Template:Active editnotice

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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.

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

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

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

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 113 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 87 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 67 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 64 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 63 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 63 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 60 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:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 39 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 38 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 34 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 33 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

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

(Initiated 69 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 68 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 65 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 64 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 64 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 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 63 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 62 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 62 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 59 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 58 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 53 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 47 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 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 45 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 45 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 44 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 43 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 41 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 34 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]

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

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 83 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 55 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 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 7 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

I would like to propose community sanctions on the Catalan independence topic. These could either be a 1RR restriction on all articles and other pages related to Catalan independence, or a fuller range of remedies, such as those found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I've created a proposed sanctions page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence, based on the ZG page mentioned above, since this seems to be getting a good deal of community support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full range of general sanctions 1RR is a blunt tool, and while I think it is a good rule in general, giving uninvolved admins more leeway to deal with the issues surrounding this topic is a good thing, and could prevent editors who might otherwise be blocked and get turned off from Wikipedia leaving. It would not prevent 1RR from being imposed, and would allow more flexibility, which I consider a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if it was not clear, I would obviously include 1RR as an option within these and would expect it would utilized. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SarekOfVulcan, it might also be worth spelling out in the proposed sanctions that any uninvolved admin can place page specific sanctions (such as 1RR). I think there is general support for that here, but my reading of the draft would have it apply only to editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - SarekOfVulcan Can you point us to examples of disruption to the point that warrants some community sanctions? I would support it (given what I assume is nationalistic and POV editing issues), but I personally am unaware of disruptions surrounding it. Edit: I just saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes_on_Catalonia.2C_please... I'll review that first. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after reviewing the ANI post and the pages linked therein. Reminds me of the Crimea stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my suggestion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full range of general sanctions, with much credence given to 1RR This is as an indefinite emergency procedure to stem the flow of the potential problems ahead, which do include POV editing. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per (Not) Dave above. This is going to be a contentious area for the immediate time being, and we need to be sure that the articles we have stay NPOV as possible. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it's going to be quite awhile before the waters settle. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Would prefer if these were time limited to something on the order of a year, and reconsideration at that point. But that's just because I'm not a fan of the creep of special rules that make it even more difficult for newer to moderately experienced users to figure out what the standards are and where. GMG^talk 20:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer not to time-limit this, because we don't know how it's going to play out. I don't think there'd be much of an issue revoking them in the future, once they aren't needed -- WP:SANCTIONS lists obsolete sanctions as well, and the first one I checked needed only about 4 people supporting, and nobody opposing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, sure, but it also seems just as likely we get something like WP:GS/BI, which fails to get consensus to revoke, and is still hanging around even though it hasn't been enforced in five years. Anyway, it's probably not worth arguing about. I'm still supporting. GMG^talk 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is a very high profile sensitive issue which effects users in Catalonia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'd like to see them time-limited with a renewal discussion in six months to a year, to avoid creating another situation like Ancient Egyptian race controversy in which the sanctions are still in place a decade after the editwar in question because nobody's ever bothered to ask that they be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent on a time limit. This is very likely to be a contentious subject for some time to come, likely years. Obsolete sanctions don't usually cause much harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is still contentious and causes problems in six months, it shouldn't be a problem to renew the sanctions by then. But given that removing unlimited yet unneeded sanctions has proven difficult in the past, it's best that we get a consensus on their end date now, as not having sanctions is the natural status to which we should aspire. Having lingering unneeded sanctions is a recipy for arbitrary enforcement, which should worry us deeply. Diego (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Will be very helpful. --Lingveno (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A very good idea. Although not sure how it fits with User:Floquenbeam's anarchic WP:AN/Honeypot proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all of the above. It's a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I was alerted to this proposal at a discussion on my talk after I raised the protection on Catalonia from semi to full.

As far as I can see, full protection on that page is working well, and it seems that several related pages are doing fine with semi-protection. Have I missed some outbreak of drama elsewhere?

Unless there is evidence of some problem which is not being addressed by various levels of protection, then this proposal for sanctions is pre-emptive, which is what I oppose.

I agree that there is a non-trivial risk of things getting here. However, I think it's important that we give the community a chance to conduct itself well, rather than rushing directly to sanctions without clear evidence that the community is struggling.

If there really is a consensus to proceed with these pre-emptive sanctions, then please time-limit them to a few months, per Iridescent's suggestion. We don't need another set of zombie sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about good edits that the full protection is locking out? Not everybody finds their way to the talk page. Also, "risk of something happening" is no worse a reason to impose a sanction than as a reason for fully protecting an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus We don't fully protect an article because of a "risk of something happening". We fully protect to stop an ongoing edit war; it is a responsive measure, not a pre-emption. I want the same principle to be applied to sanctions: impose them only when other measures, fail, and apply them for a limited period.

