Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 41 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 105 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 26 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#RfC On the Better of Two Revisions

(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	12	12
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	10	10
RfD	0	0	0	45	45
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Category:National artists of Thailand

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 November 2024) JJP_Master (she/they) 15:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 316 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 October 2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM that has been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 October 2024

(Initiated 47 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 8888 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Hans (clan) 2024-11-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case IDF Spokesperson's Unit 2024-11-27 22:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: my bad Ymblanter Draft:Laxminarayan Maharana 2024-11-27 19:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking, spamming DoubleGrazing Aras War 2024-11-27 19:25 indefinite create General sanction enforcement for Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict topic area Tamzin Blake Snell 2024-11-27 18:08 2024-11-30 04:40 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Autoconfirmed editors continue to add an unconfirmed contract Muboshgu Template:Jsub 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2510 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Year category name 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:AFL Haw 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire agreement 2024-11-27 13:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Draft:Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Tomer Bar 2024-11-27 02:17 indefinite edit,move WP:PIA DatGuy Sarah Toscano 2024-11-27 01:21 2025-05-27 01:21 move Move warring against RM Red-tailed hawk Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion 2024-11-26 23:30 indefinite edit Restoring protection by HJ Mitchell: Contentious topic restriction Protection Helper Bot User talk:114.129.250.118 2024-11-26 22:06 2024-12-03 22:06 move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish Za'atar 2024-11-26 21:09 2025-11-26 21:09 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli generals' plan 2024-11-26 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Shiva 2024-11-26 16:25 2025-11-26 16:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:31.163.172.36 2024-11-26 15:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:115.23.250.36 2024-11-26 13:12 2025-11-26 13:12 create HJ Mitchell Dheerendra Singram 2024-11-26 11:14 2025-02-26 11:14 create Repeatedly recreated, PP (EC) 3mos DoubleGrazing Palestine exception 2024-11-25 23:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Basta airstrikes 2024-11-25 19:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Deif family killings 2024-11-25 19:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Oyo Empire 2024-11-24 22:14 2024-12-24 22:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Fathoms Below ADA vbe EBEN 2024-11-24 22:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fathoms Below Ọranyan 2024-11-24 21:38 2024-12-15 21:38 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Israel Katz 2024-11-24 21:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kerem Shalom aid convoy looting 2024-11-24 20:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Hostomel 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Brovary 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

Proposing a temporary measure to assist in protecting the Main Page

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

---

As many Wikipedians have noticed, several accounts have recently been compromised. Three of these compromised accounts have been administrator accounts, and all three compromised admin accounts focused on vandalizing the Main Page, the public face of the project. The most recent compromised administrator account is that of a highly active administrator. I am part of the team investigating this series of events, along with stewards, other checkusers, and WMF Security and Trust & Safety staff. There are several actions taking place in the background, mainly for security and/or privacy requirements, that will not be discussed in this thread.

One proposed temporary measure to mitigate the damage being caused by this vandal is to restrict editing of the Main Page to administrators who also hold Interface Administrator permissions. There is rarely a need to edit the Main Page itself — almost all of the work is done in the background using templates — so the impact of this temporary measure is minimal.

As noted, this is intended to be a temporary measure that will give both the community and the investigating team some "breathing space" to focus on the vandal rather than the impact of the vandalism. It was suggested that we bring this change to the community for discussion prior to implementing it. Does anyone have any feedback on this proposal? Thanks for your participation. Risker (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it technically possible? The Main Page itself may not need many edits but the templates transcluded on it which are cascade protected are a different matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Adding a protection level is relatively trivial to do in the MediaWiki back-end. Just needs consensus. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This can be done by private filter from what I’ve been told. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear: Is this possible without all the templates transcluded on it also becoming it-protected? Because that would be hefty collateral damage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: what @TonyBallioni: said been added. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support enough is enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Take this c**t down. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support could be done in MediaWiki, or possibly with an edit filter. --Rschen7754 21:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• As the front page of the site, the Main Page is arguably an interface page in spirit. Reasonable protection mechanism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - and once this current outbreak has died down, an RfC should be run to make this change permanent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yup, filter please - TNT ^💖 21:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x4 Support No need for this nonsense. (Please make sure there are some intadmins checking out the errors page every once in a while.) Natureium (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, even with an option of protecting other higly visible pages such as Donald Trump for a short time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  This was already done earlier. Killiondude's account compromise rendered it useless. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly my point. I mean moving these pages into mediawiki namespace so that only interface admins can edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: sysops can edit MediaWiki pages already. The only pages restricted to interface admins are cascading style sheets and javascript pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, and as an interface admin on three projects I should have thought well before writing this. Anyway, my point is that the main page can be protected such that only interface admins can edit it (e.g. by adding a new protection level), then other highly visible pages can only get similar protection for a short time.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Striken the option. In view of the office action requiring TFA for all interface admins, it is absolutely not ok if only users who can afford a smartphone (or at least a laptop) will be able to edit articles such as Donald Trump.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but I'd like to hear that the cascading protection issues have been fully considered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose (temporary position), it's clear from some of the objections that the cascade issue hasn't been fully considered, and that this will either prevent updates to the main page or won't be at all effective. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support all reasonable measures to protect the encyclopedia against this vile attack and similar incidents in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. This is not what the interface admin right was introduced for and the talk of this measure being temporary is already being subverted above. So far as I can see, the recent incidents have been handled just fine, with no significant impact or press coverage. The main page says that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Limiting access to a tiny handful of people is blatantly contrary to this fundamental principle. Andrew D. (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's already restricted to only admins. How is restricting access to intadmins "blatantly contrary to this fundamental principle" if limiting it to admins isn't? Natureium (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Andrew, please. I'm glad you have an opinion on everything, but that these very incidents happened means things are not "just fine". Drmies (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• At least temporarily some additional WP:BEANS controls have been added, these are far from perfect but may help and should not be in the way of daily workflow. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seriously Andrew, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean "continually replace Donald Trump's article with a picture of an ejeculating penis". I think just about anyone knows that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I disagree with Andrew Davidson's comment. The Main Page already isn't editable by 99.999999999999% of the world's population; what will restricting access even further do anything more to the fact that the Main Page already doesn't fit with the whole "anyone can edit" philosophy? As for how the incidents have been handled, you may very well commend our team of stewards for acting quickly to stop further disruption, but in the case of admin accounts getting compromised it seems to be a better solution to prevent such events from happening in the first place rather than having an "oopsies" moment when the Main Page is replaced with Commons porn, even if it's reverted within ten seconds. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – fairly obvious, really. SNOW-close, please. Bradv 22:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but let's not let "I need to edit the Main Page" become a new reason to hand out intadmin rights. What the attacker could do with an intadmin account is much, much worse, and I'd like to keep the number of such accounts as low as possible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't really think this one through. I'd oppose but I don't know how to explain my rationale without getting BEANsy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support solely for the main page; I agree with the comments that due to the nature of transclusions, that page is already similar to an interface page (and assume that transcluded pages would not be affected). I don't think this will be effective for other pages; rationale withheld per WP:BEANS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some discussion that this would also affect transcluded pages. In that case, I'd only support if it was a separate permission from INTADMIN. Ideally, it would be a permission that could be given to trusted non-admins, specifically The Rambling Man. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Regardless of what the best approach should be, there are times when one has to use whatever tool is at hand, and build better tools later. Perhaps we should start looking at a scheme of progressive protection where "anybody" can edit at the bottom of the pyramid, but increasing experience and trust are required to move up to vital or more developed pages.

