ROPE. We're not allergic to readmission, as it were, and we've readmitted "worse" (horrible to make comparisons, but purely for the sake of illustration)—or even greater levels of dumbassery, if you will, so I don't see why Computer40* should be treated particularly differently. Their understanding of where things went wrong may be, IMHO, incomprehensive and incomplete, but still demonstrates the quality of self-reflection that is at the heart of such appeals. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Hawkey75 newly-chosen handle. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"even greater levels of dumbassery" - I think I have a new title for my autobiography. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But on a serious note, Support, per SN54129 and WP:ROPE. Anyone who spots any issues with this user, or suspects any socks, know where to come. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above and WP:ROPE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ROPE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well exactly like the last ANI I've just come here to see why "Hawkeye7" was blocked!, Anyway that aside I'd support unblocking on the basis that

A) They don't get angry so easily (easier said than done I know!),

and B) They don't harass any user in any way, shape or form,

If one or the other are violated they should be indeffed without any ANI discussion, I obviously support renaming and that should be done before they're unblocked, The sockpuppetry was extremely silly but anyway it sounds like 75 has grown up and realised they need to change their ways,

Hawkeye75 - Just to reiterate if you're reblocked because of old habits the community will not be so forgiving and I would take this time to seriously change the way you edit and act here - You've now been given a lifeline to this place so I would strongly recommend you use it wisely. –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unblock per WP:ROPE. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support This is indeed exactly what ROPE is for. Am I utterly convinced by this unblock appeal? No, but there’s no way to really be certain unless we go ahad and unblock. Reblocking are cheap. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ROPE, but no need to rename any more than the hundreds of other names that are "Hawkeye" followed by numbers - about three quarters of the numbers up to 100 are taken, some of them twice. Peter James (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose correct me if I have misread the history but it looks like this user has been indefed and allowed back twice already. I would say they have used up their ROPE already. They have waited the minimum time recommended in the standard offer between the last time they were caught for socking and making this request. Nor do the mention making any contributions to another Wikimedia project to demonstrate they are able to work and play well with others - they should spend six months doing that while not socking here and ask again. Jbh ^Talk 23:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SerialNumber. Swarm ♠ 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clarification regarding Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions

Following several profound community discussions over Syrian Civil War topic, as part of motion from 2013 it was concluded that the "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." and hence Motion 3 was enacted by user:Callanecc. As a result separate Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions were installed envoking 1RR policy, similar but separate from ARBPIA. I have to emphasize that Motion 1 ("While content that involves Israel in the Syrian civil war topic area does fall under the scope of Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, the overall topic area does not.") and Motion 2 ("Concern has been raised that the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war might fall within that topic.") were rejected by the arbitration committee, hence deciding not to apply ARBPIA neither on broadly-construed Syrian Civil War articles and neither on those having to do with Israel, while installing new SCW sanctions to cover those all.

Despite the above decision, on several occasions users and administrators, not aware of the nature of the conflict and the scope of sanctions, tried to envoke ARBPIA 30/500 (refers typically to Israel-Palestine case, which is not covered by Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL) upon Syrian Civil War-related articles. In 2017, administrator Ad Orienem added the 30/500 template to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article, but following a discussion it was agreed that ARBPIA is irrelevant to Syrian conflict-related articles upon 2013 motion and the tag was indeed removed. More recently, in May 2018, administrator BU Rob13 once again added ARBPIA 30/500 tag to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article and several others, and again following an explanation and discussion it was decided to lift the incorrect ARBPIA 30/500 tagging (in his own words administrator was not aware of the fact that Iran is not an Arab country).

Despite the clarification on Iran-Israel proxy conflict several Syrian Civil War related articles remain tagged as ARBPIA 30/500 (Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War, Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War, May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents, February 2018 Israel–Syria incident tagged by administrator BU Rob13 and January 2015 Shebaa farms incident by another), which creates confusion among editors about the nature of Syrian Civil War sanctions and whether ARBPIA additionally applies to anything related with Syria and Israel. This situation clearly goes against Motion 3, but perhaps in line with the rejected Motion 1 in 2013 arbitration. I herewith ask to correct the situation and clarify once again enacted Motion 3 against inserting ARBPIA sanctions back into the Syrian Civil War topic, unless Arbitration Committee changes the motion conclusion. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above linked motion 3 very clearly states some issues related to the war do fall within ARBPIA. Syria is listed as an Arab country in our own article on Arab countries, and they have long been involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article on the conflict even states that Israel's participation in the Syrian Civil War have heightened tensions related to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. To the extent that Israel and Syria come into conflict, those articles are part of ARBPIA, despite the Syrian Civil War in general not being entirely part of the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions here:

1. Do Syrian Civil War articles, already sanctioned by SCW, also require an additional ARBPIA sanctions tool which is more aggressive, considering that the community Request to amend sanctions on Syrian Civil War articles asked to replace ARBPIA with SCW sanctions and was closed in favor.

2. The assumption that incidents between Syria and Israel during the course of the Syrian War may be considered part of the Arab-Israeli conflict requires verification by good reliable sources, which are missing; so far the incidents have been described as part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict (May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents for example), where Israel is allied with Saudi Arabia and Sunni Arab states against Iran, while Ba'athist Syria supports Iran and was banished from the Arab League.