Full protection may lose us a few good edits. However, I'm not persuaded that there will be much value lost, because a highly-scrutinised, contentious topic like this has many eyes on it anyway, not all of which will be deterred. Plus, full protection does drive at least some editors to the talk page, which is a Very Good Thing™; consensus-building complex topics is exactly what we want to encourage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Weak support because it's clear we're going to need to do something, but not full support because I cannot get behind broad-based indefinite sanctions, which will in all likelihood be effectively permanent. This should be revisited, not merely in terms of whether they're still necessary (some form of sanctions probably will be necessary for many years), but also in terms of effectiveness and unintended consequences of specific aspects of the sanctions, and whether the scope can be narrowed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • General sancations require a person (the admin imposing them on a page) to use their discretion, so its not like these are automatic and imposed against editors without thought. I agree with Iri above that we don't want an ancient Egyptian race thing where we still have discretionary sancations a decade later, but the fact that these will likely be needed for years is a good reason not to set a time table for expiry now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points in response: First, while you're correct that an admin needs to use his or her independent discretion as to whether the sanctions should result in an action, I believe the existence of sanctions can risk chilling legitimate discussion. I have, for example, seen AC/DS warnings used for apparent intimidation purposes in the past. Basically I'm concerned about more sophisticated POV pushing editors using sanctions to squeeze out less sophisticated newbie editors. Second, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting an auto-expiration date, but something more along the lines of a point at which the community will revisit and reevaluate the sanctions and determine whether they're still necessary. As I say, I do believe some degree of sanction will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but the whole zombie sanctions thing makes me concerned. I really want to see necessity and effectiveness reevaluated because, at a certain point when they're not necessary or are ineffective, I suspect the community will just be so used to their presence that we'll presume they're still necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pages of notable Catalan figures are targets of vandalism and politically biased edits. --DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the idea. I don't handle this kind of area much at all, so I don't know what kind of implementation would be best. Support a time limit of a year (although I'm open to other time periods), because this ought to be able to sunset if it gets to the point of being forgotten about. (GreenMeansGo makes a good point about British Isles; I expect that requesting reauthorisation at a big community board would have been less likely to succeed.) If the area's still a problem, it will likely be reauthorised before expiration. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both a 1RR restriction and general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, under the general principle of giving admins the tools they need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose such measures can only be a proxy for potential outlets of dissatisfaction from both sides and I see it difficult to "police" and reliably identify. Immediate targets will be articles on Catalonia, Spain, Spanish history, etc. but this will proliferate as "steam" in the political debate remains. We will probably see valdalism to articles of Spanish companies, politicians, living and historical people. etc etc. I fear that sanctions will be readily imposed for edits to high profile articles (such as the Catalonia or Spain main articles), while vandalism to more obscure articles may remain unsanctioned. We see similar tendencies with articles in the China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea complex _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jake Brockman: Are you implying, therefore, that the sanctions will cause lower profile articles to be ignored, in the sense that dubious edits will go unseen with those articles? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: That's sort of my thinking. Sanctions would appear arbitrary if they cannot be (properly) enforced across the spectrum for all potential violations as violations at the fringes will just be part of daily vandalism fighting. This is just a concern because the complex of topics is so vast. I believe Nicotine has heightened sanctions, where I think this would work as the complex of related articles is a lot narrower. Sanctions should IMO always have the effect to a) capture without (too much) discrimination and b) have some kind of learning or lighthouse effect. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• After thinking about this for quite a while, I think I'm actually much more ambivalent than I was at first consideration. There are some good points raised above, and as was pointed out on the ANI thread, we haven't actually tried ECP yet, which seems entirely too simple of a solution on the face of it to not at least try before we look to institute a complicated, and potentially indefinite bureaucratic solution. GMG^talk 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose without aforementioned time limitation. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No one can really know how long the Catalonian crisis is going to last, so I think it makes more sense to leave things open-ended for now, and when it becomes apparent to an editor or editors that the worst of it has passed, a proposal to end the discretionary sanctions can be made. The community will either agree with that or not. Putting a time limit on them just opens up the possibility of an unnecessary repeat of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1RR, per other similar contentious subject areas (Palestine, ISIS, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2RR I think a 2RR rule is in order, to prevent heated disruptions. 1RR seems over the top, because there could eventually participations which are new to Wp and are not used to 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• General comment. Some editors in this discussion appear to assume some or all of these priciples: a) sanctions should be applied as a preventive measure; b) sanctions come at little cost; c) sanctions should be open-ended by default; d) political controversy is sufficient of itself to justify sanctions.

However, I contest all those assumptions.

a) we don't pre-emptively protect pages, or pre-emptively restrict users. On the contrary, for example, today's featured article is unprotected, even tho we know that it definitely will be vandalised. We encourage potential editors to learn and to try, and we accept a degree of disruption as a price worth paying for encouraging participation.
Here we have a topic which we know will attract new editors keen to contribute ... so why is there a rush to restrict them unless we are sure that restriction is needed?

b) sanctions have a chilling effect on new editors. We know that potential new editors are deterred by a (partly true) perception that en.wp has become a bureaucratic maze of rules and jargon. Sanctions escalate that fear by accompanying the rules and jargon with the en.wp equivalent of martial law: stern warnings and summary punishment. I know we are all keen to avoid the disruption of POV-pushing edit wars, but scaring off newbies from the topic-du-jour is also something to avoid if possible. We try to encourage newbies, rather than bite them. We warn before sanctioning, and give a lot more leeway to inappropriate good-faith edits than to intentional disruption. We readily forgive editors who repent of misconduct. So when newbies come to contribute on Catalonia, shouldn't we do as much as is possible in the circumstances to avoid deterring them?

c) the presumption of open-endedness to avoid a repeat discussion is bizarre. Protection policy for individual articles is based on entirely the opposite presumption: we try to apply the lowest level of protection for the shortest possible time, and when that expires we watch what happens before reinstating protection. Countless pages are routinely reviewed in this way, with no great drama. Yet here we have some editors insisting that it is too burdensome to apply similar caution when sanctioning a whole topic area. That's perverse. Surely all sanctioned topics should go through a similar process of periodic review on an exponential backoff timer, with a default presumption of a trial period of re-opening before we eventually adopt indefinite restrictions?

d) there are plenty of deeply controversial topics where we survive without general sanctions. AFAICS there are no topic-specific sanctions on long-term POV-magnets such as homosexuality, vaccine, Islam, Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum (organisation), Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, or Black Lives Matter. If such bitter controversies as Black Lives Matter — which is on the front line of one the US's most bitter faultlines — can settle down with only semi-protection, why do some editors assume that this long-running clash of Iberian nationalisms has suddenly turned into a permanently unmanageable POV-warzone? Why not wait and see? And if sanctions do seem needed right now, why apply them for a short trial period, keeping open the possibility that like BLM this may be a controversy with brief and intermittent flashpoints which can be handled through much lighter and more transient measures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a 1 year DS, extendable if in next October (or even late September) the need still seems to exist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support general sanctions, including the ability to place 1RR, for 1 year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