As a side note, I have long thought that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – which isn't even true – should be changed to "the collaborative free encyclopedia", emphasising working together. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the WMF uses that tag line anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support (x10,000). Porn on the main page by compromised accounts is a severe problem. We have active interface admins and as others have mentioned, the main page itself doesn't need editing frequently, so I think this would clearly do more good than it would harm. But is there a way to protect a page with cascading protection at a certain level, but then have a higher local protection level? If it isn't possible, then I definitely would not support intadmin-protecting all pages transcluded onto the main page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  We've done that now, but it is more of a speed-bump than a road-block. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been an admin for 11 years, and never needed to edit it (well, apart from this evening, and someone even beat me to that by fractions of a second, so thanks for that). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yeah and... an inability for an admin to unblock themselves would be useful as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: You may want to check out this proposal I made at VPR. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support temporarily as proposed for the Main Page. -- KTC (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a temporary measure (but how would this work? A new form of protection, since this isn't in the MediaWiki namespace?) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also, I don't think using an edit filter will be completely effective, not saying the weakness per you-know-what, but one could figure out what it is. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support The attacker is doing us a favor by highlighting the weaknesses. They will move on to the next weak link but protecting the main page is obviously required. Re "how would this work?": developers can do anything and they will quickly fix the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, since I just got back from dealing with this guy. GAB^gab 01:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't dare to touch it, anyway. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't mind if this is a permanent change; the Main Page itself doesn't need editing very often. funplussmart (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support  temporary measure. Orientls (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Support, Sensible measure. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Upon further reflection, I understand this will not solve the problem without cascading and with cascading, it creates bigger problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as if I'm reading this right, only the actual Main Page will receive this additional protection, not T:DYK etc. I'd be willing to support this as a permanent change, too. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support I think Andrew's comment is being wrongly ignored as the discussion above seems to be the creation of a new level of page protection which I do not think should exist or be used on this project except for this specific instance. I do not think having or applying IAdmin protection to anything except javascript pages is something that I would ever want, and the only reason I would be in favor of this is because of the recent security concerns. I do not think we should ever have a protection level that restricts editing to 14 people. For comparison, twice as many people are in the staff group (a little over 30), allowing them to edit superprotected pages, than are IAdmins on enwiki. The admonition against WP:CREEP should be taken more seriously and the temporary nature of this use emphasized. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My weak support has now become Oppose given a lot of the subsequent discussion. Jimbo's account has been compromised before, IAdmins can be compromised, and restricting editing to these few people, while more likely to prevent abuse, will make resolving any actual abuse more difficult. I'd rather greater risk but quicker response than less risk and slower response. I also think this whole thing has turned into a catch-22. I'm opposed to cascading protection for the Main Page, since it would turn IAdmin into something it was never supposed to be, but not cascade protecting the main page would result in the vandals moving on to the templates themselves. I really think this is just generally a bad idea the more I think about it. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have been busy so I'm not up to play. I'm not opposed to the idea although I'm not sure this will help a great deal from what's been said. I appreciate per BEAN etc that maybe details can't be discussed for this very reason so maybe there can be no clarification. But I don't think what I'm saying here is likely to be reveal anything not already obvious to prying eyes. It sounds like the plan is to still allow admins to make changes to the templates without requiring an interface admin to approve them. In that case, it seems like the vandal will just move on to vandalising the templates. I mean they're probably already working out what to do. While I appreciate they have been directly editing the main page so far, they haven't had a reason not to. And while trying passwords from previous leaks (which I assume is probably what's happening) is not really that technically demanding if you only have a few to try, it seems unlikely to me anyone capable of this won't figure it out fairly fast. Again maybe no comment can be offered, but is it believed the templates can somehow be protected against this vandalism in ways the actually main page can't? Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support only until a stronger solution is determined. The attacker (or an attacker, maybe not this one) has already demonstrated they can compromise 2FA-enabled accounts. Restricting access to intadmins reduces our security exposure, but will just focus the attacks on a different class of user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait which 2FA account got hacked? I hope what you're saying isn't true, it would mean that even 2FA isn't enough to stop the attack. funplussmart (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know which accounts specifically. 2FA is a good solution but it's not perfect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Hi, none of the accounts compromised in this attack had 2FA. We currently believe all compromises in this attack were due to people using the same password on other websites which presumably got hacked. 2FA is of course not a magic bullet - it won't fix every security problem (e.g. If someone steals your computer well logged in, 2FA is not going to stop that. If you add malicious Javascript to your special:mypage/common.js, 2FA can't stop that) but 2FA would have stopped this attack if the admins in question had enabled it. I strongly encourage all admins to enable 2FA. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, come on. Really? I'd much rather have compromised admin accounts announcing themselves to us by editing the main page than do other things. As it is, I don't think this is worth anywhere near the community time or consternation we have all spent on this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ^^^This. Compromised admin accounts used to be immediately detectable to every other logged-in admin on the site back when they announced themselves by making "Main Page" go red on every page. Now that it isn't deleteable because of the same sort of technical measure being proposed here, they have to "settle" for goatseing it. Some improvement. The last thing we want to do is make them settle for one of the couple dozen ways you can cause real and/or irreversible harm with a sysop bit. —Cryptic 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose int-admin cascading protection, but I do support a MediaWiki imposed int-admin protection to the Main Page itself, and perhaps a few others, as is the status-quo with filter 943. The filter was an emergency measure. Using interface admin isn't really the right way to go. I agree with others below that there shouldn't be non-technical people in the technical user group. We either need a new user group, or only int-admin protect the main page itself, and not the pages transcluded on it. Better yet, phab:T210192#4771932, phab:T150826 and phab:T150576. Sorry if I misled anyone — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support until other security measures can be implemented or the vandalism subsides. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in contrast to the discussion about removing the unblockself permission this would create a real problem if one of the accounts with interface-editor were to be compromised, it would leave us with little means to reverse their actions. For this to work it would also need to be cascading protection as otherwise something could just be added to a page transcluded to the main page, that severely restricts the number of people who can put anything on the main page. Fix that by adding more people to the usergroup and we're back where we started. We should be looking at a technical solution to solve the problem, maybe some sort of double confirmation by two admins to put things on the main page (similar to pending changes in a way, but without auto accept). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Callanecc:. It seems to me you're opposing based on wrong assumption that: the protection must propagate (cascade) to all transcluded pages, DYK, ITN etc... thereby limiting placing items to only less than 10? techadmins. But from what I understand that's not what will happen. Only the "Mainpage" will be protected with this above-admin level, this will be done via MediaWiki backend and question of "how" is beyond the scope of this discussion. What's is just needed is the consensus. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for asking Ammarpad, my point was that the only way for protection like this to be effective would be to protect transclusions at the same level. I'm opposed to protecting the transclusions so also to protecting the main page in this way. However, maybe something like pending changes for admins to edit the main page (or transcluded pages) where it required two admins to make a change (one to initiate and one to approve) would be a good solution. In the meantime the status quo should prevail so that we can more easily deal with any further compromised accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  The notion of there being less ways to revert vandalism is one of the only reasons I'm partially reconsidering my support vote. However, I do think that if we have a mandatory 2FA enabled intadmin account hacked, we have more on our hands than just the main page being changed, and the person behind these attacks know this. Unless they just want to make a statement for publicity, they can do a lot worse (which is why intadmin exists in the first place). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Anarchyte, There are a number of ways a 2FA-secured account can become compromised - and while I won't list them all here, physical theft of device (most likely a phone or chromebook/laptop) would be the first one that would come to mind for me. SQL^{Query me!} 01:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  @SQL: I'm aware. I'm saying that given WMF Office has now forced all intadmins to enable 2FA, if they get hacked we have something bigger on our hands. An intadmin can do real damage and I'm sure that's what a hacker would do with one, unless they only want to change the main page for publicity. An admin account can do a lot but we can no longer truly break the site. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not "opposing" but I would just like to ensure this is thought through fully before being implemented.

1. If the protection cascades then we have an issue:

a) The existing small number interface admins will be responsible for all DYK, OTD, POTD, FA, FL updates. this is clearly not going to work, so:

b) We will have to make a bunch of new interface admins. Not a good idea, the whole idea of the role is to minimize the number of people with that kind of access.

2. If the protection does not cascade then it's not actually going to prevent a compromised admin account from vandalizing the main page, without specifying details, and in fact might make it harder slower to track down and resolve the problem.

I think rather than misuse the interface admin permission, which sounds like a neat idea in principle but a bad one when considering the detail, something else would need to be done. I am not in favour of uncoupling admin permissions, because we have a small pool of administrators anyway and adding further obstacles to admins who (for example) have never edited the main page but want to help when they see a backlog or an issue arise will silo things up even more and make things less flexible. I don't have the right solution, but I have concerns about the proposed one for the reasons above. Fish+Karate 09:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Non-essential admin area and page that generally requires minimal change. Restrict to those who actually need it. talk to !dave 14:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have the same problems that Fish and karate has. Everything on the Main Page – DYK, ITN, all of it – is cascaded. We're about to make a very small group of people responsible for carrying out all the updates to the Main Page, If those people are prepared to do that, including updating DYK however often it has to be updated, I'm fine with it. If not, we either have to make more intadmins, which kind of defeats the purpose of having intadmins in the first place, or find another solution. Katie^talk 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per all supports and K6ka - FlightTime (open channel) 17:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - For starters, this is not what the intadmin permission was intended for. And when one of those accounts becomes compromised (intadmin isn't a magic flag that makes your account unhackable), there will be even fewer around that can undo the damage. Additionally, Fish and karate makes a fantastic point about narrowing who can work on the main page. SQL^{Query me!} 18:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose if we keep the cascading protection then you will need to be an interface admin to work on WP:DYK, WP:ITN/C, WP:ERRORS, etc. This massively restricts the pool of people who can work on those processes. The people who are interface admins were chosen for their technical skill at HTML/CSS/etc and don't necessarily have any interest in or ability to deal with those processes. We could appoint a load more interface admins to do this work, but that would rather defeat the point of the proposal. On the other hand if we turn cascading protection off then we make the whole of the main page much less secure, and even if we manage to manually protect everything transcluded on the main page I'm sure the attacker is capable of going after one of those pages instead. People I talk to about Wikipedia in real life usually have little or no idea that the main page even exists, I don't think it's a huge problem as advertised. Hut 8.5 18:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support if temporary. Should be reverted to be only admin when the compromised accounts are taken care of. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This creates more problems than it solves. I think Callanecc is on the right track with a modified PC. Crazynas ^t 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support but via the already made EF. Optionally support int-admin to MP by way of the same backed protection system that prevents move/delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  And if anyone wants to say but what about EFM issues - I think we should make EFM be along the same process as int-admin, including expiring it from admins that haven't actually used it in a while. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Agree on both counts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support would support this as a permanent measure --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, however oppose practically until the casacding issue described below is resolved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the bits that I'm seeing below, about admins being able to edit the component content (or requiring interface-admin rights to edit pages like On This Day), remember that Jimbo's account was compromised two years ago and used to vandalise the Main Page. (Admin-only link, and someone appropriately uses rollback on that edit.) Even super-admin accounts with rights like interface admin or founder can be compromised, and when it requires super-admin rights to edit the Main Page, it will sometimes take a good deal longer to revert vandalism: it's easy to find an admin to revert vandalism to a protected page rather quickly, but finding an interface admin or a steward may take a good number of minutes. We mustn't pretend that interface admins, stewards, or founders are 100% immune from compromise, so we shouldn't imagine that restricting Main Page editing to them will prevent this kind of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: Though "super-admin" accounts like int-admin and founder are much less likely to be compromised, since int-admins are required by the WMF to use two-factor authentication, and Jimbo probably uses 2FA (does anyone know this for sure?) ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. After reading this through, I'm unable to see a resolution to the cascading protection issue. I would support the main page being protected without cascading protection being applied, to slightly reduce the target for any potential vandals, but I doubt that would do much. I suspect the best option here would be to create a new user group and new protection level intended purely for the main page and its constituent elements. I would also support making 2FA mandatory for this group. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, beyond the measures already taken. The cure is worse than the disease here; while I'd be willing to help out as an intadmin with maintaining the Main Page, there just aren't enough of us to go around, and increasing the numbers of intadmins to do off-mission stuff like this defeats the purpose of spinning intadmins off in the first place. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (go PC) - the cascading issue is too major. Int-admins are, by design, a tiny group (they didn't even let in 4 trusted technical non-admins). Without cascading we don't really do anything. With it we'd need far more to cover everything, including blocking certain areas that were the main reason some admins actually joined up. Additionally, it seems bold of us to add such a job to the int-admin remit without at least half of them saying yes (this is a secondary concern). Getting an admin-only Pending Changes approach seems much better. Obviously more than 1 admin can have their account compromised but it should significantly reduce the frequency of issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A note - an alternate mooted strategy of main-page admins (functionally granted on request, though presumably after a delay to stop immediate requests than vandalism) would seem less preferable because of a patient vandal to abuse. That said, it would also be an alternate potential method. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Oppose per Andrew D. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose until someone comes up with a solution to the cascading problem and allow timely updates to ITN and DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my comments below - in essence, concerns about DYK and that the Main Page remains vulnerable thorough its various templates and that this is WP:CREEP. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Split vote. I was almost swayed by the original proposal but L235 convinced me otherwise. If an admin account is compromised, we want it to be obvious. I strongly oppose cascading IAdmin protection of Main Page itself cascading IAdmin protection on Main Page, because that's exactly the opposite of what IAdmin is for: protect interface, don't protect content. We've finally managed to move WP:Geonotice to a space where all sysops can update content and now we want to stop admins updating content? No. I would weakly support non-cascading IAdmin protection of Main Page, with cascading standard full-protection (argh, full protection is no longer the highest level of protection) for things that are directly transcluded onto Main Page, considering that the Main Page itself is basically an interface container rather than content. Deryck C. 18:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose abuse of the IAdmin right. There are many other ways for compromised admin accounts to disrupt Wikipedia while creating a large impact other than vandalizing the main page, protecting the main page is only going to encourage hackers to move to other areas. I agree with SQL's concern as well. feminist (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral - permanently move the Main Page to Mediawiki namespace, but remove the cascading protection and manually template-protect the individual MP templates instead. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 23:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Lojbanist, Why would we move the main page to the mediawiki namespace? SQL^{Query me!} 01:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose vandalism would shift to transcluded templates. Protecting the main page won’t stop ompromised accounts. Stephen 05:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without cascading, protection would be toothless and they could just vandalize the transcluded templates. With cascading, well, that's totally not what the interface admin role was designed for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yet another slippery slope eroding WP:EDIT. If even admins are not allowed to fix problems or improve content in certain pages of Wikipedia, who will be denied editing next? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 06:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - If transcluded pages are also protected, it makes fixing WP:ERRORS impossible. If they aren't transcluded, compromised admin accounts will simply abuse those. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 13:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the hacking of the compromised accounts was carried out by someone who new how a) Wikipedia works to a certain extent and b) is "fluent" enough with computers that they were able to hack several accounts. Just protecting the Main Page will just make potential vandals, who have hacked into a administrator account, focus their vandalism over to the templates and subpages (which in this proposal won't have the protection the Main Page would). Although protecting the Main Page is a good idea in theory, to implement the idea properly and to stop vandals who can hack accounts, these templates and subpages would need IAdmin protection too. This limits updating the Main Page in its entirety to IAdmins and IAdmins are limited in numbers. Many admins who maintain the Main Page (and would want to continue to) would also need to apply for IAdmin permissions, which is something which requires an admin to use 2FA before the right is granted (which for several admins is infeasible per comments by admins in this RfC on admin inactivity).

