File:SS pennant.png this thing is a nightmare that should be obliterated Monkleonmars (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @Monkleonmars: this file is not on the English Wikipedia, there is nothing our admins can do about it for deletion. It is already nominated for deletion on commonswiki here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SS pennant.png. If it is actually being used abusively here on the English Wikipedia, show some diffs and we might be able to blacklist it via MediaWiki:Bad image list (nominate it with said diffs at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: we're being played here. It's Monkleonmars who uploaded the image to commons, then nominated his own upload for deletion there. Not to mention a bunch of other Nazi imagery. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Block Monkleonmars already for trolling. Here and there, FWIW. ——Serial 14:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

1-2-3 (admins only).☻ El_C 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking my mobile network. All blocks were excessive and unfair. I always wanted to create an account so I could edit with special privileges. It was a frustration not being able to edit no matter how many times I refreshed my IP. Thank you administrators! Even the global block was lifted! Now I can edit while I am sitting outside in the harbour! I can assure you that I’m only here to improve the project. --Sunshine12plus12 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee received a request from User:Kiko4564 the following request to be unbanned. He is banned by the community and so we are procedurally posting this on their behalf for consideration by the community. They know that even if they are unbanned on English Wikipedia their global account will need a seperate appeal to be unlocked.

I am writing to request that my account (Kiko4564) be unblocked on the grounds that I have learnt from my previous experiences on the English Wikipedia. All of the sockpuppets that I have used have already been blocked, and most are listed under my name as suspected or confirmed socks. I can confirm that the suspected socks are me, as are the NorwichFan2016 and PC 896GD accounts.

I made the mistake of logging out in order to vandalise an English Wikipedia page back in 2013, I intend not to vandalise anymore pages on Wikipedia again, and that I will take a one account restriction, which I am willing to accept should I be unblocked, seriously in the future. I would most likely be doing some anti-vandalism, and copyediting edits, as well as writing some content in various fields.

I admit that I have behaved inappropriately, and that since being indefinitely blocked in 2013, I have used a number of sock puppets for the purposes of harassing people and vandalising articles, amongst other bad things. This subsequently resulted in a well deserved siteban under the 3 strikes rule. I have no further intention to do anymore of those things, sue the Wikimedia Foundation and/or any other editors (like I have previously threatened to), dox people (as I have done previously), and will edit constructively in the future.

In addition to that, I would like to propose the following restrictions: a one account restriction (including a prohibition on using an anonymous IP address), a requirement that I must use the standard unblock template should I be accidentally caught in an autoblock, a civility probation, a ban from communicating with any of the editors that I've previously harassed, a 1RR restriction, a prohibition on making any threats of off-wiki action (including legal action) towards the WMF or any other editor, and a ban on emailing any other editor (enforceable by a partial block).

I will also declare that my global account has been locked but that I will intend on requesting that this lock be lifted should my ban be lifted.

Should I wish to request that any restrictions are relaxed, I will do so via the proper channels i.e. contacting the arbitration committee and not via any other means.

I would really appreciate another chance, and will make sure to make good use of it. I am aware that I've previously been blocked on other occasions as well, and have learnt my lessons since.