As this hasn't attracted comments in 5 days and has been opened over a week with what appears to be some sort of consensus, I'd move that an uninvolved admin close this proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to do so, would there be a lot of bureaucratic steps to follow? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, you just close this discussion and, if there are sanctions imposed as a result, make an appropriate entry in the table at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. It would probably be best to place notices at the village pump, interested wikiprojects and some of the main articles, though that would be a courtesy rather than a requirement, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence page I created as a sample, it needs to be tweaked with diffs in a couple of places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider here re: using that page is whether there is also a consensus for 1RR, which is not explicitly mentioned on the draft general sanctions page (not suggesting one way or another on how to close on that point. Just noting it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors is already in there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. I misread it earlier. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, would you hypothetically speaking be interested in closing? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For whatever it's worth, the fact that we had an international crisis and a laundry list of variously protected articles when this discussion started, and we've now reached the point where semi protection on Catalonia seems to be working just fine, just mucks this entire discussion up completely to my mind, and is probably a good example of why discussions like these shouldn't be opened hours after breaking news. GMG^talk 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, Green, but considering the exact same thing is going to happen at some point down the line, it would be good to have the protection mechanism in place in advance. After all, Catalonia still wants independence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reaching a bit to say that we can predict with intuition alone, situations where there will be enough disruption in the future to warrant, what are at this point, probably purely preemptive discretionary sanctions. That's part of why I tried requesting at least a downgrade to ECP while the discussion was ongoing, to prevent things from solidifying out of adrenaline, and no one caring enough later to come back and reassess the situation. I think if this discussion had been opened today, instead of two weeks ago, it would have gone down a very different line of questioning and argument.

At the very least, I think we all probably deserve a slap on the wrist for authorizing the use of force 72 hours after a crisis, because there's no way that could ever go badly. GMG^talk 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think GMG is absolutely right, and the sanctions supported above are no longer needed. They should have probably been in place for the last week of October / early November, but right now it is not clear that editing restrictions will be particularly helpful in the next couple of weeks. There is no reason to believe that this will become an Israel/Palestine type conflict. —Kusma (t·c) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) FWIW, 1RR is always a good practice anyway, so authorizing it when we know that this situation is unstable is not bad, nor is authorizing the placement of sanctions knowing that at some point in the near future, there is likely to be drama here again. This would give us much more flexibility in dealing with future situations like we already have in the discretionary sanctions system for other topics that are unstable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 1RR is always a good practice, but we usually don't always enforce it. Sanctions are for topics where there is both ongoing disruption across a large set of articles, and where milder measures such as protecting a few articles has proven insufficient.

None of those criteria apply here. The disruption was small, localised and short-lived. Even the head article Catalonia has now been doing fine under semi-protection for the last 10½ days, since Callanecc applied it at 05:58, 4 November 2017, after full protection had expired the previous day.

It seems to me that some admins are basing their judgements on the nature of the topic, which seems to me to be a sadly POV approach. Some admins presume that a topic involving an independence movement or a clash of nationalisms is inherently worthy of sanctions, regardless of whether there is actual disruption. They seem to presume that editors working on such topics are inherently less able than others to work collaboratively than those who edit in other topic areas, but that is demonstrably not the case. As Kusma noted above there is no reason to believe this will become another Israel/Palestine type conflict, so no need for special measures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, for me, it was more a question of the dozen or more interrelated/POVforking articles that were being affected in the same way. It seemed to me that community sanctions would be more effective than arguing the same points in multiple locations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: it was a short-lived spat which settled down very quickly. Despite the continued drama in the real world, editors seem to have found ways of developing en.wp's coverage without drama. Whatever you thought the merits were of your original proposal, surely it is now time to withdraw it as moot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not sure it's settled down quite yet - see RFPP today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... that's just disruptive editing by drive-by IPs. That's not the kind of thing we would use DS for anyway, and isn't the kind of thing that would be effective even if we tried. It's just one of the 10k members of CAT:SEMI. GMG^talk 19:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GMG. The remedy for drive-by IPs is semi-protection. Community sanctions are useless against drive-by IPs, and I'm surprised that SarekOfVulcan pointed to that RFPP as evidence in support of them :(

It reinforces my impression that some editors are approaching this as a type of topic which should be sanctioned, rather than examining whether the conduct of established editors requires sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thread seems to be reviving a bit... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nominations for the 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 12 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone create ဵ as a redirect to Burmese alphabet? I'm away from my own computer, so not using an admin-enabled account. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done WP:AGF , Google search says it is "MYANMAR VOWEL SIGN E ABOVE" - not sure if this is a good redirect, any admin that has more knowledge on this character set is welcome to revert/change. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Myanmar = Burma. fish&karate 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I am changing it to Burmese script. The article Burmese alphabet is about the variant of the Burmese script used to write the Burmese language. By this standard, the diacritic ဵ - used in Mon but not Burmese - is part of the Burmese script but not the Burmese alphabet. Kahastok talk 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sometimes minimally active on the German Wikipedia, and I happened to notice an IP that is spamming semi-legible opinions both there and here. Apparently, it's a sock of a well-known and blocked user on the German Wikipedia. I've slapped a 36 hour block on the IP to stop further disruption, but do we have a general policy on such cases? How independent are the different language editions with respect to administrative action and/or user behaviour evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the typical ways we respond to cross-wiki abuse is to ask the stewards for a global lock, which prevents a user from logging into a particular account on all Wikimedia wikis, or a global block, which only affects IP addresses. Aside from these, I believe local administrators on a specific wiki can and do take into consideration actions of a user on a different wiki when considering whether to take administrative action against a user, as such actions have the potential to also affect the local wiki. However, just because a user is blocked on one wiki does not automatically mean they should be blocked on another wiki. I would look at it case-by-case. (In this case, the IP hasn't edited the German Wikipedia for several hours, so it's probably a stale matter at this point.) Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mz7, my understanding is that cross-wiki behavior is supplementary evidence; it is not by itself enough to enact a local sanction, but when a user is creating problems locally, then it can be brought in as evidence to support a necessary block. If someone is blocked on another Wiki, and has done nothing wrong here, however, we don't block them locally. The key is nothing wrong here. If they're doing the same behavior, ban away... --Jayron32 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an user was an admin on an non-English WP but is no longer, may he or she present the info here on ENWP as if he or she is an non-English WP admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsquare (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your question. We don't care who anyone is at all. Anyone can discuss anything at anytime for any reason here. We don't care if you are or are not an admin. If you've got something to bring up, do so. You could be an admin, you could be anyone. Just say what you need to say. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is not admin but at the talk page states they are admin, we usually edit the talk page. I think the question is whether we would similarly edit the talk page if someone incorrectly states they are admin on a different project. (My guess is we do not care).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not ask this question at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_12#If_an_user_is_no_longer_an_administrative_user_--_bureaucrat.2C_steward.2C_administrator_et_cetera_--_on_project_not_English_Wikipedia.2C_shall_description_on_user_pages_be_editing_accordingly.? Either way you are an admin here and that is the main thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a definitive answer than at last time when I asked. I value Iridescent's idea that off-wiki experiences gives a non-admin a particular authority. A non-ENWP user can claim to be non ENWP admin on ENWP user page as many wikimedia projects have flourished in more than a decade of this online phenomenon called wikipedia. As a user is now difficult to be a WP admin, does carrying the stigma of an admin earn the user an image that readers can look upon? Although JW on a mailing list post claimed that