Note that until recently there have been practically no cases of double-tagging Syrian Civil War topics with both sanctions types and that the Iran-Israel proxy conflict is widely agreed not being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict or somehow related with it.GreyShark (dibra) 16:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, AGK, SilkTork, David Fuchs, Timotheus Canens, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned, and Risker: I would like to ask the opinion and interpretation of administrators who took part in the motion in 2013 (removing ARBPIA sanctions from Syrian Civil War article and installing the SCW sanctions).GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The motion was for a temporary fix (I think we were deciding on the exact length and decided on 30 days in the end). I'm not sure what has happened in the meantime, but I don't see this as an appropriate matter for the now defunk 2013 Committee, especially given that we only agreed to extend ARBPIA sanctions for one month. I think we expected the community to then discuss the matter and come up with an agreement. If the community cannot, then they need to ask the current Committee. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - the temporary 30day sanctions on Syrian Civil War were extended via community discussion at WP:AN, which has placed pages related to the Syrian Civil War under general sanctions indefinitely effective 21:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC).GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: as closing administrator for the Request to amend sanctions on Syrian Civil War articles - your opinion would be most welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bach editing

For months, there has been one dispute after the other between two editors of classical music (mainly JS Bach), and the friction goes beyond standard disagreements into accusations of vandalism and off-wiki harm. The two editors involved are User:Francis Schonken and User:Mathsci. The latest longish discussion about this is at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Francis Schonken is edit-warring to remove your thread on Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Older discussions can e.g. be found at User talk:Mathsci#User talk:Francis Schonken and subsequent sections there.

By now, many editors have become involved in these disputes, and it has taken up many hours and led to blocks (both editors have quite a few blocks in their history). I have blocked Mathsci in the past and more recently, and I would prefer not to take any further admin actions here and to let clearly uninvolved admins deal with the two editors. Mathsci has serious health concerns, which causes longish gaps in their recent editing (no problem there), but which they (in my opinion) misuse as an excuse to put the blame on Francis Schonken too often.

Both editors are clearly knowledgeable about classical music, and a topic ban from such articles would be tough on both of them. But an interaction ban seems hardly feasible as they have so many articles where they have by now both spent considerable effort. Something creative is needed here (preferably more effective than Bach flower remedies :-) )

In my experience with these two editors in this dispute, they both are uncompromising and rather stubborn, but (perhaps due to some selection bias) I have the impression that the most problematic edits are by Mathsci. The above DYK was for an article originally created as a redirect by Francis Schonken, and only later edited by Mathsci: the DYK as well was first edited by FS and immediately afterwards by Mathsci.

The most recent interaction is at Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which has now been opened for more than 3 months. They are the two most prolific commenters there, and their first edit was less than 2 hours apart[23]. The article for that DYK, An Wasserflüssen Babylon, has been edited 156 times by Francis Schonken and 731 times by Mathsci.

Mathsci makes claims of vandalism way too often. I already mentioned this to him in the discussion on his talk page, but he simply continues, e.g. this edit summary and this one.

Mathsci seems to be following Francis Schonken around to completely unrelated articles; when FS edits the Auschwitz disambiguation page[24], Mathsci reverts the same day[25], even though they have never edited that page before. More back-and-forth at that page follows. When FS explains his change at the talk page, Mathsci gives a rambling response which addresses a lot of things but not really the actual edits. Mathsci not only left a rather condescending post on FS user talk page[26], but when FS removed this (as is his right), he restored[27] it with further commentary, even though I had already explained to Mathsci (when they did the same thing earlier) that a removed post should never be reposted.

That second post[28] then goes on to insult FS ("It was spelled out so that even a small child could understand it. That Francis Schonken went into edit-warring phase was predictible. At that stage he did not have a "minder" or "henchman" there to provide advice or back-up. ") and continues with rehashing some old history (an episode for which I blocked Mathsci as they were clearly in the wrong there, but which they still use to blame FS).

Another example: FS creates an article, which Mathsci then tag-bombs[29]. This includes completely inaccurate tags like "peacock", "one source", "primary sources", ... FS expands the article significantly, and removes the tags: Mathsci reverts this removal as being a "disruptive edit"[30] even though the tags are even less accurate now. FS again continues editing and expanding the article, and at the end again removes the tags. One month later, Mathsci readds the exact same tags yet again[31]. These are the only edits he ever made to this article or its talk page. This is either harassment or a case of WP:CIR, but not acceptable editing behaviour.

What clearly crosses the line and is a perfect example of the position Mathsci now takes is his edit summary of 19 May[32]: "in isolation of N11, saboteur/troll still active in disrupting my home IP, almost surely FS is the culprit given his petty and childish persona". This not only is a clear PA against FS, but also accuses him of somehow disrupting Mathsci's home IP. At the moment, everything FS says is interpreted in the worst possible way, and rather unreasonably so. The last posts on Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon (from 3 June and later) are typical for this.