In short, I in theory support the idea of IAdmin protection for the Main Page, but for this to be effective subpages and included templates need to be also, which stops non-IAdmin admins maintaining the Main Page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – people are bringing up a lot of good points here, especially those about the proposed changes making the number of people who can fix these problems as they pop up even smaller. Sadly opposing. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – If it doesn't cascade to templates, all the templates can get hit instead. It's unclear to me that's much better. If it does cascade to templates then it blocks routine work. However more significantly, we're assuming a case where an admin account is compromised. Under that assumption, the proposal merely diverts them to do something less obvious. It sucks if the main page gets hit, but it's going to be spotted rapidly, it will be reverted rapidly, and the compromised account will be immediately identified. The actual impact of the main page being hit is just some brief annoyance/embarrassment/offensiveness. Are we really sure it would be preferable if we divert a compromised admin account to be abused in some other manner? Alsee (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Not a good solution, especially since vandalism can, and will shift to the transcluded templates. -FASTILY 08:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How temporary?

There seems to be support for the measure above but several supports are predicated on it being temporary. Seems like it would be worthwhile to have some form of consensus of how long temporary is prior to any implementation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty good question, Barkeep49. I think it can be said for certain that this change would be reverted as soon as it's fairly certain the vandalism issue has been resolved and the editing restriction is no longer needed. It's difficult to predict this; we've only been working on it for 72 hours, and it's a long weekend for US WMF staff (who have been very responsive), so the investigation is in its very early stages. Once we have more experienced eyes looking at things, including those who have the knowledge to suggest other options or methods for addressing the issues we're seeing, it's possible that a different/less intrusive option will be identified. It's also possible that after we've tried this for a few days, we find out that it's not really working. There's also the possibility that it becomes necessary to consider a permanent solution, either because no other less intrusive means has been identified to prevent this kind of vandalism, or because the efforts at vandalism haven't abated. Would it be reasonable to suggest that, if it still seems necessary to keep editing of the main page very restricted by 7 January 2019, it would be time to have a further community discussion about what options are available? These situations often take a few weeks to resolve, and there will be some extended holiday breaks in the next six weeks, so early January feels right. I'd be happy to hear other suggestions. Risker (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. The problem with emergency/quick fixes to a crisis situation is not coming back to it once the urgency is gone. I think we have enough editors watching this to avoid that. And, incidentally, thanks for keeping us informed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 07/01/19 seems a reasonable time - so long as it is agreed that the consensus appearing for this is not a consensus for a permanent introduction - i.e. if the problem hasn't been resolved or an alternate solution proposed, a new RfC must be introduced in January to retain this mechanism Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

While there is some support for having this as a permanent fix, I don't believe anyone would accept that without further discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• As far as the EF goes, any arguments for not leaving indefinitely? For an analysis of 2018's MP edits see my notes at Wikipedia:Interface_administrators'_noticeboard#Int-Admin_Main_Page_Proposal. This part should not have any workload issues for int-admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• People are identifying negatives, and there are things efforts are being put towards in the interim - like reducing the number of admin accounts that keep being compromised. Also you are making a functional assumption. Generally it is always better to trial something than require a majority to turn it off again. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

How long do we have to debate this before it's implemented?

This has nearly unanimous support and it's only a temporary change. What are we waiting for? Natureium (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

First, it has to be open for at least 24h, and possibly, since now it is a weekend, possibly longer. Then it needs to be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Then some technical issues need to be implemented, for which a fabricator ticket should be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: From the technical side - as an emergency measure I can implement it as soon as (if) you all agree that its the right thing to do (weekend or not). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, this is good to know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@BWolff (WMF): can you clarify whether, if this is implemented, admins will still be edit pages transcluded onto the main page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Answers to some questions and statuses that keep coming up:
  1. We have already done something about edits to the Main Page.
  2. If a new "higher" protection level is applied and cascading protection is enabled, then all of the cascaded items will be protected at the new level. Tested at testwiki:Main Page2 and its template testwiki:Template:MPtemp1 using the "centralnotice" protection level
• — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. So we're either going to need a bunch of new interface admins or check in with the existing ones. This needs to be done before implementation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: "A bunch of new interface admins" would be a step backwards in security. Would it be possible to create (yet) another protection level (call it "Main page protected"), and another user group ("Main page editors"), then quickly add the ITN/DYK/etc. regulars to that group? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also pinging @Xaosflux and BWolff (WMF): Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't disagree; I'd also point out that one of those admins in potential new user group was compromised 24 hours ago. I'd want to see 2FA compulsory for whatever is implemented, which I think needs a little more thought. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, all these things are possible. We don't have automated ways to require 2FA for a specific group, but its definitely possible given a list of people in a group to manually check which have 2FA enabled. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if the MediaWiki software could be changed so two protection levels could be applied simultaneously? (int-admin, non-cascading protection for just the Main Page, with full cascading protection for protecting transcluded templates) We've never had to deal with anything similar, since cascading protection with anything lower than full-protection is impossible and we haven't had a protection level higher than full-protection. With one infamous exception. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I fell that the language used here is too relaxed. A: If a new "higher" protection level is applied and cascading protection is enabled, then all of the cascaded items will be protected at the new level is only a definition of cascading. B: Tested at ... is only checking that cascading is correctly implemented. C: If this is implemented, will admins... is a question that should be answered by: the proposal is to enforce this and that, and the result for this_kind_of_people (should the proposal be applied) will be this and that while the result for that_kind_of_people will be this and that. A great advice about this kind of wording is RFC2119. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)/ modified Pldx1 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• A note - while an early close probably would have been justified on, say, Sunday, there have been a fair number of recent opposes plus 3 conversions from support to oppose. I obviously have at least some bias (since almost all participants have cast a !vote I suppose that's fairly universal here) but would say it's worth leaving open at least another 48 hours to see if that's a sea change or a blip. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Post (initial) closure