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.^[1]

do we admin need to stamp out the aura whenever it is seen? --- Ktsquare (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 15#Template:Authority control has been closed; please would an uninvolved admin now review and close the discussion that has been stared below the closed section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Primefac (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Primefac.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has claimed I "fell from the sky declaring my opinion superior to others" (a fabrication).

User has claimed I am "messing around."

User's post on my talk page is incredibly aggressive.

I have no intention of humoring it with a reply (knowing myself, I would misbehave as well, admittedly). I merely request an administrator or other authority to step in and give him a proper warning template on his page to let him know that his behavior isn't assuming good faith and is quite abhorrent. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here. Good faith reverting edits over and over again does not fit. "Incredibly agressive" is way overreacted btw. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@JohnnyFiveHole:, you are a relatively new user and you got involved into a content dispute. This dispute has to be resolved somehow, and trying to resolve it in edit summaries is usually not the best idea. Gsfelipe94 went to your talk page to resolve it, and might have not chosen the best approach, but you need to discuss with them anyway. The article talk page seems to be the best venue for such discussion, and I strongly recommend you to go there, open a new topic, and discuss the changes, at the same time trying to stay cool.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This, coupled with the attacks against me on my page (instead of on *what I did*) such as "You've never updated mma articles before, so you can't just fall from the sky saying that your opinions are the ones that matter" and "I'm not going to engage in a worthless edit war because of you." (both unprovoked) are inarguably personal attacks. I appreciate your biased perspective (I'm not a "new user" - I've been around since 2010), but I implore you to see things through a clearer lens. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but have in mind that a non-biased perspective can srtraightforwardly lead to your block for edit-warring and the absence of minimal good faith. Especially since you have already got a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not seeing personal attacks here. That's not the best way to phrase it, to be sure, but the second of those is unquestionably not a personal attack and the first is hyperbole, not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to I submit a page for my mother. She was a famous female Opera Conductor and Educator. Her obit was a feature in The NY Times and several other large papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredericContino (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should do is read WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG to learn what our notability guidelines are for musicians and generally, and then -- being as unbiased and neutral as possible about your mother -- determine that she qualifies under those guidelines. If you think she does, then read WP:Your first article for tips on how to create an article in Draftspace, which, when it is finished, you would submit to be "published" in Mainspace. But do, please, make sure she is actually notable according to our guidelines, because if she's not, after all the work you will put into writing an article, it's likely to not be accepted or be deleted for lack of notability. You might also want to ask your question on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Music and see what they say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, it appears she has an entry in Grove's. I expect we can fit her in. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, there you go! Write away! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News obituaries in major papers like the NYT are a very solid indicator of notability, in my opinion: only people who are actually of a good deal of long-term importance get news obituaries, if nothing else because the size of the newspaper and of its reader base doesn't admit them to spend space on staff-written obituaries except for the most important people, and flash-in-the-pan people, e.g. victims of a crime, will have their deaths mentioned but won't get an obituary. Plus, the obituary itself (unlike a news report about the person) is a secondary source, since it covers the life from a detached perspective rather than reporting what's going on or what's just gone on as an ordinary news report does. SarekOfVulcan, how did you figure out who this was? Is there only one female opera conductor and educator in Grove who was named Contino? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah. :) I figured if it wasn't her, we should be writing the article anyway. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing in my sleep and have need of a 2nd opinion onmy talk page. Please see User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail and User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Timber_Trail_continued. Perhaps someone uninvolved can help this user. I will be off line till Tuesday. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented there. I think all admins involved are being a bit more rigid that the situation requires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community is invited to comment on the appeal lodged by Δ at Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment.

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please can an uninvolved admin take a look at the move discussion, ideally to close it as soon as? As this is a high-profile news story linked from the main page, I don't think readers should be drawn away from the topic to a move request. IMO, I think it's a snow close, and for transparency, I did vote/comment in said move request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched in horror the way people are bullied and targeted here on wikipedia if they speak out.

But I think this is an important enough issue to bring up.

I am interested in the best way to discuss how administrators mishandle copyright, particularly fair use?