I may well be painting a one-sided picture here, and would ask others to go over the interactions of the last few months and unravel the problems. But I don't think that letting this continue is in any way productive. Perhaps this is too complicated for AN and needs ArbCom, but I hope that the combined wisom of the AN crowd can find some solution which lets peace return. Fram (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest the section Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein from ANI in June 2016 as lengthy but useful background reading. It will give a more rounded picture of this situation. MathSci was not the only recipient of his attentions, although his way of dealing with it has tended to be both extreme and counterproductive. Anyhow, Francis ended up with a community-imposed 6 month restriction to one revert per page in any calendar month, applying to all pages except his own user and user talk pages. Amongst the problems which surfaced at the June 2016 ANI, apart from repeated edit-warring, were weaponizing maintenance tags in content or personal disputes, massively refactoring other editors' talk page comments, and lots of I didn't hear that. Plus ça change? Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, perhaps the only solution is to WP:IAR and craft a solution that bars each of them from editing an article unless they were the first of the two edit it. Period. Make it apply to the talk page and to any related discussions about the page as well. There are more than enough classical music subjects to around. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution may well be the right one, but I'ld like to see some evidence that the problematic editing by FS has persisted more recently (preferably the last three months, but at least somewhere in 2018). If the problematic edits are still coming from both sides, then sanctioning both is best. If the problematic edits are no longer coming from both sides but only one side continues, then sanctioning that side may be better (or fairer). Fram (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram has been told by arbitrators that I am currently gravely ill. There are still ongoing üdiscussion on arbitration on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment on Newyorkbrad and above. On 18–27 May in Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, I had the last of six related emergency incidents. These involved (a) major stroke (b) cardiology (c) blackouts (syncope) (d) acute kidney illness. I cannot possibly do anything here. I can hardly move. Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- You have used your illness as an excuse for months now. It didn't stop you following FS to the Auschwitz disambiguation and so on. I'm sorry that you are in such bad health, but then don't edit Wikipedia, and certainly don't edit anything controversial. The "ongoing discussion" at Newyorkbrad had one comment from you from early May, and the last before that was from 19 April. That's not an ongoing discussion, that's a stalled one you had to pull from the archives. You continued your disruption during and after that discussion. Fram (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by excuse? User:Newyorkbrad has explained the serious health problems and you seem to be treating that as if they don't exist. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, they would like you to respond to the merits above (in which they acknowledged your health issues, btw). Arkon (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is impossible at this time. The medication means I can only sleep every other night. From what I understand I still have acute kidney illness (AKI) and that is being looked into by my GP (on Thursday) and in the cadiology clinic next Monday (where there is a problem with ACE inhibitors). I am sorry, I cannot change that. User:Doug Weller is aware of the ongoing medical problems. User:Newyorkbrad is already organising this. User:Fram seems to be trying to stop that happening. What has been happening is some kind of low key arbitration case, supervised by Newyorkbrad, which will not endanger my health. Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "low key arbitration case"? Is there a page for those? Just because an arbitrator makes a comment somewhere, it hardly counts as "arbitration". Nor do an arbitrator's comments outside ARBCOM carry any more weight than anyone else's. If what you're talking about is some "thing" carried out entirely off-wiki with only one of "combatants" participating... well... um... Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It means the ongoing discussion on arbitration that has been taking place for about two months on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment by Newyorkbrad and above. It was started by Softlavender, but she prefers not to be mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "ongoing discussion about arbitration" (or organising of it) on Newyorkbrad's talk page. His last comment on the dispute there was almost two months ago, and his only mention of arbitration in that comment was "Unless the two of them find some way to disengage voluntarily, I fear there is no alternative but an impose remedy, whether via an ANI discussion or arbitration or otherwise". Really, Mathsci, for your own sake, and frankly everyone else's, you need to completely disengage from this dispute. Who knows? Some of the administrators and experienced editors here might actually come up with a solution. Just let them get on with it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The kind of major stroke I had, expressive dysphasia, have several effects. One thing is that, under stress, the damaged brain left hemisphere cannot be managed properly. That means I stop being to able to speak. That happened on the weekend of the emergency incident in Addenbrooke's Hospital when, in error, one of the gastrointestinal consultants suspended all of my medication. That resulted in what is called a hypertensive emergency. That has to be avoided, because the main risk is a second stroke, which usually is fatal. Fram has used the word "antics" to describe the mechanism of stroke. I have difficulty even remembering the word when stressed. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if stress is bad for your health issues, perhaps the best thing is to avoid Wikipedia, because you seem unable to avoid conflict, and thus stress, while here. Following FS to the Auschwitz disambig page does not look like the actions of someone trying to avoid conflict and stress. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with Mathsci's ongoing medical problems, which appear to be very serious, and sincerely hope that things get better for them, but it seems to me that if Mathsci can rally sufficiently to edit the encyclopedia, and describe in detail their medical situation, then Mathsci must also be able to participate in discussions about their editing. They cannot claim a free pass on discussions while continuing to edit. Either Mathsci needs to take a break from editing -- or avoid any and all controversial edits and restrict themselves to simple fixes and anti-vandalism -- or, if they continue to edit as normal, they must be willing to give over some of their limited editing time to discussions. To do otherwise is unfair to other editors and to the community in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned in the discussion on arbitration that at the moment I cannot concentrate properly. Unfortinately that is just a fact. At the moment I am staying in bed under medication, writing only total trivia that requires no concentration, more like gnoming (comments on Jayda Fransen for example). I think I mentioned that problem of lack of concentration on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment by Newyorkbrad. The method NYB chose gave a method of discussion which did not rush me. Before the emergency of 18–27 May, I slowly prepared a whole set of diffs describing my editing on Canonic Variations between January and March 2018: I prepared those slowly in the middle of May before the I was rushed into A&E. I can locate those in the framework NYB had devised, but not here: I am absolutely shattered. At the moment it would be impossible, because the colonoscopy and hypertensive emergency has stopped me thinking in any sustained way. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that folks like BMK, Softlavender, Doug Weller, Snowded, Ealdgyth, Diannaa, Bishonen, David Eppstein, MastCell, Regentspark, Voceditenore put me at ease as old regulars. Doug Weller in particular noticed the usual LTA (permabanned from WP:ARBR&I) making mischief recently (see e.g. Orgelbüchlein). Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could also watch, in a sedentary state, as the Memills saga unravelled: all history that BMK (or other wikifriends like Maunus, aprock, ArtifexMayhem, Johnuniq, Killlerchihuahua, etc) will remember from the days of Miradre/Acdemia Orientalis. So I can do superficial gossip, but not much more. Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fram has also not explained why from 28 April until now, Francis Schonken's editing suddenly switched to UNESCO World Heritage Infoboxes edits: en route, Francis Schonken seems to have needlessly ruffled the feathers of User:RexxS, User:Mike Peel, User:Andrewa and User:Beetstra. Similarly the main topic here was Lutheran hymns from the Reformation, not Bach as Fram has suggested. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to ping other editors who you feel have a negative view of FS. But it's not really clear why I should need to explain FS editing a topic completely unrelated to you. Perhaps, instead of going through FS' edits trying to find other editors who might support you, you could explain why you made the edits highlighted in my opening statement? Why you are following FS around, making personal attacks, accusing him of offwiki criminal (or at least unethical and very dubious) activities? These edits can hardly be explained by "but FS is suddenly editing unesco articles"... Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Mathsci is placed under a one-way IBAN with Francis Schonken, however, Mathsci is expressly permitted to ask Newyorkbrad or any editor he designates to act on their behalf in any disputes. If Mathsci is physically unable to edit Wikipedia, they should not do so, but that doesn't mean their voice should be silenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion on arbitration initiated by Newyorkbrad (see above), User:MastCell has already indicated that Francis Schonken's comments on my user talk page were "petty and childish." MastCell indicated that Francis Schonken is quite likely to be indefinitely blocked (If I understand his properly). I have a sleeping tablet fairly shortly. I can see that the peanut gallery want to have their fun. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support IBAN as per BMK and Power - Mathsci I do hope you get better soon and or your situation improves, Anyway in short IBAN seems the only best solution here thus fart. –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up and clarify something stated above, I have been in contact with Mathsci occasionally in recent months. He has shared with me what at the time was private information concerning his health, although more recently he has shared this information publicly (frankly, I do not see that it is necessary to do so in such detail). He has also shared with me some other non-public information, but none that I can link with Frances Schonken. A couple of months ago, I expressed concern on-wiki that Frances Schonken and Mathsci were persistently giving each other an unnecessarily hard time (see Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142#Mathsci and Francis Schonken). Frances Schonken's initial response was to dispute how I had worded the section header, an issue I perceived as of relatively minor importance. My perception at the time was that Frances Schonken was unnecessarily following Mathsci's edits. As Mathsci notes above, there has subsequently been a thread on my talkpage in which I repeated my request that these two editors stay away from each other.