Thank you very much.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support unban/unblock Oppose: absent any further evidence that they've done the 'pedia wrong - I'm content with time served and a Standard offer. — Ched (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) edited — Ched (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that in 2012 the user made an unblock request to the community that reads very much like this one: that I was childish but I have now matured, I will not use any other accounts (even for legitimate uses), I've not used any sockpuppets for over 1 year preceding the appeal, and that I can be rehabilitated if given a last bit of rope. Since their community appeal passed in 2012, they've used dozens of sockpuppets, been blocked over half a dozen times, and (according to their appeal) have doxed and threatened editors. While I appreciate people can change with time, why is this time going to be any different, and can a user who committed long-term abuse turn into a sufficiently productive editor? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oppose I think a comment in the linked 2012 appeal (that passed) sums up my concern here: Oppose: This is just trolling by Kiko4564. He has done exactly the same thing in the past and it has not ended well (vandalism and sockpuppetry on multiple occasions after the unblock). All this is just a big game to him. and I also am hard-pressed to believe that the latest unblock statement is any more reliable or believable than any others I didn't think there were any situations where I'd feel someone deserves a permanent ban, but here is a case of extensive socking, making similar promises, getting the community to agree to them, and then doing the same thing over again, repeatedly, combined with harassment and doxing of editors and WMF staff members. I think the user probably has several talents and should find a different hobby where they can use those talents. I don't think it's likely they will be a productive Wikipedia editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've been socking continually since the last time they were re-blocked, they're fundamentally untrustworthy, highly abusive, enormously disruptive and frankly not competent to edit even if they didn't have all of the other baggage. I've personally had to endure an enormous amount of abuse at the hand of Kiko4564 - their favourite hobby was to impersonate police officers, lawyers and others officials, making all sorts of chilling legal threats, and I know I'm far from alone in that respect - there are editors, administrators, functionaries, arbitrators and WMF staff (both past and present) who have suffered the same atrocious behaviour at the hands of this deeply unpleasant individual.
  I would also like to record my extreme displeasure with ArbCom for even bothering with this, it's symptomatic of a popularity obsessed committee who don't want to say or do anything in case they loose friends and alienate people. They should be supporting the community and in particular those of us who have had to suffer abuse at the hands of Kiko4564, not enabling it. Shame on you. Nick (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Their last sock was in Feruary 2019, so well over two years ago. Of course, another way of putting that is, that was the last time they were caught... ——Serial 17:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban/unblock as it appears that this editor is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Furthermore, given the evidence ProcrastinatingReader gave above of a previous unblock request along the same lines only being followed with not only socking, but egregious harassment of editors, and doxxing of WMF staff members, I have to feel that we are being taken for a ride here. That said, I don't think ArbCom have any choice but to put the matter to the community, as it is a community-imposed ban. I could make an argument that the banned user appealing to ArbCom is in of itself procedurally improper, and they should have used UTRS, but WP:NOTBURO and all that... firefly ( t · c ) 18:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• On the one hand: kids mature, horrible people don't. I can imagine a vandalism-only account maturing out of it (though rare); I can't imagine someone who harasses and doxxes others in retribution maturing out of it. On the other hand, it's not like they won't just evade the block if we say no. Mostly because I find giving people 3rd and 4th "final chances" with a straight face so embarrassing for us, I'd oppose. But I have no illusions that means they're going to actually go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. There are some editors whose past behaviour is so abhorrent that they should never be allowed back on the project. This is one of those cases. Just because they were able to string together a sincere sounding appeal (yet again!) doesn't negate the years of extensive abuse towards the Wikimedia community. I don't believe in the sincerity of the appeal and I don't believe yet another extension of WP:ROPE should be given to someone who has repeatedly lied and abused our editors. This isn't an editor ageing out of a disruptive phase, this is an editor extending a poison apple to see if we'll bite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of unban or unblock. With multiple editors here saying they have had to deal with off wiki harassment and doxxing, there is absolutely no reason they should be allowed back. I'm honestly surprised ArbCom even considered sending this to the community and didn't tell them thanks but no thanks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose anyone who's done anything like what's described here shouldn't be unbanned aside from truly exceptional circumstances. In addition if someone really does need seven different editing restrictions to be imposed then they likely shouldn't be editing here anyway. Hut 8.5 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Having fielded and been the subject of abuse from Kiko on our IRC channels for not tolerating their abusive behavior, I cannot countenance an unban any time soon. Waggie (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that this editor has deceived, fooled and played the community for many years and I won't be supporting an unblock/unban for them. Wikipedia is probably not for them, they should join Hollywood and display their acting skills there. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't recall ever dealing with this editor before, but the above comments are enough to convince me that it's too risky to give them a chance. I'd also note that while not socking for two years, assuming that's really the case, is a fair time, in the context of this editor it isn't that long. Especially if 2 years since socking means 2 years since they last did some of the abuse mentioned above. (I don't care to investigate, it's not worth my time.) I fully support ArbCom sending this to the community. It's not their place to prejudge community decisions, so unless they wanted to take over the community ban which frankly seems a pointless waste of time, it's inappropriate for them to reject it. They could have told the editor it's not of their business and directed the editor to use UTRS, but frankly that also seems a waste of time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in a million years. Every arb that didn't vote to decline this should be reconsidering their candidacy at the next ACE. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  This user wasn't banned by Arbcom, they were banned by the community, so they just posted it here procedurally, they didn't make any judgement on the merits.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose -- they are a net negative to the project. I don't think the community gains anything by unblocking them. Actually, I don't think Kiko gains anything from being unblocked. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Hi all, I want to first apologize for the unpleasantness and distress that posting this appeal has caused. Given the comments so far, ArbCom won't be voting accept this appeal.
  What I wanted to add to this discussion is some information on how the ArbCom appeals process works in practice. As an incoming arbitrator 18 months ago, it was a bit of a surprise as to the extent of it, although in retrospect it is somewhat explainable given that the whole process is conducted by necessity via email. ArbCom hears appeals for blocks (i) based on checkuser or oversight evidence, (ii) based on information that is not suitable for public discussion, or (iii) as a result of an arbitration case or arbitration enforcement remedy; the overwhelming majority (95–99%) of appeals are of checkuser blocks. Since the abolition of BASC, appeals are heard en banc, although not all arbitrators comment at every appeal, and it is usually a subset of arbitrators who typically partcipate in the appeals process. Once we have a net 4 of arbitrators for a certain decision for 48 hours, this decision is enacted.
  Most appeals are quickly rejected—it is very common for an appellant to either have socked at the time of the appeal or within the past few months. When a "last-chance"-type of appeal is accepted, the user has usually been away from Wikipedia for a median time of over a year. In this case, while there is serial sockpuppetry, there was no indication of further socking since 2019. I did a search of the archives prior to this thread, and I've been poring over them since the responses here. Simply put, I don't believe there are any active arbitrators who are familiar with this sockmaster, and the closest that we have in our archives in terms of the level of abuse described here was an incident of cop-impersonation. These threads suggest serial sockpuppetry as opposed to sustained harassment and abuse of Wikipedians. There didn't appear any particular indication in previous threads of which administrators or checkusers would be most familiar with user. The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years, and this appeal was as reasonable as we could expect. We decided to solicit feedback from the community as there was a 3X ban, along with the long history.
  I would argue there is an elephant in the room as to why ArbCom ends up with several appeals of CU blocks per week. We don't really elect arbitrators for their proficiency with detecting sockpuppetry and understanding checkuser output, nor do editors volunteer to serve as arbitrators on account of wanting to hear such appeals, yet, I look at about a 5–10 hour workload per week coordinating the process and investigating appeals. There could be a case made of punting such appeals to UTRS or similar. There is handful of appeals that we grant in year on the basis of a faulty block or a reasonable explanation for the (real or apparent) multiple accounts, so those should be a priority over the second (or third) chance types. That said, perhaps this thread is not the best forum for that discussion. I hope I have shed some light on the workings of appeals at ArbCom. For the purpose of clarity, these comments are on behalf of myself and not ArbCom. Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim, as a procedural question (and I realise your answer may quite reasonably be "I'm not sure"), do you think ArbCom is empowered by policy to simply reject out-of-hand an appeal of a community ban? From my understanding of WP:CBAN, alluded to in my comment above, the policy says that ArbCom can only directly handle appeals [w]here there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, which doesn't seem to be the case here. It would fit policy for ArbCom to say "wrong venue, go to UTRS", but equally I could understand why the Committee may feel that doing so just adds extra bureaucracy and adds to the UTRS workload. firefly ( t · c ) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Firefly, we consider CheckUser blocks, even if there are concurrent community bans and global locks involved. Maxim_(talk) 11:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim, ahhh I see - of course, because the CU element can't really be considered elsewhere because of the non-public-info angle. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 11:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim I appreciate the explanation, but in my opinion it raises more questions than it answers. Very serious and worrying questions, in fact.