Where can this be done? Thank you in advance. Moscowamerican (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by giving examples in the form of Diffs. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi. Roxy the dog. thanks for responding. please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to focus on one person or persons at all. I was recommended this page by someone before and I saw that this page is very very popular. I just would like to discuss the issues and get all peoples opinions, etc. I saw a page like this once, but I don't recall what it was called. Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it to do with application of WP:NFCC? If you are not comfortable, you can mention a few general examples, but it will be helpful to be ready with diffs (as Roxy have mentioned) to present if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without diffs as examples, we wont be able to assess your issue. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite a bit about copyright and I think we generally get it right on enwiki. Lately, we've been doing a better job than Commons, in my opinion. Examples would be helpful. If individual files have been mishandled, we should correct that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fairly sure this relates to User_talk:Moscowamerican#October 2017 given the follow up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the info posted above is correct, and this is the issue MA is worried about, I'd say that Diannaa is right on point. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion, started by an openly declared sockpuppet of Moscowamerican. --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice we are very strict on text copyright (probably moreso than we are on files to be honest.) This is because while Wikipedia is an educational project that can reasonably claim fair use for text, our license allows people to reuse the text for commercial purposes (and we want to keep it that way.) Our mission is to be the free encyclopedia, and copyrighted text goes against that. I endorse Diannaa's actions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you User:TonyBallioni for your comments, again, this is not about any editor, this is about policy in general. I think I need Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Moscowamerican (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind our non-free policy is required by the Foundation. We're supposed to be a free content work and use non-free images sparingly. That's why it is perhaps seemingly harsh on what is kept or not. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment- how would I search for fair use discussions before? Moscowamerican (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (edit conflict)No, because you'd be wasting everyone's time as nothing would change (at best you'd get a no consensus to change result. Likely it'd snow close against you), and our copyright policy has legal implications, so it's really best not voted on without consulting legal counsel. If you want to create a wiki that has a more liberal view on allowing copyrighted text under the claim of fair use than we do, and want to do so without the de facto protection against being sued that the WMF and volunteers like Diannaa provide, you are free to fork Wikipedia into a new wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) There's an extensive searchable archive at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. And you don't need a request for comment to simply ask about this. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon the advice of The Bushranger who has spent a great deal of time trying to keep this particular sock farm under control, I am advising AN about the relentless disruption and a sock that simply will not give up.

Here are the IP addresses we’ve been dealing with today alone:

• 63.143.240.94
• 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66
• 2600:1017:B42E:45B4:B4B3:C34B:1771:55A1
• 75.99.95.250
• BLPN
• BLPN

More information follows because over the course of the past 2 or 3 days, the sock has been relentless:

• See: User_talk:Infamia
• Article that provoked the PAs and relentless sock behavior: Pardon of Joe Arpaio Also see the TP history for more IP addresses.
• More PAs on the TPs of David Eppstein, Oshwah and MrX.

List of other IDs in sock farm:

• The Evil Sourceror (talk · contribs)

15:35, 9 November 2017 - created 06:08, 10 November 2017 - indef'd

• Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:02, 11 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• Edit Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)

18:03, 11 November 2017 - created 00:39, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Peacebroker (talk · contribs)

18:21, 11 November 2017 - created 08:04, 12 November 2017 - blocked for 48 20:13, 12 November 2017 - indef'd

• Infamia (talk · contribs)

20:51, 12 November 2017 - created 16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C (talk · contribs)

21:26, 14 November 2017 - firat used 21:41, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 209.140.35.48 (talk · contribs)

21:46, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:46, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• 2600:1017:B400:815E:8992:FEEE:349A:99BA (talk · contribs)

21:49, 14 November 2017 - first used 21:50, 14 November 2017 - blocked

• Son of Supervoter (talk · contribs)

20:36, 15 November 2017 - first used 20:38, 15 November 2017 - indef'd

There are more, and the disruption continues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) These sock puppet accounts and IP-hopping edits are Kingshowman. Apart from playing whack-a-mole with the IPs as we see them, semi protecting the pages that he's targeting will at least stop the disruption on them. Of course, he could (and obviously would) just move the disruption to another page. Those are your realistic options... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the named accounts are recent socks of Kingshowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Plase see most recent SPI. Dr. K. 21:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin please delete Draft:Zwinky, which has been tagged since 12 November. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...which is less than a week ago. G13 deletions, while "speedy", require some discretion on the part of the reviewing admin, as drafts that could potentially be kept should be delayed instead of deleted. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the snark. I don't think G13 speedies are necessarily the most vital speedy to be concerned about, even if it has been sitting around for six days. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and deleted the page; it might have been salvageable but this REFUND indicates that no one is likely to ever work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help... I think... JMHamo (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a weird day. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am requesting my 0RR restriction be lifted based on the 25 March 2017 decision found here [2]. Thank you for your consideration. -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is baffling and difficult to navigate. Please change it so that other editors know that you are Winkelvi. Please tell us how your behavior and approach to editing have changed since the incidents that led to your three month block and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, my behavior and approach to editing has changed in that I now rarely edit for fear of being blocked should an administrator view a change I have made to existing content in an article in such a way that it constitutes a violation of the 0RR restriction. Other than that, I go to article talk pages more frequently than I have before, and often first, to get the opinions of others before making changes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, then, that the 0RR restriction is accomplishing its goal of motivating you to edit carefully, so I see no reason to lift that restriction at this time. What about your baffling signature, which I consider somewhat deceptive? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be deceptive. And I guess I strongly resent the implication that I intended it that way. My previous signature was 'WV' for quite a while. This is just a more creative looking version of exactly that, nothing more.