Clarification of the closure requested. I'm not seeing the mechanics of this finalized, especially in light of active discussions about them still taking place. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This also seems a bit rushed. Regarding the 2FA notes for interface admins, WMF is going to deal with that for now under OFFICE rules. I'm also a bit concerned about greatly increasing the number of interface admins and forcing 2FA (via the OFFICE rule) on to people that want to maintain things like DYK and ITN can have negative impacts: (a) non-technical people with technical access (b) removal from editorial tasks for admins that can't or don't want 2FA at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closure review requested as this was a very early closure while discussion was still active. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Given the nature of the proposal concerning yet another security incident, third one in the last 60 days, and the near unanimous support after 24 hours of the proposal as worded, I felt it appropriate to expedite closing this proposal. If this is a mistaken thought, I will happily reverse the close.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think the early responses here are enough to give credibility to what is going on with filter 943, but that's it so far. For example, do we really need User:DYKUpdateBot and its operator to also become 2FA required int-admins right now, every contributor to Template:In the news, etc? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I re-opened it again. If there is concern with this close, I'd rather just re-open it, as I'm headed to bed and don't want to leave it as is.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm probably harping on the point by now, but if this proposal results in more intadmins, we're doing it wrong. Either the existing intadmins need to take up all the main page responsibilities, or we need a new "Main Page Editor" right. I suspect maybe 1/10th of admins will even express an interest in this, so even without any 2FA requirement, this will do away with 90% of the attack surface. We can talk about requiring 2FA later. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Again I don't disagree, though it still wouldn't have prevented the latest attacks and it would have prevented any admins fixing it in a hurry. Another alternative, which I'd prefer, is a bespoke software solution similar to how admins can't delete or move the main page, without all the cascading issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the slower response, but I don't see evidence that Esanchez7587 or Garzo had ever edited anything MP-transcluded, so it would have prevented 2 of the 3 latest attacks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now had some coffeee and a chance to think this through a bit, and I can see how this could work without a software change. We already have a number of main pages lying around which cascade-protect the main page content. I don't properly know how the system works, so someone will need to confirm, and we'll probably want more. So then we basically remove the cascade from the main main page, and apply the new protection level to the main page only without cascade. This would leave the main page content editable by sysops, which doesn't really provide any benefit. So we once again return to the question of how to protect the main page content whilst keeping it updateable without making security actually worse. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think at this point, the most likely feasible idea should be a new protection level roughly based on what Callanecc said above. All edits to Mainpage directly and templates it pulls from (ITN, DYK...) should be subjected to four eyes principle; that means they must be approved by another admin before going live. It will be very hard and unlikely for a vandal to get two different admin accounts solely to bypass this restriction. Its efficacy will be the same as if all admins enabled 2FA. And with this protection level, we can safely apply the cascading and simultaneously allow all admins to edit the Mainpage and its templates normally. And the vandal's edit... will surely be caught waiting to be "approved"–Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You're basically describing a version of WP:pending changes. Is it feasible to implement an admin-only version of that? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I am. If you know the basic framework of PC2 you'll know this is feasible, though I don't know how simple or hard that implementing it will be. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Q: How many of the (currently 13) human interface administrators stand ready to take up the workload that will be created? –xeno^talk 19:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Xeno: as an int-admin I think its safe to say most of us would have no issue dealing with formatting of the wikitext on Main page or certain included templates (via edit requests). I know I don't want to do things like manage the "content" (e.g. placing the Featured Article, updating DYK, updating ITN, etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  FWIW the current EF is already enforcing that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Xeno, I will answer any edit request that comes by.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: (and anyone else who believes IntAdmins will be able to handle all main page content): With respect, you're greatly underestimating the number of tweaks made to the main page every day. There have been 40 edits to the various main page sections in the last week alone: most of these are fixes or clarifications of some kind, that need to be made fairly quickly. Many of these are also not quick tweaks but require assessing consensus, at ERRORS or ITN/C or WT:DYK or elsewhere. I suspect that if the 13 IntAdmins are the only ones able to make these changes, we're going to have some trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Resigning to fix ping. Vanamonde (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• You would also need to grant additional permissions to the DYK update bot, as mentioned above, which might have some technical hurdles and also comes with the discussion of if we want to have a bot with interface access. Such a plan also would have to look at protecting the DYK queues which could be edited a minute before the bot switches DYK. In general with this proposal, I understand and agree with the goal of increasing security but highly doubt that this would a) remain temporary, and b) stop the issue without major collateral damage. We are a wiki, and with a project our size and the number of admins we have, there will always be an attack vector. I'm active in Main Page and DYK work when I am around, but fully acknowledge I come and go. There was a period for months when I promoted almost every queue to be sent off to the Main Page, and while I'd like to think my fellow DYK admins and editors find my, currently somewhat sporadic, work helpful, I doubt I would be granted a new "main page" right or interface editor with my current activity level. I am also concerned that the interface editor right seems to be being expanded beyond its original intent to a new class/level of administrator instead of just a technical safeguard. This is a game of whack-a-mole, as we lock down attack vectors, attackers will move further up the chain. The next logical steps for an attacker are the MediaWiki interface generally, scripts to mass perform an admin action, going after an interface administrator directly, etc. We need to win 100% of the time to prevent an attack, an attacker need only "win" once in unlimited attempts to get through. While we should absolutely reduce the attack surface, increase security, password requirements, etc., mathematically it is clear what happens in the long run. I am also concerned that if we concentrate major, time sensitive, responsibilities from our approximately 500 active admins (any one of whom can jump in) to a group of just over a dozen interface admins that things will be delayed, and we will almost certainly burn out users - not to mention potentially drive away trusted users who work in this area. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Cascading

One of the three main oppose reasons is the cascading issue - I thought it worth splitting out the issue of discussing whether this Int-Protect would cause knock on protection to be implemented, if those qualified to discuss such could answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly following your question @Nosebagbear:. In the current software if "cascading" protection is applied whatever level is applied also gets applied to everything transcluded. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a query in the discussions above on whether all the constituent aspects of the Main Page (DYK etc) are going to have to have this int-protection (presumably enacted via cascade) for the main page to actually be safe. It is disputed, but I wouldn't say it is made precisely clear. Since the MP is primarily made up of a bunch of transclusions, presumably more than just the MP itself will need this protection level. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is answered in the section just above, and we have a choice: Without cascading protection, admins can still edit the content, so there aren't any real benefits to the new protection. Using cascading int-admin protection will greatly reduce the number of people able to edit ITN/DYK/OTD and other things which are regularly updated. Alongside this is a really bad idea - increase the number of int-admins. An alternative has been proposed which is to create a new user group, and a new cascading protection level, which only allows editing content displayed on the main page. No decisions have been made, and it's not always clear above exactly what people are agreeing to. The proposal itself contains this sentence, "almost all of the work is done in the background using templates — so the impact of this temporary measure is minimal", but with cascading protection that's simply not the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, clarification is needed. Adding lots more intadmins to handle all details of what is transcluded on the main page would be very dubious. Further, some templates/modules are used frequently and often appear somewhere on the main page, and people would need an intadmin to update them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Closure

Could an uninvolved admin please formally close this? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Seraphim System mass deletion