  1. Are there no records of Kiko4564's intimidation, harassment, legal threats and impersonation on the various private mailing lists - such as the ArbCom or functionaries mailing lists, or on any of the private wikis which exist ? And if not, why not. Our institutional memory appears to have dementia and that frightens me. We really risk losing sight of why some users were initially indefinitely blocked or banned; there's a number who are indefinitely blocked or banned for the sort of severe intimidation and harassment that Kiko4564 was (I thought) well known for, additionally we've probably still got a couple of dozen users indefinitely blocked or banned for things like child protection issues from the time that the WMF Office was just Danny Wool and Office bans were not even thought about. Are we risking letting these people back onto the project because there's no effective record keeping about why they were blocked/banned 'back in the day' ?
  2. In the absence of effective records for some or all of the old blocks/bans, why aren't you contacting the blocking administrators and functionaries who were involved with these cases. I could have told you all of the above and much more besides, if I had been sent a quick e-mail by ArbCom a couple of days before you wanted to post this thread. I'm not particularly active right now, but pretty much every Arb knows where to find me and how to get in touch with me, and it's much the same for most of the blocking admins in Kiko's block log, and for most of the functionaries who CU blocked Kiko's accounts. I'm surprised at the lack of information on the mailing lists, but it's certainly true that we were quicker to block in the olden days and as a result there could well be less information on-wiki about why someone is blocked, so I would suggest for older blocks, maybe ArbCom would like to speak to those involved and double check if there's anything we remember or which is relevant to the decisions being discussed or proposed.