Back to my request: would you mind if other admins were to comment? I was thinking of others such as Drmies, Floquenbeam, Bbb23, NeilN, Nyttend, Diannaa, Black Kite, Boing! said Zebedee, Bishonen, BethNaught, Ritchie333 who were all admins when the restriction was put into place, had a hand in the decision, and commented re: the lift of the block. Further, something I would like to point out in regard to your comments, Cullen, is that the restriction has accomplished its goal to cause me to edit more carefully, however, it is also causing me to pretty much not edit at all (the reason why stated above). I thought the idea is for editors to edit, not be afraid to edit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have made 282 edits in recent months, so you remain an active editor. When you were editing at a higher volume, you repeatedly got into trouble, and ended up blocked several times and sanctioned. I believe that the current restrictions are best for you and for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my editing statistics, the overwhelming majority of those "edits" have been to article talk pages, not editing articles. Is that truly considered improving the encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not seeing much reason for lifting the ban. 0RR being too onerous might be grounds for downgrading to 1RR. Emphasis on "might". The fear of some roving admin interpreting an innocent edit as technically being a revert and blocking for it is not persuasive to me, and strikes me as more a generalized claim of persecution... which is not generally a positive sign. That is not to say claims of persecution are grounds for upholding a restriction, but groundless or nonspecific ones tend to be associated with poor outcomes in my experience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv, I'm not feeling persecuted nor do I have some irrational fear of being indeffed. That said, please see my talk page and the discussion under "Admins only, please" - I'm not fabricating anything to gain sympathy, I was told an indefinite block for changing content could happen. In that discussion, it was established by an admin that there could be some admins who would see a replacement of content with different wording to be a reversion of content. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that discussion is correct in what is generally considered to be a revert. As I said, you might have a case for requesting 1RR instead of 0RR on that basis. Or a clarification that for 0RR purposes "revert" does not include edits that happen to restore content that was removed more than a week ago; or edits that would normally be counted as the initial step in the BRD cycle instead of the revert.

My take on the expansive definition of "revert" is that it exists to prevent gaming of 3RR (or similar restrictions) by combining reverts with other edits, or by making partial reverts. So maybe this is an issue that ought to be talked about more in the context of a policy discussion, if 0RR really does make editing impossible in practice when combined with that expansive definition. But I don't see it as a freestanding reason to eliminate your restriction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv, I'm perfectly fine with a 1RR restriction for six months, a year, indefinite. Several other editors were as well, including a decent number of administrators at the time the restriction was imposed. Except in the case of blatant vandalism, I don't see myself using even 1RR because of what I've learned since the block, the discussion, and then the restriction was imposed. 0RR, however, is pretty ridiculously restrictive without any change to the 0RR policy (which is vague, at best). This was also noted in the discussion at my talk page (which I linked to above). I really would like to get back to editing without living in fear that one move seen by one admin (or an editing complaining to an admin) could end my editing career in Wikipedia forever. It's not enjoyable or in anyway enticing to edit when you can't edit without that fear. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see my name has been mentioned, but my only comment at this time is that you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the lambda is changed to a 'v', would that suffice. As I've already stated, my signature was 'WV' for quite some time and no one ever complained. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just make the whole thing link to your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't realize it wasn't. That must have happened when I updated the appearance of the signature. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 22:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I'm working on fixing my signature. Like I said just above, I didn't realize until it was just pointed out to me that hoving over my signature wasn't showing who I am. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does show when one manages to micro-hover over the tiny envelope, but why not just sign with Winkelvi? Do your friends call you Psi Lambda, or Trident Wavelength or why can't it be your actual user name? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with Sluzzelin. I pointed out your signature problems twice and you blew off my concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, I have changed it back to the same similar signature from months ago, with everything intact as it should be coding-wise, just with the greek letters as they have been since I changed them a while back. Again, I had no intention of being deceptive and did not realize that one could not hover over my signature and see who I am. Hovering over my own signature is not something I do and it never occurred to me that I should check to make sure that capability was intact. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, having a signature different from one's screen name is not at all unusual in Wikipedia. Many have done it for a long time and continue to do so without complaint or any kind of suspicion directed toward them. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No suspicions or complaints expressed from my side (whom, admittedly, you haven't addressed). Just was curious about why you would wish to do it. The answer appears to be that others are doing it too. That's fine. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no slight toward you intended. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said that your signature was "baffling and difficult to navigate" and that was completely true at the time I wrote it. Signature idiosyncrasies can easily be ignored if editors are not otherwise disruptive. You have been consistently disruptive in the past, although I hope that you have changed. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been consistently disruptive in the past" This subjective comment from you is evidence of what I suspected from your first response to my request. And all of it is exactly why I would like other admins, who were admins at the time of my three month block by Coffee and the accompanying 0RR restriction was implemented - who also commented on same, to offer their opinions now. It would seem that even though I thought you and I had let bygones be bygones (according to your comment at my talk page found here [3]), you are allowing our negative interactions of long ago cloud your administrative judgement now. That's hardly fair or objective with the encyclopedia in mind first -- something administrators are supposed to be. At least, that's how it's coming off from my perspective. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow other editors to comment on your request, and if anyone else thinks I have been unfair in describing your past behavior, then I will listen carefully to what they have to say. To repeat: I hope that you have changed, by which I mean your editing behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's occurred three of four times recently that editors posting on AN and AN/I have sought to have a specific audience -- and preferably only a specific audience -- comment on their requests, something which I find exceedingly odd. Everyone here is a volunteer, everyone edits when they can or want to edit, and they check whatever pages they want to check. That means that the response to a noticeboard request is always going to be semi-random, and vary greatly from moment to moment. The attempt to skew that response, presumably in favor of the editor filing the request, feels to me like a version of WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken, that's not what I'm looking for at all. But, because I had a feeling from the tone of Cullen's initial response that he was not going to be objective, that's why I stated I would like to hear from admins who are actually familiar with the history and had more than a couple months of experience as an administrator. I have no problem with striking the admin names above, as I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to canvass here (I'm not - if I really were, I would have pinged them). My point was that these are the admins who were "there" - and if you take the time to look into the responses to each one during the AN/I as well as the discussion(s) about the block/restriction on my talk page, there was a mixed bag of what they all felt about the situation. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (ec) I would note the part of Winkelvi's editing restriction which states:

  There is also general consensus for an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction, appealable in six months after the block expires if no talk page bludgeoning has occurred. (emphasis added)

  In looking at Winkelvi's edits to talk pages ([4], [5], and [6]) I note multiple edits to many of the talk pages he edited, especially in the case of article talk pages. I have not examined these edits in detail, but I think it's necessary for anyone responding to this request to do so, as the lack of talk page bludgeoning is a necessary element in an appeal being accepted. In other words, if Winkelvi is still bludgeoning on talk pages (and I do not prejudge whether he is or not), he is actually not allowed to file an appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note re: BMK's comments above: An important part of the condition re: bludgeoning has been left out above:

  "An uninvolved admin or community consensus will decide if talk page bludgeoning has occurred and Winkelvi must be warned and given a chance to stop before the matter is brought to an admin or noticeboard."