This thread opened by Fram suggests that problems between the editors are continuing, but I am not as persuaded as Fram is that the problems lie in one direction. Mathsci, although he has not led a blameless wikilife by any means, has been the subject of long-term harassment by banned users (nothing to do with Frances Schonken or with the music-topic areas), and as stated above suffers from health issues; that does not mean that he is free to violate any policies or guidelines, but I do hope he will be treated with an extra dose of courtesy and understanding. That being said, I am not commenting "as an arbitrator" in this thread, and I'm certainly not administering some sort of one-man secret arbitration case. I would be grateful if someone could please figure out how to keep these two editors away from each other, without damaging either of them or the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged I've read through the above and will put in my two cents. Yes, I have had my feathers ruffled by FS on many occasions and I try to be Christian on this, see wp:creed#4, so I hope my feathers are not too easily ruffled. But that's a disclosure.

I would like to see even-handedness on this, and think that the squatters rights Tban proposed above [33] has a great deal of merit. The objective is not to punish either or both but simply to protect Wikipedia. Both sides have regularly transgressed wp:NPA Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.... and I see little hope of this changing while many admins set an appalling example by doing the same (but that's another hobbyhorse of mine). Both sides are powerfully here and their good faith is IMO unquestionable.

So ideally we want to give them both the best and most effective guidance that we can, to enable them to continue their valuable work unhindered by each other. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that such a "squatter's rights" sanction could easily be gamed. I won't say how, but I think anyone of reasonable intelligence can figure it out. Given that, I really don't think it's a viable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The devil is perhaps in the details, but part of the sanction would be that any attempt to game the system to avoid the Tban would be dealt with severely. (When I say "severely", probably the best response in that event would be to simply revoke the sanction on the innocent party while leaving it in place on the other.) They're both highly intelligent and would understand this if it were put in those or similar terms. For one of them to suddenly post trivial edits to many articles, for example, or even to otherwise modify their editing pattern so as to greatly increase the number of articles to which they had editing rights, would trigger this response. Or if one were to waste their time devising more sophisticated strategies to keep the gaming under the radar, problem solved. But neither is that stupid, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Francis Schonken has been the clear aggressor in this saga from the very beginning, and after original six-month editing restriction imposed at ANI in June 2016 [34], he went right back to persistent, long-term, deliberate targeting and harassing of Mathsci. Mathsci is not blameless, as he has some behavioral issues of his own, but FS is the aggressor and troublemaker. I do not support a 2-way interaction ban between these two editors. I Support a one-way interaction ban on Francis Schonken towards Mathsci. In my mind that is the only way this harassment and disruption is going to stop, short of an ArbCom case, which at this point is well warranted in my opinion (we've already been through at least two ANI threads). So I'm in favor of one or the other: a one-way IBan, or an ArbCom case. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given evidence of clear, very recent cases where Mathsci is the aggressor. Can you please provide similar recent cases where FS is the aggressor? Otherwise you propose to sanction FS for old behaviour while ignoring the continuing unacceptable behaviour by Mathsci. Are there e.g. articles where FS clearly followed Mathsci, instead of the other way around, in the last 2 or 3 months (i.e. since you started that thread at Newyorkbrad's talk page)? Fram (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very much in agreement with Softlavender on all details, including several reports on AN/I and others. On 29 December 2017, Softlavender used the words "vendetta" and "harassment" to describe FS's patterns of edits.[35] (My stroke took place a few hours later while editing the same item.) I have edited during 2006–2018 and have covered a lot of different topics. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mathsci, if you feel that FS is having a vendetta against you and is harassing you, then why are you following him again and again and again? Fram (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fram, could you please stop putting words into my mouth? In my wikipedia edits I usually write in a restrained and nuanced way: my favourite words are "neutral and anodyne." Here I have quoted what Softlavender wrote, that is all. At this stage, I don't have any "feeling" about this at all. Indeed I just feel numbed. In the same way, I am aware that User:MastCell has written a number of comments on FS which I will simply report without interpretation. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - When you state "I am very much in agreement with Softlavender on all details", and then explicitly quotes their words "vendetta" and "harassment", then it is very strange to then complain that I am putting words in your mouth. Could you perhaps address your own recent edits instead of repeating what others said months ago? Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an agreement with what Softlavender has written; her comments seem very sensible and she writes well. At the moment I'm trying to see whether my concentration is improving by reading Beverly Jerrold's 2012 article Kirnberger vs Marpurg: A reappraisal. Some of the material was already used in the reception section of Clavier-Übung III, but that was written earlier in 2010. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is in any way relevant for this discussion because...? Fram (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just before the incident on 18 May, I was editing Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon, trying to write a preparatory summary (including content on Jerrold). User:Gerda Arendt is the person who suggested that I help there: I had previously written Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes in 2008 or 2009. An Wasserflüssen Babylon, BWV 653, is one of the chorale preludes I play. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So no actual relevance. This report is about your recent conduct towards FS (and vice versa, if any), not what sources you read to edit. Please address the accusations that you inappropriately follow them around, tag-bomb their articles, personally attack them and accuse them of fairly unlikely off-wiki behaviour. Fram (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on 19, 24, 26 May were written when I was in the isolation ward N2. Not really the usual wikipedia environment and at times it was quite alarming (despite the Royal Wedding). In October 2012 at UCL, I edited The Heart Hospital prior to heart surgery (4 October) and then as an outpatient (16 October).

On various WP noticeboards, I have mentioned previously that online sources using CD liners, raw Bach archive content and 18th or 19th century sources are usually not good as WP:RS. My editing method is usually to gather the best available reliable secondary sources and then summarise them. The same applies to mathematics, e.g. Contraction (operator theory). List items could potentially give an excuse not to follow that procedure: then the best idea, if possible, is to make a proper article, instead of a list-cum-article. How many baroque articles have you edited or created? Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, if you can't be bothered to address the actual issues, then please don't answer at all. You have added lots of replies here, but so far none of them have brought us any closer to solving this whole situation, but instead only add lots of distractions. How is the number of baroque articles I have edited in any way related to this complaint? Fram (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a problem if you had hardly any experience of editing articles on baroque music. (On wikipedia, people usually write about what they know.) As far as I am aware, my edits on music have been accepted by almost all other editors, i.e. there is a long standing consensus. Looking at it in a different way, possibly taking into account Softlavender's comments, might there not be a problem with some of the edits of Francis Schonken? Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it would be a problem if we were discussing content issues, which we aren't. We are discussing conduct issues, specifically your recent conduct (no recent problematic conduct by FS has so far been presented). A topic you have avoided at all costs so far. Fram (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You at no point write words in a restrained and nuanced way. You waffle, obfuscate, personally attack, try to divert from clear statements, avoid the point, write tldr walls of barely relevant (or even coherent) text, in fact do anything you can to weasel around your obstructive and deliberately frustrating attitude. When you write 'I agree with everything they said' it is not putting words into your mouth to say you feel they have a vendetta when that is entirely the subject of their comment. It's this sort of bullshit that has led to you being unable to work with editors on what, two topic areas previously? It's a familiar patten. Mathsci gets into conflict (usually because of your overwhelmingly arrogant and insulting editing towards others), blames everyone else, blames harrassment, tries to link it to past harrassment from unrelated people, vindictively targets others by means of personal attacks, hounding etc, blames illness for not participating when your disruptive editing is brought up. And ends up moving to a different topic when enough people have been pissed off only for the cycle to start again. If you seriously want to claim innocence in all this, an arbcom case will have plenty of evidence going back years showing the pattern of your interactions with others. It will be a long and gruelling process, and it will likely go ahead regardless of your personal situation because Wikipedia is not therapy and your illness is not an excuse to be trotted out every time your own nature causes you to get into conflict with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And before this goes much further, could an uninvolved admin read this previous discussion (plenty of further reading there as well RE their behaviour) which clearly shows their tactics when brought to a noticeboard, and swiftly hat any of Mathsci's off-topic comments to keep this on track. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plain from the above that some of us sympathise more with Francis Schonken and some with Mathsci, and as I've disclosed I'm likely to be in the latter group. But this probably says more about us than about them. Again I recommend an even-handed approach as the best way of protecting Wikipedia. Justice may be in the eye of the beholder, but if we focus on why we are here that need not be an issue. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The details