  Finally, I would point out that the most recent block log entry, for which I'm responsible, clearly states Abuse of administrators and WMF staff continues on IRC and there are repeated instances of talk page and e-mail access having to be removed from Kiko4564 because of misuse. There is only so much information one can put in a block log entry, but to claim The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years gives no confidence at all that any arbitrator actually read through the block log in any great detail, they certainly didn't read the appeal itself - Kiko4564 openly admits to doxing and legal threats, in complete contrast to the claim by our arbitrators that they had a sockmaster in front of them. Incompetence writ large. Nick (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Nick, I would say that there does exist some form of technical debt when it comes to documenting the worst abusers. One of the earlier email threads I remember from when I joined all of the fancy lists was on the subject of why someone was banned about 15 years ago—I believe a refresher or introduction for many was needed. I've again checked functionaries, the checkuser wiki, the arbitration wiki, and the arbitration mailing list archives. The most to suggest something more than serial sockuppetry and IRC trolling was a very brief IRC log shared in an old appeal that mentions an incident of cop impersonation but mostly discusses him getting banned from #wikipedia-en. As you mention, yes, the appeal itself has more worrying claims, but at the same time, that's only the appellant's perspective. There's been a bunch of appeals from this user in the past, all declined with mention of recent or continued socking. We should have dug deeper into the more troublesome claims made in the appeal. While I suppose a WP:AN thread is one way of shedding light on the matter, in hindsight, it was not the ideal approach in this case. Maxim_(talk) 12:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reading the comments above, and perusing their block log, I can't see an iota of a reason why the community should allow this editor back in the fold. Looking through there contributions, I do not see anything of such a quality that it would make putting up with them worthwhile. Definitely a huge net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not going to pile on with another bolded vote, just a comment that when harassment and doxxing are involved, such appeals should be dismissed out of hand, rather than risk a few regulars at AN who may not have all the details overturning a ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, strongly. This is a person who should be in jail, not editing Wikipedia. They've repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be part of this community without committing literal crimes against other editors and against Foundation staff. I'm curious why they're not office-banned. If we let people like this back in, why bother having a harassment policy at all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm writing to appeal my partial block to make edits in the article space. I've been going through the Articles for Creation process, and fully disclosing pages I am paid to edit. The reason I'm requesting my account to be unblocked is I've been asked directly by clients to remove/adapt potentially libelous content, per Wikipedia:Libel. It seems my involvement in this capacity could help Wikipedia (as the copyright holder). I know to go through an article's talk page to request these changes, but sometimes the Wikipedia community isn't responsive on these matters. Also, whenever making an edit in the future, I know to add a rationale for each, and go line by line (rather than a complete bulk edit).

--Jacobmcpherson (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, since your previous appeal in March you have not had one AfC page accepted so far, and you have only used the talk page of one article. Nothing here gives any confidence that you can be trusted to edit pages neutrally and factually, or that there really is such an unadressed need for you to remove libelous content. Fram (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So you want the partial block removed so you can do something you know you aren't supposed to do? Hut 8.5 11:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear more about this libellous material we're currently hosting? (As opposed to, say, material which those who pay paid editors would wish to whitewash away...) ——Serial 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would as well, since I haven't seen any sort of communication with OSPOL-related emails... Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Justlettersandnumbers and Xeno (who, respectively, originally blocked jacobmcpherson and modified the block to a partial). For my part, I am utterly uninterested in lifting the block - per Fram, only one talk page has been edited, and per Primefac, no suppression requests have been made to remove the "libelous" material, which makes me think that this is the definition of "libelous" that companies and paid editors use ("properly-sourced but makes us look bad"). "You keep using that word..." and all that. If a company hired you to edit Wikipedia, and you can't carry out the job, that's your problem, not ours. Show us you can play by the rules and make some useful edit requests on behalf of your clients instead of demanding an unblock. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock based on the above discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, GeneralNotability. I indeffed this account for the reasons given here. The block was – with my agreement – later modified by Xeno, but I do not see that any benefit has accrued to the project from that modification. The user appears still to be here for the sole purpose of promotion for his own personal gain. I not only oppose lifting the partial block, but propose that the original indefinite block be restored, to be lifted when, if, and only if, the user shows willingness to comply in full with all aspects of our paid-editing policy, and can convince us that he genuinely intends to start contributing to Wikipedia on topics in which he has no vested interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Largely per General Notability. Truly libellous (not just undesired) content can be emailed to oversight. Hog Farm _Talk 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I would argue this article isn't properly sourced - Jacob Sartorius. I don't believe whatstrending.com (for example) meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I also did try to e-mail the oversight team who didn't respond, and you can see requests I made on the article's talk page. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be exceptionally surprised - in fact I would be astounded - if Oversight did not process your message. If they didn’t respond I can only assume they thought the content was not worth suppressing (although in my experience they will usually reply and say as such). How did you contact them exactly? Using the EmailUser function on User:Oversight? firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