No such warning has ever been given since the restriction was imposed, no complaints about bludgeoning in my case have been brought to my attention, or anyone's that I've been made aware of. Conclusion: there has been no violation of WP:BLUDGEON as described by the caveat/condition in the restriction and block decision. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what was written, confusing two different parts of the sanction. You cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned under the terms of the editing restriction unless you been warned against bludgeoning first, but if someone was to examine your editing right now and determine that you've been bludgeoning on talk pages, your appeal would be groundless. You would not be hit with any additional penalties, but your appeal would be moot. You happen to have filed an appeal before any warning was issued (if one was warranted), but any bludgeoning which had occurred without being noticed would still invalidate the appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your interpretation. I would disagree even if the restriction wasn't imposed on me. NeilN was pretty specific in what would be acceptable behavior from the community regarding the block, restriction and appeal. Context here is important. Look at what followed the comments I included above (that you left out). It's clear that these were warnings not so much for me but for the community when it came to what would be tolerated and what would not in regard to the sanctions. As I'm sure you are aware, there are community veterans know how to game the system, find loopholes, and essentially make the lives of blocked and sanctioned editors hell on earth. I have enemies. This was a way to keep those enemies from trying to push the envelope. The clarification regarding how a complaint over bludgeoning was to be reported was a guideline for those who would want to make such a complaint. When you consider that engaging in bludgeoning would be a disqualifying factor in me appealing the 0RR restriction in the future and how those who also would seek to poke the bear (the next warning/caveat/guideline for behavior) could try to goad me into bludgeoning, the context of the guideline is clear: in order for bludgeoning to be a valid form of disqualification for appeal, a complaint and subsequent warning would have had to already taken place. Let's use some common sense here, too: I can't know that I'm disqualified from appealing if I've never had the required warning and opportunity to stop. Which I haven't. Regardless, I've not engaged in bludgeoning on any talk pages since the sanctions, so your point is moot anyway. Even so, it would probably be good to have NeilN weigh in here since he is the one who closed that discussion and set the conditions at the time of the close. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment those editing on an iphone (for example) can't hover over a signature. "Consistently disruptive" is a pretty accurate assessment. 0RR is pretty generous considering past behavior. Is the 0RR really just for talk page bludgening? Seems like it's for edit warring a lot. I don't recall a rule at AN that says only invited admins can comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have edited the header to be more specific. I also agree that the signature is both deceptive (trying to maintain that the drastic change was not intended to hide further undermines Winkelvi's already problematic credibility) and prevents access and transparency. For access reasons and for transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be his screenname clearly spelled out. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins asked me to fix it not because of the initials (my signature was the initials 'WV' at the time of the sanctions and for at least a year or more before that) but because - unbeknownst to me - hovering over it did not show who I am. I have since remedied that and have changed it back to the colors of the signature at the time of the restriction(s) and three month block. But truthfully, I'm failing to see what my signature has to do with anything or why it's being tied into this request and my 0RR restriction. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: The signatures (both the one that this thread started out under, and the one now) are deceptive (trying to maintain that the changes were not intended to hide further undermines your already problematic credibility) and prevents access (as noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. For transparency, in my opinion the signature should either be exactly the way it was before the editing restriction took place, or (better solution) it should be your screenname clearly spelled out, for both access reasons (noted by Legacypac above) and transparency. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion: I'm not seeing any comprehension at all of why the editing restriction was put into place, or admission that the user understands why their editing was a problem; therefore I don't see any reason for changing the editing restriction. If the only reason the editor says they have edited differently is because of "fear", then they still do not understand the issues at hand that led to the restriction. Until such an understanding and admission is at hand, and a description of how they plan to remedy the problem, I see no reason to lift the restriction since it has, as Cullen stated, accomplished its intended purpose. Even if the editor were to convey understanding and a new plan, I don't see a way to lifting the restriction completely, given the way this request started out; the only concession that would seem appropriate would maybe be changing it to 1RR, but again, I think it's too late for that since there's been no understanding or rehabilitation other than low editing out of "fear of being indef blocked". Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In spite of what Softlavender has stated above, I absolutely understand why the restriction was put into place: I was a persistent, frequent edit warrior and being such (along with being prone to talk page bludgeoning) was a ridiculous burden on the community. I have no plan other than not edit warring ever again. My request is that the 0RR restriction be lifted and 1RR to replace it. The only way I would use 1RR is in the case of blatant vandalism. Everything else needs to be discussed either on editor talk pages or article talk pages. This has been mostly effective for me since I started editing again after the end of my three month block. When it hasn't, I've just moved on to other things. It's a big encyclopedia and there are other articles to edit, files to be uploaded and added, images to be improved upon. I've learned that reverting just isn't necessary in the normal course of editing but being patient, opening the lines of communication, and getting along with others to the best of my ability is. If that's a "plan", it's the only one I have. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what you said here and here, and it appears that this confession was only made under duress (i.e., after I brought it to light). A request for removal of an editing restriction should start out with a clear statement of understanding and admission and learning. The fact that it didn't and one is only at hand now is rather puzzling, and seems to smack of more insincerity. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a "confession", I made a statement. You stated I didn't understand why I had a 0RR restriction, I immediately responded and showed that's not the case. Sure, in a perfect world and with a perfect person making the request, a request such as this should start out the way you say it should. I didn't do that and have rectified the omission. I take great offense to you now saying I'm lying and that I'm intentionally trying to be deceptive (with my signature) Why are you exercising zero good faith? None of this suspicion and being told I'm dishonest is deserved or appropriate. ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions speak for themselves, as does your previously stated description of and rationale behind your current behavior and approach to editing: [7]. Cullen gave you an opportunity to display understanding, and you displayed none. The complete overhaul(s) of your signature and the timing speak for themselves as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support changing the restriction to 1RR per ROPE and because there are better things to do than sit here arguing about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The pointless obduracy over such a trivial matter as changing his confusing signature is enough to convince me that restrictions should remain in force. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to support 1RR because I actually understand where Winkelvi is coming from. I think it's entirely reasonable that, with the expansive definition of "revert", Winkelvi edits mainspace at his peril. Given revert rules tend to be enforced without regard to intent, Winkelvi could easily find himself blocked for inadvertently "reverting" an edit by adding content that had been removed weeks or even months earlier. Even if that specific scenario is somewhat unlikely, I believe it's significant enough to chill Winkelvi's participation. And, that Winkelvi actually sought out the opinions of others as to the dimensions of 0RR rather than just doing whatever he wants is a positive sign to me. The signature thing... I'm not thrilled about that, but I don't think it's as nefarious as is being suggested. I remember a case from a couple years ago where someone had gone silent after an unblock, blanked his user talk page, and got a username change, and went right back to what had gotten him blocked before... now that was nefarious. This is just silly. At worst, the sig thing is concerning with respect to candor. Well, I'm willing to look past that for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Winkelvi has not satisfied the appeal prerequisite of no talk page bludgeoning: [8]. I would be willing to overlook this single example if were not for the fact that he only made 53 article talk page edits. As a practical matter, there is almost zero chance of Winkelvi being blocked for violating the 0RR restriction because he changed a wrong word, altered current sentence structure, or corrected a date, jot or period out of place, provided that it's not an obvious reversal of the last edit. For the record, I supported a 1RR restriction in the March discussion.- MrX 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It doesn't seem to me that Winkelvi has adequately demonstrated collaborative editing in the nearly eight months since his editing restriction. As seen by his edit counts, he seems to have instead virtually stopped editing [9], a behavior we call "waiting out" an editing restriction. Meanwhile even so he has continued his battleground approach on usertalk pages [10] and ANI [11], and article talk as noted by MrX above [12]. I would like to see at least six months of truly collaborative editing, without any battleground behavior or virtual disappearance from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last set of comments in this thread unless someone asks me a direct question. I wasn't going to comment further, but I just don't think it's wise or right to let Softlavender's comments be left without advocating for myself:

First my signature was a problem for you. You accused me of intentional deception via the signature. When I pointed out that the problem had been corrected, you still didn't like the signature and basically demanded it be changed back to what it was when my block was imposed in March. Then, you stated I didn't express an understanding of why the 0RR restriction was imposed in my original request and said the restriction shouldn't be lifted based on that. When I did give a very reasonable and adequate (admittedly necessary) response to your complaint, you didn't like it that the comments weren't in the original request and accused me again of being dishonest. Now you are accusing me of more dishonesty by intentionally "waiting out" the restriction. You further say I should edit for six months collaboratively before the restriction can be reconsidered again, even though that's not what NeilN imposed conditionally when he closed the discussion, and not what everyone seemed to be in agreement with. Remember, you accepted accolade after accolade as well as barnstars from editors on your talk page for your intervention in that AN/I discussion and, in so doing, took credit for what the final decision ended up being. You were fine with the conditions and final decision at the time, but are not fine with the conditions and final decision now. Not to mention you think I should edit more in the next six months to prove being worthy of the 0RR lifted. How does that work, exactly? 50 edits? 500? How does one force someone to edit Wikipedia for a six month period of time? According to policy, editing is not compulsory: "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1RR per my general opposition to the use of 0RR, because it leaves editors vulnerable to gaming the definition of a revert, which WV has indicated makes them afraid to edit, and I believe them. Further I support WV's use of Greek characters in their signature, given that they've fixed the other issues with userspace links, the rest is just picking on them. It's not "deceptive" at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1RR That would still meet WP's protective needs. Be aware of WP:ROPE and that you will be under close scrutiny. Also fix the signature. A signature that irritates other editors is not a thing you need in your life. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1RR - 0RR is bamboo under the fingernails. 1RR is far more palatable and allows an editor to develop collaborative skills while helping to keep the worst disruption at bay. It doesn't prevent tag teams for doing the dirty but it does help keep GF editors out of the quicksand. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Upwards of 99% of Wikipedia editors somehow manage not to spend much of their time at the center of heated controversy. Winkelvi's long history has been one of persistently pushing limits, and I don't think he can now expect to be treated with 100% fairness and AGF. One can't disconnect themselves from their past at Wikipedia or anywhere else in this world, even after they have truly found Jesus. In my opinion, what we're seeing here is but one example of the downside of bending over backward to be "fair" toward problematic editors, and I wonder whether Winkelvi will ever stop consuming vastly more than his share of community time in debates about his behavior. As seen in this thread, he has yet to learn an essential fact of Wikipedia editing, which is the meaning of "don't bludgeon": One can't "win" debates by picking apart every comment made by every opponent, as if there were only one correct way to see things; if only things were so simple. (If I didn't write this, I would expect Winkelvi to pick apart my strictly inaccurate use of "every" twice in the preceding sentence, pointing out the few opponent comments that he didn't pick apart, thereby proving to all that I'm full of shit.)
  If Winkelvi wants 1RR only for reverting clear vandalism, I wonder whether the project might do ok if those reverts were left to others—even if that means leaving them for some time in lower-traffic articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection completed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• Nathan Peterman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resolved

I know this is already at RfPP, but there has been MASSIVE amounts of vandalism on this article, which is related to him throwing five interceptions today. Could an admin please semi-protect this article? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, can you please unblock 107.77.224.0122 for account creation? It's a public range that I'm running an editathon on right now. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi! relatedly - can we lift the account restriction on 64.251.121.244 -- this is the other ip? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 107.77.224.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 64.251.121.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)

Primefac (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoebe: I removed the account creation restriction on 107.77.224.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) earlier after your message on my talkpage, but I don't know about the other IP. Graham87 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoebe: gave you some temporary flags as well in case you need to create these on behalf of your attendees. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]