I think the time has come to actually do something!

So I'd like to further investigate the possibility of a creative squatters' rights Tban as suggested by Voceditenore above. [36]

Beyond My Ken has suggested that this could be easily gamed. I think I see what they mean, but as I replied [37] I think this can be addressed.

So I propose that we invite each to name two advocates, all four to be administrators. I will volunteer to be one for Mathsci. In doing so, I invite both of them to post anything that doesn't cross the line into oversight territory on my user talk page. Attack me, attack each other, attack the other advocates. email me if it might be oversightable! Just call what they see as problematical editing by the other to our attention, that's the important thing. (And keep it off the article talk pages.) And we'll look at it, and possibly discuss it among the panel of four, and issue stern warnings if it's anywhere near transgressing.

Because, if any three of the advocates agree that one of the combatants has transgressed the Tban, then the Tban will immediately revert to a simple community topic ban on Bach-related articles on the transgressor, and the other will be released from the Tban.

Mathsci doesn't have to nominate me as one of their advocates of course. (And if they don't then Francis Schonken is free to and I'd be very flattered to accept, but I don't think that's likely.) Both just need to find two advocates to be on this panel.

Comments? Other volunteers? Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight... in order to police this remedy - we'd need four admins to monitor two editors? Seems like a lot of work and not something that's normally done. Would this preclude other admins from taking action on these two editors? Frankly, I'm inclined to interaction ban the two of them and if this means that either of them can't edit an article or two, it seems much simpler than what is current or what is proposed here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think Ealgyth's got it right. There's really no need for a complexly structured sanction when a standard IBan would seem to be a feasible solution. At the very least, it should be tried before going to an esoteric sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction bans have been tried with Mathsci before when he gets into conflict, he is uninterested in abiding by them. The last time resulted in him engaging in a particularly nasty form of outing/harrassment of the editor with which he was interaction banned. Frankly an interaction ban between him and FS is just asking for him (given his history of actions towards other editors) to resort to privacy-violating measures towards FS. Which wouldnt be unusual for him at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please AGF of Mathsci, and take him at his word that he's not capable at this time of doing much complex editing, which would include, I think, following a convoluted sanction. He should, however, be capable of adhering to a simple, straightforward IBan with FS. If it turns out that that isn't the case, and he -- or Frances -- abuses the IBan, then a more complex sanction or even an indef block can follow, depending on the circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not a battered wife, I don't have to AGF of anyone who has repeatedly time and again shown they are a threat to other editors privacy. His word is worth absolutely nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with an Iban affecting both equally. The more creative solution would only be appropriate of we had three other admins volunteer (and so far we have none) and if both parties agreed to it (and neither has yet commented). Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IBan on both would probably be the best solution (I have my doubts if it will work, but it certainly is worth a shot). Fram (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa's proposal would be an even worse time-sink than the current situation. Both FS and Mathsci have tied up and frustrated numerous editors with their behaviour and now the proposal is to tie up 3 or 4 administrators as well? Speaking as a non-admin, but someone who has dealt with FS on multiple occasions (not all of them involving Mathsci), and crafted his 2016 1RR per month restriction, my view is that a. that any IBAN must be mutual and b. a normal 2-way IBAN will not work unless it includes article space. The episode at the DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which started the discussion here is a perfect microcosm of the problem:

FS created An Wasserflüssen Babylon as a redirect in July 2017
It lay dormant until 24 February 2018 when Gerda Arendt turned it into an article.
FS shows up immediately and starts tag-bombing it until it looked like this. He has "form" doing this to Gerda in other articles, irrespective of Mathsci's participation. (See my comment in No details below.)
By 3 March, Gerda had addressed the issues, removed the remaining tags and nominated it for DYK [38].
Mathsci starts expanding the article on 5 March. Francis returns to editing it the following day and the usual scenario plays out when they are editing the same article, tagging each others edits [39], [40] and soon repeatedly reverting each other. e.g. here: [41], [42], [43], [44] and here: [45].
The DYK review did not start until 21 March. The following day, FS shows up at the review, opposing a pass on the grounds that it is "unstable" [46] and proceeds to re-festoon the article with tags [47].
Needless to say the DYK review soon broke down into bickering between FS and MathSci—largely by Mathsci. By 6 May the initial reviewer had withdrawn from the melee. Mathsci went on to increasingly bizarre and totally unacceptable personal attacks on FS [48]. The DYK remains completely stalled as of today (6 June) and probably will never pass given that FS had also placed a tag suggesting a split on the top of the article [49], where it remains today after he and Mathsci repeatedly reverted each other over it.