    I sent an e-mail to the oversight-en-wp address in April, and didn't hear back about that article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

    Did a little digging. An email was sent to ArbCom regarding a content issue, so Jacob was directed to email VRT (formerly OTRS), which was done (see ticket:2021033110007032). Oversight itself was not contacted (as far as I can tell) nor do I see any indication the ticket was ever in any queue other than info-en. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, I did find the e-mail I sent. I believe Jacob Sartorius' team also tried contacting Wikipedia oversight, as they're exploring all options. I see the link in question is now removed from his article. I might also look into the second paragraph of the intro text (with reference #2), and the other cited "controversies," (with references 16, 17, and 18), as they appear to be based on tweets / other forms of social media. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

    He had a point about the controversies section and I've edited that part (not directly at his request). Most of it was based on random unverified tweets that even the sources that reported them called BS on. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram and GeneralNotability. I suspect that a paid SPA is unlikely to gather my sympathy after editing in a fashion that gets them blocked. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial unblock and support Justlettersandnumbers's suggestion that the original indef block be restored. We can live without this guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial unblock and support indef. Most definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose a mainspace unblock at this time (it's clear based on the pattern of editing behaviour that this user has had a long time to learn how to edit and isn't ready to do stuff directly in mainspace) but I would like to see a clearer pathway to getting this restrictions removed. While this editor does have an old account; looking at the edit history it's a bunch of edits in 2009 then a little over 500 edits in the past few years. While they're not a new editor they're also not an experienced one either. I would like to see some specific guidance on how this editor can re-establish trust from the community. None of these expectations to have an AfC draft accepted or use the request edit functionality properly were outlined at the last appeal discussion so I don't get how this editor would've been able to fulfill them, especially the requirement to have an AfC draft accepted since the AfC backlog is 4+ months long and the last request was 3 months ago. That's an unreasonable expectation to have.