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

---

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a heads up, it appears that Seraphim System is rage quitting, and in doing so, she is requesting the mass deletion of all her articles per WP:G7. Many of these requests were already tagged and/or actioned by CSD patrollers before her self-block, and she has requested that the deletions be completed. While I'm not sure her intent is "malice" per se, I would argue that these requests should be declined and the actioned ones overturned, as there is a 'good faith' clause in the CSD that would seem to have the intent of preventing incidents such as this. Regardless, I think the community should determine whether this mass deletion attempt is appropriate or not.  Swarm  {talk}  01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is highly inappropriate and selfish, and an escalation of the WP:PRAM they immediately displayed above (take away my page-mover right and I quit [1]). As I said on Swarm's talkpage, the fact that Seraphim System consequently CSDed all of their own articles out of sheer spite, not caring that they might be useful to readers, is further evidence that the user has a major attitude problem. I recommend halting the process somehow, and allowing anyone to request a WP:REFUND of any of the already deleted articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've undeleted several of them: two because they had significant edits from other users (thus they didn't qualify for G7 in the first place), and the rest with a citation to this section. I've intentionally left several others deleted, because I question the notability of the subjects; they're cited to blogs, places like YouTube, and primary sources, and (unlike several of the undeleted pages) they're ordinary biographies, not geo-governmental entities or individuals passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to call this request "in good faith", and allow any deletions that otherwise meet the G7 criteria. (after e/c: I'd assumed the admins who already deleted some checked that SS was the only significant contributor, I see from Nyttend above that isn't accurate, and those were correctly undeleted). If someone wants to recreate the articles, they can. If there is not a consensus for this approach, I'd settle for not characterizing it as "spite" or "bad faith" or "rage quit". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was wrong to say "rage quit", and like I said, I'm willing to assume there's no malice here, but even if we don't get hung up on whether it's a "good faith" situation, I think this is still what we would nowadays call a "high maintenance" way of quitting the project, and I'm not sure whether a mass deletion of articles accompanying a user's retirement can be classified as a reasonable request, even if it's not directly motivated by spite. The user's reasoning for the mass deletion is that they want a "clean break" from the project, but even if we do assume good faith and accept that explanation, per WP:OWN, we don't even recognize the notion that a user is inherently connected to the articles they create, so it's not really legitimate or appropriate to suggest that one's created articles are some sort extension of oneself, and casually perform blanket deletions in response to an author's own disillusionment.  Swarm  {talk}  03:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Any articles of value should be kept, regardless of whether SS was the sole author. I think we need to write in an exception to G7 for these kinds of situations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (replying to you, BMK, but not really directed at you, if you know what I mean.) We have approx. 6,916,995 articles. If we allowed everyone who wanted to do so to take advantage of the G7 "loophole", we would have (to 5 significant figures) approx. 6,916,995 articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Floq: Point taken, no "fix" for G7 needed, but I still think we should keep any article of value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, too many admins don't pay enough attention to the "in good faith" part of G7. If someone is throwing a shit-fit they are definitely not acting in good faith and their requests should be declined en masse. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• If they're valid G7s, delete them. I went on a G7 spree a night or two ago, clearing out obsolete templates I'd created in 2010 that were no longer being used; it shouldn't have mattered whether I was angry at the time (I was not), because the G7 criteria do not (and should not) take such things into account. What a nightmare a "but not if the author is upset" exclusion would be. 28bytes (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • But isn't that essentially what the "good faith" requirement is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not how I read it. Being upset at the way you've been treated (whether rightly or wrongly) does not mean you are no longer a good-faith editor. Anyway, how would we police such a thing? What if they're only "kinda" upset, do we delete half of them and decline the rest? Or hold a !vote to determine on what line of the "too upset" threshold the author's current mindset falls? When the kind thing to do (let them delete their work if no one's significantly edited it) happens to coincide with the policy (which says the same), why would we do anything else? 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Why would we do anything else? Because this is an encyclopedia, and it is for the readers, and it is the readers we should think of above all when editing Wikipedia, and if content is valuable to readers, then it should not be deleted, unless created by a banned editor in violation of their ban. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • So... the readers should only be given consideration if the author is upset? Or are you arguing for getting rid of G7 entirely? 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • My opinion is readers should always be given first consideration. The only exception I find reasonable is ban-evasion editing; in that case, automatic deletion is a deterrent to ban evasion. If you are asking my opinion of G7, I think it's good to have it for userpages and subpages, non-articles, etc. In terms of articles, I think G7 should only be used for the most egregious and/or useless content. In terms of someone deleting a bunch of stuff as they leave Wikipedia, that's common in administrator rage-quits, but they only do it to their own userspace stuff and non-article stuff, never to articles. I don't think mass deletion of articles should be allowed when someone is leaving/quitting; not at all. In my opinion it harms the project, and in my mind it violates the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, including the TOU cited by BusterD below. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
            • In many cases, a G7 request will be for someone who created a page and then realised that there was a mistake. I normally write articles offline and copy/paste them into my browser, and I've requested G7 in the past (or just deleted something myself instead of requesting it) where I accidentally posted a half-written draft instead of a completed article. We don't want such content in any namespace, and it's pointless to have a debate for a rather useless page when the creator knows it's useless and wants it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's exactly what I indicated: "In terms of articles, I think G7 should only be used for the most egregious and/or useless content." Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • This is not one of those cases (or kinds of cases) where we should try and judge intent. "Good faith" doesn't automatically mean "in the best interest of our readers", as far as I'm concerned, and an explanation was offered which we, pursuant to WP:AGF, should accept. I hate seeing decent content being deleted, but it is what it is. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Drmies, but I disagree with you. Content created by our editors may still be legally their property per copyright, but they have licensed it to us in perpetuity by posting it here, and we are under no obligation to delete it at their request. Softlavender is exactly correct in saying that our responsibility is to the reader -- and the quality of the encyclopedia -- first, and everything else is secondary. When it comes to a conflict between obligations to the content creator, and responsibility to the reader, it is crystal clear to me what we should do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Beyond My Ken, I didn't say we were obligated to delete. But the thing is (well, one of the things) that this applies to all cases of G7, and we (admins) really don't want to be considering intent etc. for all the cases of G7. BTW, no, not "legally" theirs--they sign that away the moment they press "Publish changes". Anyway, sure, we can consider whether something is worth keeping, but the default, practically speaking and given what G7 says, is always going to be "delete", unless other factors (like here) complicate matters. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Actually, I think you may be wrong about the legal part. My understanding is that what editors agree to when uploading their contribution is to license their content to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA or GDFL, and that license is non-revocable, but the actual copyright to their content remains with them -- this is why it's so important to keep an accurate record of who contributed what, because each editor owns the copyright to their contribution, even if Wikipedia (or the WMF) owns the copyright to the composite whole. At least, that's the way it was explained to me. This means, for instance, that I can write a paragraph for an article here, and still upload the same paragraph elsewhere if I want to, because I own the copyright to that material, and the license to Wikipedia is non-exclusive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • I just checked WP:COPYRIGHT and (1) I struck the part above about Wikipedia or the WMF owning a composite copyright. It turns out the only copyright they own is on logos, etc. (2) WP:COPYRIGHT says, explicitly: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses.", so I believe I am correct on my main point above. Of course, I'm not at all certain that this rather novel conception of copyright has ever been tested in a court of law - maybe someone knows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reading this discussion I'm reminded of the statement under the edit summary window I see every time I save an edit: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." When I submit an edit, I agree the work isn't mine anymore. I've released it trusting the community to deal with it appropriately. In pointy cases like this, I'd be inclined to keep everything even if covered by G7. But cases like this are why you admins make the big bucks... BusterD (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why G7 should apply to article space at all as their work doesn't belong to them anymore --Shrike (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Shrike, see my comment above about articles. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  We do have some moral obligations to our editors, that's why. Incidentally, G7 says "provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author" is this the case for the deletions requested here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, I checked a couple of the still-deleted articles such as Meese-Brennan debate, BioBee, and Iris Zaki, and Seraphim System was the sole editor. G7 also specifies "If requested in good faith", though, and taking your ball and going home is not really a good faith reason for deletion. Fish+Karate 11:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• The very first five words of G7 are 'IF REQUESTED IN GOOD FAITH'. 'I misused a tool, had it removed, so I am going to spit my dummy and get all my content deleted' is not even close to being a good faith request. This is far from being the first instance editors when upset or sanctioned in some way have decided they want all their contributions nuked. Its also irrelevant to G7 if some of the articles fail notability as that is not a criteria for G7. Its a good faith request and sole author. Thats it. These requests didnt fulfil that and should have been declined en-masse, if anything just so when the editor calms down later and has second thoughts it doesnt make more work restoring it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Folks, can I please suggest you have a read of the latest comments from Seraphim System on their talk page before you bang on further with criticism of their actions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• We should take Saraphim System up on their good offer to keep the ones wanted. And perhaps change G7 to formalize a denial for wanted articles: 'Any admin may discretionarily deny G7 for a generally policy compliant article, if they determine a keep is in the best interest of readers') . Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think that needs to be formalized; it's implicit. Anyone is free to remove a G7 tag if they want to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps change the template because it does not say that, and it probably does not say that because that is not how G7 is written, and it would obviate the circumstance for having 'what do we do discussions' like this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I mean, it's implicit for CSD as a whole, not just G7. I don't think it's any more or less true for G7 than for any other CSD criterion, and so it seems a little silly to explicitly say that just in this one tag (which might imply that it's not true for the other tags). I doubt it would change whether conversations like this happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Then explicitly say that in CSD as a whole, and change the templates - so, people are not confused, since according to your alleged implication it's not suppose to be only for people who claim to have unsaid knowledge, it's for anyone who wants it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • While it might be implicit that anyone can decline a CSD nomination, I think it is also implicit that a valid decline is only for nominations that do not comply with the specified CSD criteria as written. For example, if someone went around declining valid G12s, I'd expect them to be stopped from doing so pretty quickly - and the same, surely, goes for declining CSDs that comply with the criteria generally. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't generally agree. Many of these criteria are "it's expected nobody would object"; G7 falls under that IMO, kind of a speedy PROD. If someone objects, they remove the tag. G12 is not one of those: either text is a copyvio or it isn't, but even so sometimes a G12 results in a large revdeletion rather than deleting the page. Admins are supposed to exercise some clue in evaluating these, not just take all speedy deletion requests at face value all the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  As for G7 in this scenario, I generally agree that we should put a higher bar on G7 requests in article space, and especially that we should not honour requests from a user to delete all of their article creations really for any reason, per the license (someone wrote this already in better words than I have this morning). I also agree we should probably talk about this somewhere else without it being framed as an issue with one user who seems to have quit (per 28bytes below). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy deletions (all of them) are specific by design and there is supposed to be as little room for interpretation as possible - and G7 is very explicit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• The tag basically says do not remove, unless the G7 criteria (sole author request) is not met. I suppose it also covers 'good faith' but that's a problem because you actually have to accuse someone of bad faith and find bad faith to refuse, rather then just saying, good or bad faith, this article is worth keeping. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that Seraphim System seems to have agreed to rescind the deletion requests for now, I think this can be closed. Discussion about G7 in general can be done on the appropriate page. Kudos to Floquenbeam for approaching the editor with kindness on their talk page and treating them like a human worth empathizing with. 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And given that we really don't have any repeat problems with G7 nominations, I see no need to revisit the policy. If it becomes a repeat problem, sure, but it would be an over-reaction to just one (already resolved) case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've restored most of the rest and there are no outstanding G7s. Unless somebody wants to rescue any of the following, I agree this can be closed:
  • List of foreign companies with operations in Turkey
  • BioBee
  • Arrest of Dov Haiyun
  • Meese-Brennan debate

– Joe (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Can someone reach out to User:Anthony E. Lahmann and/or sort through his edits?

We have a new user who is making a bunch of edits that are not making sense to me. Perhaps he needs some mentoring. I have gone through some of his edits and undone some of the more obviously unhelpful ones, and have left messages on his talk page, but I will not have time tonight or tomorrow to investigate further or follow up with him. Can someone who's good with new users please help? 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: I have just been working through some of them right now. A very unusual suite of edits for a newly registered user, and their recent post to the Teahouse about page protection being akin to vandalism has successfully drawn attention to them. They are suggestive of someone who has obviously edited before, presumably under another IP address and, whilst I'm currently trying to assume good faith, I am finding a few of them somewhat disruptive. I was going to reply on the WP:TH page, but will place something on their talk page instead. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @28bytes: Indeed, multiple edits are disruptive, particularly redirects like this which I reverted. This creation spawned me to think they might have edited over at Simple, but their account is not registered there. Home Lander (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Under that username, this person has only ever edited en.wiki and made one swiftly-reverted edit at it. wiki. See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He has now created a new account, User:Anthony Lahmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and starting up with similar edits. ~ GB fan 21:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've ifdef blocked both accounts as obvious socks and WP:NOTHERE -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both accounts blocked by RoySmith and I tagged them accordingly. Home Lander (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for taking a look and acting accordingly. I had hoped we could establish a dialog with him, but if he's going to just hop to a new account and make the same sorts of edits rather than responding to anyone's legitimate concerns, a block was inevitable. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Porny spammy

There've been a few tonight; User:Desmond09Y is the most recent one I've seen. Maybe some of you with some technical skills can have a look. I blocked one earlier, and so did Materialscientist. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably a spam bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one, User talk:BruceCochrane42, just blocked by Materialscientist. Can we filter out the underlying URLs? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "Consensus Required" on American Politics articles

Since its conception in 2016 the "Consensus Required" rule has been applied to at least 123 pages in the American Politics topic area using the template {{American politics AE}}. The rule was originally meant to be (and is still) applied as a companion to a regular 1RR restriction. In its current form the rule reads:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

I propose that it be replaced with a less restrictive rule:

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.

Rationale: The Consensus Required rule prevents some negative behaviors, but at the expense of blocking legitimate dispute resolution techniques like making new "bold" edits that address the concerns of the reverting editor. (See the "cycle" portion of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the paragraph titled "However, don't get stuck on the discussion".) Freezing all reinstatements of similar material and requiring a clear talkpage consensus bogs down dispute resolution and article development, and it can even reward poor behaviors like being intransigent and refusing to compromise on talk pages (paraphrasing User:Aquillion [2]).