Ugh! Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No details

I have no time for details, and hate the words aggressor. I started An Wasserflüssen Babylon, and asked Mathsci to help. Why Francis came in, split part of the (by then expanded) article to make it one of his, and then said it's unstable, I will not be able to understand. Just look at the DYK nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, FS started that article as a redirect, you turned it into an article, and FS started working on that article as well some 30 minutes after you started working on it. No idea where or when you asked Mathsci to help, but your reply gives the impression that FS only noted the article after you asked Mathsci to help, when in reality they had created it and started working on it immediately when you did, while Mathsci's first edit to the article was more than a week later. Fram (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all other purposes: making a redirect a real article is considered a new article, unless we split hairs. Francis made probably hundreds of such redirects for hymns, which I don't like because the reader gets disappointed arriving just in the middle of some author's hymnal when expecting information of a hymn. - I'm ready to forget the below. Drmies and Boing! said Zebedee helped in such situations (on top of others who are no admins). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Splitting hairs"? Not really. Your post gave the impression that FS started editing that article after you (and probably because you) asked Mathsci to help. You have not indicated where and when you asked Mathsci to help, making it hard to verify your claim, but in any case itis not unreasonable to assume, given that he had created the redirect and that he arrived at the article 30 minutes after your first edit (and a week before Mathscis first edit), that he actually simply had the article on his watchlist, and that this has nothing to do with FS following Mathsci. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I didn't say anything about when Francis came in, and think it doesn't even matter. Factual corrections are one thing, and fine, but making massive changes (including making part of the article that Mathsci wrote a new article), and then complaining about "unstable", is not fair. - It would have worked to suggest a split, and let Mathsci decide to do that, or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been easy to check my talk for "Wasserflüsse", no? Possible DYK for nice image. Sometimes I ask Francis, but never both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on their talk page, which seemed the logical place to find a request from you to Mathsci. Thanks for providing the link. Fram (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that FS also has a record of following Gerda to articles she has written and creating disruption, irrespective of Mathsci's participation. His behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page in April–May 2016 is a particularly egregious example, but not an isolated one. Gerda and another editor (not Mathsci) brought the article to Featured status in March 2016. One month after its promotion FS showed up and started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [50]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [51] and edit-warring [52], [53] to keep it there. Gerda objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted because it was "unstable" [54]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. On the talk page he copied editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, misleadingly refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [55]. By 20 May the article was still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor had been driven away. Its talk page became an unreadable mess and a place where FS talked only to himself. It finally came to an end when Brianboulton (at the time one of the TFA coordinators) archived the discussions and removed all the maintenance tags [56]. It is a similar tactic FS used at the recent DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which I will analyse above in a few minutes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios from Bostonbruinsfan22

Bostonbruinsfan22 (talk · contribs)

I just noticed I did my third revert. (not really though, I improved the image on Commons so the third time I put it back it was quite a different image) I suspect 74.12.161.95 is just Bostonbruinsfan22 but logged out. The image they keep putting back is an obvious copyvio. The user is also problematic on Commons. Next time they put it back I can't revert it anymore so this needs to end.

Warnings on their talk page at Commons, warnings here, they are completely deaf.

~~..and the IP reverted it again and I'm out of reverts. Great.~~ Ok, Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule exemption 5 covers copyright violations. Good. Reverted them again. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this is just vandalism. (unless it automatically goes blank if you try to revert to an image that doesn't exist, because their copyvios have been deleted from Commons.. it doesn't do that, does it?) Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massive backlog at WP:SPI

There are cases that have been open for over three months, and some that haven't been commented on for over two. The CUs have been responding fairly quickly, but not every case involves CUs, and either way SPI still needs admin patrollers to finish things up. ansh 666 08:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:MassiveYR

This seems a SNOW consensus to not unblock this suspected promo sock farm editor. User Lourdes 05:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pasted from user's talkpage:

Per Standard offer. It has been slightly more than six months without any sockpuppetry and block evasion. I was blocked for the use multiple accounts which violates Wikipedia's policies. However a block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for and I will not continue to cause damage or disruption to the Wikipedia community. I intend to edit constructively and get back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, WP:AFC and reverting vandalism while abiding by WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Thank you.MassiveYR ♠

CU reveals no other edits from user's current IP address (other data is too stale to check). This SPI archive may be of interest when considering unblocking. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We shouldn't unblock a promotional sock farm for any reason. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I concur with Rob - this sockfarm sprawled all over the place and there was evidently major meatpuppetry going on - not just "friends" as MassiveYR claimed in a previous unblock request. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Undisclosed native advertising and sockpuppetry are both egregiously dishonest and unethical activities that are fundamentally incompatible with being a Wikipedian. Why should we believe a word they say? And how can we tell they're not using proxies? MER-C 13:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under no circumstances TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - definitely not. There's evidence the account is part of a large spam operation involving numerous individuals, which has gone to significant lengths to conceal their promotional activities. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No explanation of what MassiveYR is going to do, if that they(??) are unblocked. The trust isn't there. talk to !dave 14:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all the above, a bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when a promo editor names AFC as an area they intend to focus on, not help that project needs. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of "Ryan Hampton (author)"