In terms of making expectations clearer, I'd like to see this editor demonstrate an understanding of how to use the talk page to have edits made to an article and/or at least some AfC submissions accepted before an unblock from articlespace. I'd also like to see a significantly better understanding of avoiding promotional language (in drafts, rejected or otherwise, I'd like to see compliance with WP:PROMO to show an understanding of writing neutrally). For what it's worth, he's right that he's not inherently banned from editing articles directly as a paid editor and he's also not inherently obligated to go through the AfC process as a paid editor. This isn't a correct interpretation of policy and the original COIN discussion that said so is wrong. But I do believe these are privileges that shouldn't be given back at this time (and were right to have been taken away) because this editor demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of WP:PROMO in their editing history. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Chess, I do respond to supportive guidance, and have been seeking that. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock because the reasoning is implausible: if we were truly taking about libel, there is no way that the community would be "unresponsive". So presumably what we're actually talking about is sourced, negative material that Jacob's clients want to bury. And support restoring the indef block as a spam-only account, which were it not for xeno's bizarre intervention in March would have saved a lot of volunteer time since. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  One thing to consider @Joe Roe is the discussions I have with clients, and the amount of articles I don't agree to take on (which could also save volunteer time). It's not like just because someone wants to pay me to edit, I say yes. There's often a lot of e-mailing back and forth, and explaining expectations (which includes the consensus based model that Wikipedia operates). In this sense, I would argue that volunteer time is saved from telling people to hold off or they don't have enough noteworthy sources to start an article draft. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but it would be even less time wasted if you just didn't edit for pay. The proposal here is that you are not here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to promote your clients. So the pertinent question is not what you say to your clients, but when was the last time you made an edit you weren't paid for? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: I'd have to disagree with that. Reading the Jacob Sartorius article and the "controversies" section the stuff I just removed was poorly sourced weasel-worded bullshit. One of the sources surfaced allegations of bad behaviour on Sartorius' part based solely on tweets which the source actually took a negative stance on: [29] "I've watched this video clip like it's the Zapruder film, and I'll be perfectly honest: I don't totally see where he looks disgusted. Awkward, perhaps." The source itself called the accusation that Jacob Sartorius was "disgusted" bullshit basically but the article included the accusation without any context whatsoever. I wouldn't call it libel but he's kind of right. The community clearly didn't give a shit about the content of that article that's why it took several weeks to get the lede changed from describing him as "an American social media personality, often regarded by many as being "famous for nothing"". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call it libel – so what are we disagreeing about? There's a big difference between libel, which Jacob could plausibly claim he needs to act immediately to remove, and poorly sourced information, which can wait for an edit request. If somebody commissions a Wikipedia article about themselves (as it appears Sartorius did), they can't complain too loudly that it attracts negative material. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Article subjects may complain as loudly as they want if their Wikipedia article contains material in violation of our WP:BLP policy. Seeking to be written about is not the same as granting permission for improperly sourced negative material to be published about oneself. I also wonder how your suggestion to wait for an edit request is compatible with your position that the editor should be blocked from creating same. –xeno^talk 13:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're acting as if Jacob's business is fighting BLP violations. It's not. We've had one, pretty borderline example of that, which the subject could well have noted themselves. His actual business is gaming our guidelines to write poorly-sourced, promotional biographies of minor figures that the community has repeatedly had to clean up. I respect that we have a difference opinion on how strictly COI should be enforced, but have you guys actually looked at the content you're defending here? – Joe (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's not libel but it was badly sourced negative material about a living person that I just removed that Jacob was complaining about. That's why I'd disagree with unbanning him but I don't believe we should indef at this time. We're disagreeing on whether or not his ban should be increased to a total ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maintain current state per Chess: the editor should be permitted to make requests on article talk pages, especially to address BLP violations like the example noted. I haven't yet seen the improvements I was looking for in this editor to support a return to mainspace, but the editor is properly disclosing their conflicts and making requests in the prescribed way. Blocking someone for asking questions seems counter-productive and capricious: paid editing is permitted by policy. –xeno^talk 11:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Both appeal and reinstating indef block, the status quo seems fine.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Previous request was archived without consensus

ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor would like to try again at getting unblocked, and has placed the following on their talkpage in an unblock request:

I was blocked from Wikipedia sometime in early 2018 or before that and I remember in 2018 I was told to take the standard offer (to not edit the wiki in 6 months then place an unblock request) but I forgot to place an unblock request 6 months later and instead placed one in may 2019 (1 year and 2 months later) and the discussion expired with no clear consensus to lift the block at that time, more info such as the unblock requests can be found on my talk page. I haven't been on Wikipedia since mid-2019 but thought about it a few days ago and want to try to get unblocked and have a chance at editing again, I have matured a lot since 2019. I'm really, really sorry to Floquenbeam for what I said while I was angry about getting blocked, I was being immature and took my anger out in the wrong way. My block changed to a checkuser block a few years ago as when I was blocked I made other accounts to edit (sockpuppetry), I was immature in doing that and have learned from my mistakes. I think when I was first blocked the reason was something like reverting a pages edits more than once after being told not to and if I am unblocked I will only make edits which follow Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Yamla at UTRS#44444, there is no recent evidence of sockpuppetry. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 18:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like the gist of it is that the editor was blocked in 2017 for general CIR issues. He was blocked for a week following an ANI and some unrelated edits, then it seems when the block expired they decided to go troll on the blocking admin's page and continued the same editing. Then they did this and got TPA revoked. Really, all this seems to just be an extension of general immaturity. All in all, especially compared to another recent socking appeal, there's nothing particularly egregious here. It's been almost 4 years, which can be sufficient for age-related competence issues to improve. The appeal seems reasonable enough; I can't speculate on what the user's future editing tenure will be like, but it seems difficult to argue that there's a WP:PREVENTATIVE reason for not even giving the user a chance to return to good standing. So support, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Four years is enough time to mature and we can reblock if not. As ProcrastinatingReader points out, the behaviour here was inappropriate but not egregious. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Blocking admin comment: To be honest, I don't recall this one, and don't have time to do much research, but from a brief skim it looks like it was a maturity issue, so I'm not concerned about an unblock 4 years later and am happy to defer to everyone else's decision here. Oh, and apology appreciated and accepted ReeceTheHawk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Nothing super egregious was done, and it's been more than long enough. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per others. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have indication of how Reece actually intends to improve Wikipedia if unblocked, as I don't see anything in this request or any of his previous ones other than a vague I am experienced with Twinkle and have used it to make edits in the past to make it easier for other editors. I asked for more detail in the previous AN discussion linked above, and didn't get an answer. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree:, ReeceTheHawk has responded to you on their talkpage:

  Hello, first of all I would like to thank the people who have replied to the thread in support of my unblock. I would also like to thank Floquenbeam for appreciating and accepting my apology. If you are referring to my future edits if I am unblocked, I think I can help improve the wiki with my edits and hopefully I can be guided by other, more experienced editors on things like what kind of edits to make or what kind of articles to edit, etc. Some of the edits I used to make was to link some key words in articles that didn't have many key words linking to their corresponding articles, but if editors who are a lot better than me feel like I could edit more to help the wiki and its articles, hopefully they can guide me and give me some useful tips and tricks. Also, thank you to you and the other people who are helping me through this process. I would also like to change my Wikipedia name if I am unblocked. - ReeceTheHawk (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  So basically just gnoming then. Well ok, I guess they won't do any harm. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support It seems the block was related to competence and sinking too much community time. I see nothing truly egregious. Since it is very easy to reblock if the problems resume I support unblocking as this time. Competence has a tendency to improve over time in about 85% of people so I see no reason not to give another chance. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a user called User:FirefangIedfeathers (with an uppercase i) vandalizing pages ([30]), clearly impersonating User:Firefangledfeathers (with a lowercase L). They even redirected their user page to the original editor's talk page ([31]). The original editor is currently out of town. —El Millo (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Done and dusted, thanks for the report. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Saw that as I was getting on a plane. Feels good to land with it taken care of. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the correct board for this; if it is not please feel free to delete and point me in the right direction with an appropriate edit summary.

Like most sports, the World Snooker Tour is divided into seasons, typically starting in July and ending in May. Late May and June is a period of tour qualification and restructuring, although last year Covid affected the time table somewhat. The off-season period is usually a frenzy of activity for WP:Snooker. I have been a member of the project for about 10 years, and one set of articles I have taken on as my responsibility is preparing the seasonal ranking points lists. You can view last year's points list at Snooker world ranking points 2020/2021. A couple of days ago I started prepping Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022.

The problem started when Discospinster moved it to draft space, incidentally wiping out some work I had not yet saved, despite an "Under construction" tag clearly indicating that I was currently working on the article. I moved the article back into article space but Discospinster again reverted the movie. Discospinster appears to be insisting on a certain threshold of development before allowing the article to exist in article space.

By insisting that the article be developed in draftspace first, Discospinster fundamentally misunderstands how these articles develop and is actively obstructing necessary work. These articles involve massive amounts of data entry, and it is not reasonable to expect a single editor to undertake this work on their own. This stage of work is usually undertaken by other project members, SPAs and anonymous editors. For this development to occur the article needs to exist in article space. Moreover, this stage usually occurs during the staging of a tournament. After the tournament concludes the WSA publishes an updated ranking list which can be used to source the data entry i.e. there is often a lag between the data being entered and the sourcing being added to the article. Before any of this occurs I need to prep the article i.e. build the table and add the player templates. To give you an understanding of how development occurs on these articles, here are some key milestones in last season's article:

1. I create the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=977724402 (Sep 10, 2021)
2. I prep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=978538546 (Sep 15, 2021)
3. Over the course of the tournament other editors (project members, SPAs and IP editors begin the massive exercise of data entry when the season starts): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980502087 (Sep 26, 2021)
4. Upon completion of the tournament the new ranking list is published and I added it as a source to the first ranking update: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980893937 (September 29, 2021; NOTE: please ignore the malformed table here, the issue was fixed a week later)

This has never been an issue in the 10 years I have been working on this series. Requiring the article to be developed in draft space until the data in it is sourced would reverse the natural development process i.e. entering the data after the tournament when interest has passed. Moreover, the anonymous editors simply won't turn up and fill in the data in draft space. In short, it would vastly increase my workload to an excessive amount, that I am simply not prepared to shoulder on my own.