The bad behavior prevented by Consensus Required (slow or tag-team edit warring) is some of the easiest behavior for admins to identify and sanction, requiring only a glance at an article's history; the tendentious talkpage behaviors rewarded by it are much harder to identify and sanction. I think the Consensus Required rule would be better used as an alternative to topic bans or blocks, to sanction individual editors who regularly engage in 1RR gaming or tag-team edit warring.

Option 2: Another option is to simply remove Consensus-Required and leave just regular 1RR. If you prefer that please indicate so in your !vote. In any case I hope to make "Enforced BRD" an optional parameter in the {{American politics AE}} template.

~Awilley (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have pinged via edit summary all the admins I can find who have created the required edit notice templates while placing the Consensus Required sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to ping the admins in that edit summary, but apparently you can only ping up to 5 people at a time via edit summary. Here's try #2: User:Lord Roem User:Zzyzx11 User:El C User:Ks0stm User:Doug Weller User:TonyBallioni User:GeneralizationsAreBad User:JzG User:Laser brain User:Ad Orientem User:Beeblebrox User:KnightLago ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposal per my comments in the previous discussion. The consensus required restriction has had some benefit, but it has also been used to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM. The BRD requirement is a good alternative that will allow articles to be improved while fostering discussion. Option 2 would be a distant second choice, but still preferable to a strict consensus required rule. 1RR alone could be abused by POV pushers and editors acting in bad faith, but those instances should be infrequent and can be dealt with at AE if necessary.- MrX 🖋 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• On the face of it, this seems to be an improvement, so I support it, but is this the right venue for this discussion? I would suggest it may need a wider audience. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG, it's either here or WP:AE. I raised this idea in a thread there a couple of weeks ago and it got comments from 7 editors and zero admins. As for audience, I pinged every admin I could find that has ever placed the sanction. (I'm assuming you're here because you got the ping?) ~Awilley (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had taken it to WP:VPP, as I counseled you to do at the time, you might have gotten more feedback. IN any case, this is not merely an admin issue; the community should be involved in this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right about getting more feedback at VPP, although it would have had to eventually bounce back here in order to effect any change. ~Awilley (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (I'm not an admin, but I don't believe this is an issue for only admins.) There is no rush. This is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need breaking news or the most up-to-date US politics. If it takes a week or a month to obtain consensus, that will likely make the article better both by discussion and the emergence of a wider range of secondary sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why 24 hours? This assumes that everyone required for consensus is on WP every day. Why not a week? Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the 24-hrs pairs nicely with WP:1RR and because most disputes can be resolved faster than a week ad don't need the input of all the editors of an article. BRD works well for resolving disputes between just two editors and any consensus formed by them can be examined and modified as other editors log on. ~Awilley (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above rationals. That said, Guy has a point and I'm not sure this is the best venue for the discussion, though it's not a major issue for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I may very well be 100% wrong on this assumption, but I was under the impression that edits in wording to Ds-related templates had to go through ArbCom first. I also echo the comments above that WP:AE would be more appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The process for changing these sanctions is outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Modifications_by_administrators. It gives 3 options: (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. Because these sanctions (including the template) were created by individual admins (not by ArbCom) it's not necessary to go through ArbCom to modify or remove them. ~Awilley (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I might be reading it wrong, but it seems the new wording could be gamed by an editor going to the talk page, engaging in some pro forma arguments, then reversing the reversion once the 24 hours are up. That sounds like a recipe for slow-moving edit wars. While imperfect, requiring consensus for new additions/changes, especially in sensitive topic areas, aim to encourage the kind of collegial editing environment we're striving for. If the concern is an editor would stonewall and refuse to budge, functionally trying to use the restriction and their objection to veto a change against consensus, then we have discretion to restrict said editor's involvement in the topic area. In short, I'm not convinced there's anything we're losing by maintaining the template wording as-is, and potential risk if updated as proposed. For those reasons, I'd currently oppose the new text. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: You you are reading it right: it does allow for the possibility of a slow-moving edit war, and that is precisely what I was talking about in paragraph #2 of the Rationale. (i.e. Slow moving edit wars are much easier for admins to identify and sanction than stonewalling on the talkpage.) Have you ever tried to sanction someone for refusing to compromise on a talk page? I haven't. It takes too much time reading through reams of bickering, and then you have to make subjective judgments because there's no bright-line rule. I think it's better for us to implement rules that naturally encourage compromise instead of rewarding stonewalling. ~Awilley (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I guess my sense is that the proposed change wouldn't achieve those ends and there's no evidence presented that the current wording has been detrimental. For sensitive articles in disputed topic spaces, 'freezing' or slowing down rapid change to await discussion and consensus, while definitely a lengthier process, is by all means a healthy one. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the consensus required sanction can be annoying but it’s clear what it means: be cautious and don’t just keep doing stuff without discussion. I like it better than any other formula that has been come up with to replace it as you are less subject to gaming or other types of disruption and if I come across American politics articles, I always intentionally use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think the usefulness/necessity of consensus-required varies. On low-profile articles, it is not necessary, and it hampers article development as indeed one tendentious editor can stop article development, so I Support for most of the 123 articles the removal of consensus-required (preferred) or reduction to Enforced BRD (or even remove 1RR and all restrictions); there are quite a few low-profile articles on that list that IMO really don't need the restriction.

However I Strong oppose for Donald Trump per my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243#Rethinking consensus-required. The consensus-required restriction has granted a great amount of stability to the article. This seems to be criticized as "freezing article development"; however the Trump article does not need to be changed greatly on a day to day basis. What this would instead leave the door open is to more discussion and RfCs, because old disputes that have been settled are reignited as someone can now change, for example "false and misleading" to just "misleading" or "lies", without violating DS, prompting yet another talk page discussion. Or: the benefit of consensus-required is not preventing slow tag team edit warring but granting stability and preventing constant needless changes and disputes on a very very high-profile article like Donald Trump; and the system of Current consensuses with fixed wording that is hammered out over lengthy talk page discussion works quite well. After all, articles are meant to represent consensus and single editors should not generally overturn a consensus garnered through a wide RfC. The Trump article really does not suffer from intransigence, either; because one can easily garner a consensus within a day or two, one or two "bad" editors cannot do much to stop legitimate improvements. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, well, your comment here raises a few issues with this proposal: namely, discretionary sanctions are just that, discretionary, and even in those 123 articles, there are some where this is likely very useful. While Coffee did place this somewhat indiscriminately, others actually thought hard before applying the now standard AP2 DS in an area. Every article where I placed this on it was intentional, and I don't see any harm in keeping it, and would oppose removing them because we went a bit more active with the template than was necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly in many cases it is useful; however, I feel that in a lot of cases 1RR itself is quite enough to stop edit warring, and consensus-required adds some extra mental burden to editors editing an article that has to be justified. And certainly, determining which articles consensus-required is useful or not will require individual examination. So definitely, if consensus-required is going to be removed from some of the articles as I suggested above, it will be have to be a carefully considered some. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck strong oppose per my my comments here, which (if you don't want to read the wall of text), TL;DR down to: as long as it is clear that prior clear consensus's are binding, I'm not super opposed to changing to "enforced BRD". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning oppose I'm mindful of the problems with people gaming the system and with a small group of determined editors stonewalling or disrupting articles, but I'm also opposed to both of the so-far proposed fixes, which sends the message that edit warring is OK. We should be encouraging more consensus-building discussions, not less, and either of the above options turns these articles back to a bit of a free-for-all. The second change implies "You don't need consensus as long as you get enough friends together to ram through your edit war" and the first implies "The same thing, except wait 24 hours". I'd like to see a better option. --Jayron32 16:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not an admin, but I oppose any enforcment of something that is not a guideline or a policy. If BRD is deemed important, then it should be raised from the essay level and become a guideline. However, backdooring it into a guideline, like this is just wrong and would be a bad precedent. --Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: WP:BRD is not an essay. It is "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages" (core policy and editing guideline, respectively). The consensus-required restriction, on the other hand, does enforce something that goes beyond current WP policy or guidelines. ~Awilley (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Same difference. --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Awilley, ArbCom has basically made this proposal moot now. Most of the banners were placed by Coffee, who is no longer an admin, which means they can be modified by any admin. You could undertake a review of articles he placed under DS and selectively modify them as Galobtter has suggested. If you do, I would suggest having a workspace in your userspace where people can comment where they don't think changing the DS would be ideal. This also has the advantage of not changing the sanction en masse, especially when the admin who placed it is still active. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. My hope in starting this thread was that I could convince the admins who had previously placed this sanction of a better alternative and thereby preserve some uniformity in the topic area. In hindsight I wonder if selectively canvassing only the admins who thought highly enough of CR to appy it doomed this to go down in a pile-on. Sorry, that was rude of me.~Awilley (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those admins, I will not be removing any of the CR sanctions I have placed and will continue to use it with 1RR when I feel active sanctions are necessary. No one has come up with a good suggested replacement for it in any attempt in any topic area, and all of the proposed replacements are substantially worse (including this one.) If modifications were to be made, I think removing all active sanctions from specific articles where they are no longer needed would be much better. The issue with this sanction is that it was overused, not that it doesn’t work. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Policy on schoolblocks?