No means no. MER-C 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page name of "Ryan Hampton (author)" is banned and only admin has ability to create. Subject exceeds notability requirements. See here: https://g.co/kgs/Y5SkD7. Can an admin create this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.112.166 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article title has been blacklisted due to repeated disruption and sockpuppetry (see, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Ryan Hampton (Author)). clpo13_(talk) 08:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

check the notability. not attempting to create or edit page. asking for admin to evaluate subject "ryan hampton (author)" - subject should be listed in wikipedia historically. hampton is a highly notable public figure in america. previous sockpuppetry shouldn't disqualify a legitimate article on notable public figure. block is keeping a highly visible and controversial author from inclusion on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.112.166 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error

I moved a page in error and I would like to ask an administrator to revert this move.

I moved Structure of the Hellenic Air Force to Hellenic Air Force Order of Battle.

Please return the article to Structure of the Hellenic Air Force, so I can then update it. Thank you, noclador (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Noclador:

Done While I have your attention, hopefully the updating will including adding some references, as the article is unsourced at present. Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And the lack of references was one of the reasons I did an update of the structure. All the info is from the website of the Hellenic Air Force and I added 8 inline citations to the respective organizational sections on the air force's website. cheers, noclador (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 670: / Line 670: @@
 ::I'm quite happy with an Iban affecting both equally. The more creative solution would only be appropriate of we had three other admins volunteer (and so far we have none) and if both parties agreed to it (and neither has yet commented). [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 :::An IBan on both would probably be the best solution (I have my doubts if it will work, but it certainly is worth a shot). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
+[[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]]'s proposal would be an even worse time-sink than the current situation. Both FS and Mathsci have tied up and frustrated numerous editors with their behaviour and now the proposal is to tie up 3 or 4 administrators as well? Speaking as a non-admin, but someone who has dealt with FS on multiple occasions (not all of them involving Mathsci), and crafted [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Proposal:_Francis_Schonken_Restricted_to_1RR|his 2016 1RR per month restriction]], my view is that '''a.''' that any IBAN must be mutual and '''b.''' a normal 2-way IBAN will not work unless it includes article space. The episode at the [[Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon|DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon]], which started the discussion here is a perfect microcosm of the problem:
+*FS created [[An Wasserflüssen Babylon]] as a redirect in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&oldid=788407567 July 2017]
+*It lay dormant until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=827409506&oldid=808672784 24 February 2018] when [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] turned it into an article.
+*FS shows up immediately and starts tag-bombing it until it looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&oldid=827465942 this]. He has "[[Form (horse racing)|form]]" doing this to Gerda in other articles, irrespective of Mathsci's participation. (See my comment in '''No details''' below.)
+*By [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&oldid=828633917 3 March], Gerda had addressed the issues, removed the remaining tags and nominated it for DYK [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&oldid=828594258].
+*Mathsci starts expanding the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=828893068&oldid=828749131 5 March]. Francis returns to editing it the following day and the usual scenario plays out when they are editing the same article, tagging each others edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=830057098&oldid=830049337], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=next&oldid=830057098] and soon repeatedly reverting each other. e.g. here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=next&oldid=835738053], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=next&oldid=835738969], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=835741448&oldid=835739824], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=next&oldid=835743069] and here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=next&oldid=835742587].
+*The DYK review did not start until 21 March. The following day, FS shows up at the review, opposing a pass on the grounds that it is "unstable" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FAn_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=831782988&oldid=831719086] and proceeds to re-festoon the article with tags [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&type=revision&diff=831784111&oldid=831783729].
+*Needless to say the DYK review soon broke down into bickering between FS and MathSci—largely by Mathsci. By 6 May the initial reviewer had withdrawn from the melee. Mathsci went on to increasingly bizarre and totally unacceptable personal attacks on FS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=prev&oldid=841945770]. The DYK remains completely stalled as of today (6 June) and probably will never pass given that FS had also placed a tag suggesting a split on the top of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Wasserfl%C3%BCssen_Babylon&diff=prev&oldid=832964924], where it remains today after he and Mathsci repeatedly reverted each other over it.
+Ugh! [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 10:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 === No details ===

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

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

Revision as of 11:34, 7 June 2018

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

Deletion discussions

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

Other types of closing requests

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Philip Cross

Unexplained removal of content

BLP

KalHolmann

Off-wiki mentions

Ongoing

An outsider's perspective

Philip Cross continues to edit George Galloway BLP

Propose topic ban

How deep could COI run here?

ArbCom

Earlier complaint

Request for unbanning MafazOfficial

I need a little help here...

Issue with emails sent to the Arbitration Committee

Did you know queue has not been updated

Question on enforceability of voluntary editing restrictions

Terri McCormick isn't satisfied with article about her

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

Blocking a sleeper?

Strange talk page posts

Uninvolved admins needed on articles under discretionary sanctions

DYK queue

RFC on speedy G13

Proactive report regarding copyright issues

Is this a blockable offence?

Unblock appeal from Hawkeye75

Clarification regarding Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions

Bach editing

The details

No details

Copyvios from Bostonbruinsfan22

Massive backlog at WP:SPI

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:MassiveYR

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

Creation of "Ryan Hampton (author)"

Error

Leave a Reply