It is important to get the 2021/2022 article prepped ahead of the new season. If I can be allowed to develop it in article space then I would greatly appreciate that. The article needs to exist at some point, and the previous articles in the series are all fully sourced. Just to be clear, I am not asking for a relaxing of Wikipedia's sourcing standard just a bit of flexibility in getting the article to that point. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shunting articles into draft space might be ok when it's the work of a single editor and notability is doubtful, but it doesn't make sense when it's part of a series of articles on an established topic that will be improved by editors collaborating in mainspace. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely right but I'd also like to add on that this clearly goes against the draftification policy at WP:NPPDRAFT. Discospinster seems to misunderstand how that policy works; notably that draftification should only be used "there is no evidence of active improvement". An under construction template is evidence of active improvement, and additionally point 3b explicitly states that "a revert of a previous draftification" is evidence that the author intends to continue working on it (WP:DRAFTIFY elaborates that authors are allowed to object to draftification; the proper remedy to such would be an AfD). It is concerning to see someone who has draftified 117 articles in this month alone (User:Discospinster/Draftify log) decide to just ignore policy like this. Discospinster should immediately refrain from draftifying any more articles until they actually read the draftification policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of the draftification policy explanatory supplement. I am also aware of the verifiability policy which states that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. An "under construction" tag is meant to protect an already-acceptable article from deletion or draftification, not as a backdoor around the need for sources. All of this could have been avoided if @Betty Logan: had added just one reference before publishing to article space. Same goes for all of the other articles I have placed into draft. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: You're saying you routinely move unsourced articles to draft space? I don't disagree with this approach but I think it's against consensus to do so. Levivich 17:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: There is no consensus. ... discospinster _talk 17:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And so the justification for moving it repeatedly would be...? Because it's not WP:V, which is what you cited, because V requires content to be verifiable, not verified (sources are not required to be linked in the article at all). The line from V you quoted contains the words "that needs a source." This doesn't need a source, per V, as long as it's verifiable. Or maybe I misunderstand V. Levivich 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there is a difference of opinion here. If I have gone against any policy or consensus please let me know. Otherwise I stand by my actions. ... discospinster _talk 22:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I agree with moving unsourced articles to draftspace to incubate. I would like to do that myself, I just didn't think we were "allowed" to. If it's permitted, I'll start doing it as well, but I don't want to be taken to a noticeboard as you have been :-) Levivich 23:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Draftification specifically is not a backdoor to deletion. So, draftifying to delete an article because you think all of it needs removal per "may be removed" from WP:V is against consensus. WP:CSD is what we have to remove whole articles; if an article doesn't meet a CSD criterion, it is against consensus to unilaterally delete it. Draftification is appropriate only when the article is not being actively improved. No matter how bad it looks, if it is being built, it can be built in mainspace. The solution we have for crappy articles showing up on google is, we expect autopatrolled editors to publish articles that make some sense and we don't mark reviewed articles from non-autopatrolled editors while they are not ready to go public. Additionally, draftifying twice is move-warring. "Draft" space is entirely optional; no editor or article may be forced into draftspace, except to enforce consensus (from XFD, ANI, etc.) The policy is WP:ATD-I but explanatory supplements are as good as policy, nothing's been made up. Levivich is correct that WP:V stands for verifiable, not verified. WP:BLP is the only policy that requires material to be verified. The rest is subject to consensus. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:DRAFTIFY is not policy or consensus, and it's not "as good as policy" (it even says so on the page), and WP:VERIFY places the burden to demonstrate verifiability on the person who adds or re-adds the information. This is what I use to guide my decisions and unless you can actually show I'm going against a policy or consensus (not your interpretation of it), then I think my position is clear. If you want to get a wider opinion then feel free. ... discospinster _talk 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators are not arbiters of an article's quality or notability. WP:DRAFT explicitly states that editors have a right to object to draftification and "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." That seems to be unequivocal on the matter. There is no support for your position so I will be recreating the article—in mainspace—later in the week. If you believe it violates WP:N then it is your prerogative to submit it to AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: This is the place where people get wider opinions. The opinions have been overwhelmingly that you're using draftification wrong. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that maybe you're going against community norms then perhaps it's necessary to have a wider discussion about your behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this can just be handled at AfD? If the article is truly not up to snuff then that can be argued there, if it cannot be argued there then I don't know of any policy that keeps it out of mainspace. Can we agree on this? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• If you don't like WP:DRAFTIFY (which in fact does have broad consensus), discospinster, take your pick from WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DELPOL. If you move a page and somebody objects, stop and talk about it. If you think an article is not fit for mainspace, use the deletion process. However you look at it, edit-warring over a draft is counter to our norms and policies, and reflects especially badly on you as an administrator. Nothing in WP:V says that you alone get to decide what meets WP:V. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)