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Complaints, we probably need to discuss current practices and see whether we need a policy on what is the duration of schoolblocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally, if I block an IP for vandalism (and for this, vandalism must be persistent, not just one edit), I add the talk page to my watchlist. If I see other user posting vandalism warnings, I check the contributions, and if I see IP has no constructive contributions, I progressively block up to a year, and then for a year. I never check whether this is a school or not. Possibly other users have better practices than mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I look at the block history of the IP and the edits. If there is a substantial pattern of vandal edits and blocks, I will escalate to the next longest length of time in the block, especially if the edits are on the heels of a block being lifted. With almost all of the blocks not having Account Creation turned off, this still gives an avenue for legitimate edits, through an account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My practices reflect the above. I will, first, check to see if the IP address belongs to an obvious educational institution, but even if it doesn't if there is a pattern of frequent vandalism with no intervening good edits, I block (allowing for account creation) with progressively longer blocks. --Jayron32 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't dogmatically always progressively increase block lengths, and am not always particularly impressed when this is done. Actually I'm not impressed when any admin behaviour is based on previous admin behaviour. If there's been, say 2 edits in the last 2 years, then I might block for a day or two. If they soon return then they'll soon be blocked again. If a school is always problematic then I don't see a problem with blocks lasting several years. I'll often stop account creation, having seen many checkusers adjust many schoolblocks in the past. But related, I think you need to distinguish different types of school IP. Elementary schools are just going to be stupid when the kids are around but you can probably actually allow account creation. Some secondary schools are usually well behaved apart from one or two idiots who will be caught and punished. Others are just obviously places of eternal anarchy. So no automatic increases for me - take a look at the evidence as a whole. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Pile on here. I don't automatically increase the block length either. I try for the shortest period that will stop the disruption. Particularly in April or May, when the school term is likely to end in North America, I'll only block for a month or two because there's no point in having an IP blocked that won't be used until August or September. However, if there's disruption coming in short order off a six-month block, with a block log as long as my arm, I'll block for a year. Katie^talk 22:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Complaints is not a reason to consider anything about policy. You had users edit warring through the same IP with one of the user's asking for it to be blocked. 1 That doesn't fit the normal situations. It was also an anonblock and the complainant had an account but was choosing not to use it. He doesn't make more than a handful of edits per week and nearly none of it is academic in nature. He had no real need so he can edit as anon from home or use his account at the school. The pretense of schools having a different status would be based on academic edits which does not apply here. That complaint is not the impetus for policy changes. Deny the drama.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Closure of RfC: Nikola Tesla's birthplace

I would like to challenge the closure of this RfC: [3]

My reasoning is the following:

1. I feel that this RfC was closed prematurely. The closing editor also gives some grounds to that complaintment. To quote him: "The one objection that could be made is that the discussion was closed too early...". I indeed think it was closed to early, as no previously uninvolved editors had time to notice the discussion and join in. Only the editors that I have canvassed have participated.

2. I unintentionally made a case of canvassing here, and if you read the discussion, you will see that even the editors who disagreed with me in the discussion have pointed that out. I feel that it would be a good idea to have an opinion of a few previously uninvolved editors to fix the problem that I have created.

3. Although the RfC started by me posting one source, it was soon agreed by me and other editors that this souce can be viewed as OR or SYNTH. Other editors have asked for a specific source that I need, but when I have provided that source, it was hardly discussed. It would be a good idea to have some more time so this new source can be discussed. I see that almost no one reflected on the 2nd source, now when I'm rereading.

4. The closing editor didn't reflect on the new source at all, but had closed the RfC on the arguments other editors made about the 1st source, SYNTH, OR. The reason he missed to reflect on the second source may be in the chronological order of posts. If you read from the top to bottom, the discussion may look a lot different than when you read chronologically.

5. I feel that the request made by this RfC is pretty simple and it is my opinion that there shouldn't be that much opposition. I have tried to summarize my stand in the last post, maybe you can read that post first and then the whole discussion (if you don't feel that this would temper with the chronology) Bilseric (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• The RfC closure should stand as is. Bilseric indulged in original research to bring in a source that doesn't mention Tesla at all. And the source talks about something that did not happen until after Tesla left the area, so it doesn't apply to Tesla's life there in the Austrian Military Frontier. Bilseric should be aware of the danger of WP:BOOMERANG as his behavior has been disruptive, falsely portraying strong unanimous consensus against him as an unsettled dispute between two editors. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It seemed an appropriate close to me; it was in SNOW territory and the close adequately reflected the comments of the participants. I get the complaint about people ignoring the second source you added later on, but you can hardly blame them. Modifying an already garbled RfC after it's been running for some time rarely produces the desired effect. In the future it will help if you make the RfC shorter and clearer with just one specific question. ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. It's my mistake, because I'm not that experienced. But what was really frustrating is that they were saying:"what you need is this and that source", and when I spent my time providing it , they didn't reflect on it. I can understand your explanation, but if the RfC was opened for a little more time, new editors would notice the new source. It is still frustrating to see the above post where the user User:Binksternet is reflecting to the old source, and neglecting the new one. If I could redo it, I would put the purposal as I put it in my last post. Would it be possible to leave this RfC closed and open a new one which puts a clear single purposal as I did in my last post? No one reflected on the 2nd source anyways in this RfC. Bilseric (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly possible, but not necessarily advisable to do it so soon after the first RfC. If I'm reading the situation correctly a lot of editors are getting fed up with all the noise you have been making about this. ~Awilley (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with everything you said. It is my fault for altering the RfC. That caused no one to put opinion on the alternative purposal (the 2nd source). I did it after I have accepted valid objections about the 1st source. I would really like that the alternative purposal is discussed, but I agree that opening this bulky discussion would be just be confusing to new editors. A better solution would be another RfC which is just putting forward the 2nd source that wasn't discussed in this RfC. I really am not in a hurry. It can be opened in a few months. It would be even better if someone else would open it, not me, if anyone would be willing to do it.Bilseric (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you have correctly observed that I was "neglecting" the second source. After your RfC purpose became clear to me, your arguments became unimportant to me. In a non-neutral manner, you want Wikipedia to describe a strong connection between Tesla and Croatia. Looking now, I see the second source has two problems: it's an outlier, different in its terminology than other books on the same subject, and the author says a page later that "the Austrians continued to operate the province as a military frontier." So it contradicts itself in calling the province both Croatian and Austrian. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please. This is not the continuation of the RFC. You don't need to repeat yourself or continue with the dispute. But, how can you argue that "The RfC closure should stand as is" and in the same time say this: " your arguments became unimportant to me.". If the 2nd source and my arguments were unimportant to you, we should definately allow others to participate. You are now basically arguing that only your opinion is important and that we don't need other opinions. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Bilseric (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Uploading files without summaries and/or licences continuously

• Itsbasicallyaidan (talk · contribs)

Are there any practices in place for editors who continue to upload files without the respective copyright summaries and/or licences? Especially those who have received dozens of notifications on their talk page and still continue to upload them without the correct non-free rationale? The above user's talk page has 25 such notifications since March (that I can tell), and is still receiving such notices after they don't pay attention to them. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted contributions, I think a topic ban from image uploads is in order. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped them a final warning about bad image uploads. If they do it again, let me know and I'll indef them -FASTILY 04:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for that; I've got their talk page on my watchlist, so I'll let you know when I know. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it might help to talk to this guy in text if the templates don't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have already posted on their talk page in a discussion manner concerning this topic, and the editor has edited since without replying to the message. The editor is also known for their disruptive editing, such as mass removals then going in the opposite direction the very next day with oversized additions, and adding unsourced information just because other editors have done it. Looking at their complete contribution history since January, they have only ever used a talk page (their own) once. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. >1,000 edits, one talk page edit, ever (and that was not a comment, it was the result of him moving a page), and only two edits to user talk, ever. This person is not engaged with other editors at all. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from image uploads. Looks like we have no choice. Miniapolis 22:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from image uploads - seems a fairly clearcut case. TBAN to remain for the longer of "1 month or when editor engages, indicates understanding of the issue and agrees to obey the requirements" Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• The easier thing to do rather than messing about with a topic ban would be to block the user until they acknowledge this issue on their talk page. Fish+Karate 12:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Benjaminzyg Appeal

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

---

Should you guys let Benjaminzyg welcomed back because he stopped sockpuppetery and he want his account back. I wish for lot of support on this one because I don’t want any bad comment on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.159.52.47 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. Tell them (haha) to go to their earlier account. User:Jenulot? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Drmies, that account is globally locked so no one may log into it and they cannot send emails from it. Same thing for the account that he wants back. I imagine that he might could pull a Lazarus and be resurrected on the MrSunshine83 account which isn't locked....for what that might be worth.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aha. Thanks. Let's see if he's paying attention. Also, hell no. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that I can transfer my account into MrSunshine83 but will it be the same as Benjaminzyg account? I think a move is a very good idea.2001:8003:DC1C:9E00:D044:2E68:DF56:D78A (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Reduce a block I placed

Six years ago, I found a proxy IP address, User:87.97.157.121, that was indef-blocked, and since we generally don't block IPs indefinitely, I replaced the indefinite block with a block of a define length: 9 decades, 9 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 49 minutes and 12 seconds. But now I'm informed that we shouldn't place long definite blocks either. Could someone reduce this block to whatever the normal time is for a proxy? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Creative abuse of policy! ;) I've unblocked, the IP address no longer appears to be an open proxy. Of course anyone is free to re-block if it turns out I'm wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Open_proxies suggests "several years" as a typical maximum. it's past the statute of limitations, but replacing an indef with a 100-year block is a :/ from me Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) : I edit-conflicted trying to unblock it. My research shows it is not an open proxy. 6 months would have been in any case more than sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I see that I misread something (I placed the indef), but regardless :-) Good to see that it needed the unblock. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper, this address seems to have belonged to a now-defunct ISP, so it may indeed have been an open proxy when you blocked it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

According to my calculations, this IP still belongs to the same webhost, and a neighbouring server, alpha.root.bg (http://87.97.157.120) is still up. That said, I don't see any particular need to keep it blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread is ironic. Last evening something led me to this page - Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs - and I messaged a few admins who had placed blocks within the last year. The responses were mixed, ranging from "yes, that was accidental" to that it's fine to leave proxies blocked indefinitely. Is there actual policy that these should not be indef? If so, there's a lot of work to do. Home Lander (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PPP, I'd say; I've never seen it written out, but we've never indef-blocked IPs (as far as I'm aware), except open proxies and truly exceptional abuse cases, and it runs in my head that we've stopped indeffing open proxies in the last few years. (Otherwise nobody would have created the indeffed-IPs report, for example; there's no such report for accounts, as far as I know.) Maybe it could be added to policy, but I don't quite see the point, since policy would have a hard time encapsulating the oddball situations that really do need indefinite blocks. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's an enormous amount of work to do. There has been for many years. Policy (practice), I think, is fairly well established these days. And the written policy doesn't actually outright forbid indefinite blocks, or blocks lasting 100 years, but it sure discourages them. So any help clearing up these historical issues is welcome. But I'll tell you where there's a sticking point with some of the existing blocks - a number of indefinitely blocked open proxies are still open proxies, or at least webhosts, many years later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

DCsghost‎

• DCsghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's an outstanding unblock request requiring review at user talk:DCsghost, where Bbb23 just removed TPA. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a note at Bbb's talk ("is this what you meant?"), since removing talk page access and not-handling an unblock request don't normally go together. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy pinged me and Nyttend left messages on my Talk page. Hence my comments. I revoked TPA because of the disruptive unblock requests. At the same time, it takes more than what Dcsghost is doing for me to remove the unblock request, and as the blocking admin, I can't decline it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've declined the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77

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

---

Wikid77 is a frequent commentator at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I have given this editor an indefinite block for "espousing racist revisionism in support of slavery." I gave them a shorter block a few weeks back for similar behavior. Since Jimbotalk is the closest thing that we have to a free speech zone on Wikipedia, I would appreciate a community review of this block. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: this user's history on Jimbo's talk is setting alarm bells ringing for me, and their polemic there is genuinely problematic. Given that this comment (which I assume was the trigger for your block) is essentially revisionist polemic, I think they needed to be blocked. That said, they've made constructive contributions elsewhere, so I don't think we're at the point of a NOTHERE permablock: but I wouldn't accept a "sorry I won't do it again" unblock request either, because the tendency to peddle this sort of crap runs deep. As such, I think we should discuss a topic ban from racial issues and slavery, broadly construed, as a precondition for any unblock. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

His numerous disturbing, hair-raising, and thinly disguised hateful/racist posts on Jimbotalk have come up before. I'd be curious what if anything his unblock appeal states. I think one condition of any unblock should be a topic ban from Jimbotalk. The community has put up with enough of his spewing hatred and nonsense already. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Where will he post instead? Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How about dev/null? -- Calton | Talk 07:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with Wikid77's comments on JIMBOTALK, Wikid77 has also complained about not being able to use the N-word; I quote: "In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more)."

While OTOH they do do some constructive work on the 'pedia (their last 5000 contributions are almost entirely citation fixes with the remaining mostly being comments on JIMBOTALK); however I at-least don't particularly have a desire to someone who espouses such things unblocked (although if so, certainly a topic ban from race and slavery and/or from JIMBOTALK should be imposed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding. "hardworking servant"? You can't make this shit up. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I wish I was.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good block. Perhaps their pointy redirects from Negro slaves and Negro slave to Free Negro instead of for example Slavery in the United States or Atlantic slave trade should be retargeted as well? In any case, either keep blocked or only unblock with clear topic ban on anything related to slavery and to race. Fram (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC
  • Fram, I am going to celebrate the fact that I agree with you. Thank you for pointing at those redirects. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Can you provide diffs of their pointy redirects from Negro slaves and Negro slave to Free Negro? Wikid77 did not edit either. According to the page histories ([4][5]), the only editors who touched those pages were JzG and Joe Roe . Am I missing something? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, the original redirects by Wikid77 were deleted. Fram (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @David Tornheim: You know, if any other editor were met with something like the above I would expect them to strike their original post and apologize for the misunderstanding; can we expect the same of you? Your doing so would go a long way to dispelling the increasingly popular perception of you as an editor unwilling to admit to an error but instead preferring to double down and continuously push for something that has already been proven wrong... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Indef--I firmly believe that he is squarely in the NOTHERE territory. A cursory look at his t/p (after Cullen's first warning, few months back) including this thread and Primefac's warning followed by the two blocks of Cullen (which were both for JIMBOTALK; though) leads me to firmly believe that he is peddling his revisionist-theories in mainspace. And there's some mostly-pointless gnoming.∯WBG^converse 12:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block - Jimbotalk may be a free-speech zone but that still doesn't give you the right to say things like that, If topicbanned I genuinely believe he'd simply go elsewhere and the pointy redirects certainly don't help, Personally I would say he's just over that NOTHERE line. –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. We're far too tolerant of "casual" racism around here. He was blocked three weeks ago and returned to the same behaviour; he may once have been a good editor, but what he's doing these days isn't just white supremacist revisionism, it's actively creating a hostile environment for non-white editors. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block, and turning into an effective community site ban (which I endorse). The word "nigger" is just a term for a hardworking servant and not at all a term of racist abuse? Just, wow! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good block, endorse ban if anyone proposes it. I nearly indeffed him a couple of weeks ago for this, but hoped it was just a blip or misunderstanding. It's now obvious that it's a pattern. As I've said before, I have no issue with white supremacists (or people with any other fringe views) editing Wikipedia if they can keep it to themselves and not let it affect their work, but when someone is repeatedly spouting racist views, particularly on high-visibility pages, it creates a chilling effect that discourages others from getting involved. Jimmy Wales is no longer the God-King of Wikipedia, and that he personally tolerates racists doesn't mean that the rest of us are obliged to. ‑ Iridescent 15:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, please strike your last sentence which is unequivocally a personal attack, unneeded and a false characterization of what happened in that thread. His stated viewpoint is 180 degrees from what you have just stated here. Either strike or produce diffs which support your assertions.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Like hell will I strike it; Jimmy Wales has tolerated over 2000 posts from Wikid77 on his talkpage and as far as I am aware has never once even challenged his views. (The idea that he hasn't seen them, or doesn't feel it appropriate to challenge views with which he disagrees, doesn't hold water; Jimmy is more than happy to censor posts from his talkpage when he disagrees with them.) Show me a single diff of Jimmy saying anything along the lines of "Wikid77, please don't post racist comments on my talkpage" and I'll reconsider. ‑ Iridescent 16:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I see, using your logic the failure to challenge must mean that one tolerates racism/racists. Very well, have you challenged Wikid77 on this before? You stated "I nearly indeffed him a couple of weeks ago for this..." but I don't see any warnings from you on his talk page or in that thread. I also don't see you in his block log either. Have you challenged him on racism before? If you haven't, should we apply your logic to mean that you tolerate racism/racists because you didn't take action even though you saw the above?
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, it didn't take me very long to find him disagreeing with some of Wikid77's views so "as far as I am aware has never once even challenged his views" means you haven't looked.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • So I take it that's a "no"? Your strawman argument that because I haven't challenged Wikid77 somehow means I endorse his views as well is laughable; we're talking about Jimmy's talkpage, not mine. If he (or anyone) were to post garbage like to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro or remember the reports of adventures, joy, and slaves moving back to their owner families on my talkpage they'd be ejected from my talkpage faster than you can say WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: I second the request to strike. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no problem with Iridescent's post. Jimbo isn't fragile; people have said hundreds of worse things about him without incident. And Jimbo has allowed Wikid77 to post thousands of racist posts on his talkpage, without ever removing any of them or asking him to stop. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Thousands" is over-doing it; Wikid77 also went through a phase of posting regular Florida weather reports on Jimmy's talk (for no apparent reason) which accounts for quite a few of his 2005 posts. ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dude, you have misled me. I have forever lost faith in you and your guidance. I will never drink your kool-aid again. Softlavender (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Question: How often does Jimbo block/ ban problematic editors? Or even engage with cranky editors to any depth? Someone here with more facility may be able to find a number of, and for what reasons he usually (if ever) "throws down" with other editors. (scary quotes for effect only) I myself am more inclined to ignore obnoxious comments and let them stand on their own "merit," unless the comments are overt attack edits to the mainspace or on talk pages directed at an identifiable target. That's never cool, agreed? In the case of such comments at Jimmy's talk page, other editors are more than happy to "take out the trash" when needs be. We do it for love. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

​The last time someone tried to "take out the trash" on Jimmy's talk, this was the result. To repeat myself, since that's generally one of the first userpages external visitors and new editors look at, and when it looks like this (permalink to the current revision of the page at the time of posting) they're quite reasonably going to assume that if this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Jimmy Wales, this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Wikipedia as a whole, and that this isn't a site with which they want to have any involvement. Because of Jimmy's position and his constant self-promotion as "the public face of Wikipedia", his talkpage is a de facto public-facing page. ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What I see at the top of that section "Prescient comments" are a couple of declarative statements by Jimmy that go to the heart of his feelings on the matter of racist commentary versus racism in the historical context of articles included in the project. My reading of his comments then, and in the present are clear, and they should provide direction to any editors interested in maintaining the integrity of the project. I cannot comment in any depth on the particular editor who has generated this notice, I am only really familiar with them from their comments at Jimbo's talk page where I felt he was merely a fringe type of revisionist whose comments held very little weight. Forgive my intrusion here, but I was compelled to comment on this matter, as a poster to the thread which has caused part of this ongoing commentary. I shall burden you no further with this, except to say, I wish someone clever would go over to that talk page and put up a picture of a goat tied to a stick. Go ahead, it's my post. You have my permission. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Site ban or topic ban?

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

---

Since a number of people have mentioned both possibilities, I'll go ahead and propose them both, and let's see where that leaves us. Note: I've added "ethnicity" to the topic-ban as a preemptive measure against potential arguments that some related topics are about ethnicity and not race. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban: Wikid77 is site-banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months.

• Topic ban: Wikid77 is topic-banned indefinitely from race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months.

Pinging @Cullen328, Softlavender, Legacypac, Calton, Galobtter, Fram, Winged Blades of Godric, Davey2010, Guettarda, Boing! said Zebedee, and Iridescent: from the above discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as first choice, per my comments above; but if there is no consensus for a topic ban, I would prefer a site-ban to nothing. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Switching to supporting a site ban because of the complete lack of situational awareness demonstrated in Wikid77's post below. This was always a somewhat borderline case; I was in support of a topic-ban based on the hope that they would be able and willing to make constructive contributions in other areas. They show no signs of wanting to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, first and only choice. We'll have a de facto site ban anyway if the result above is a community endorsement of the indef block, so any topic ban would be in addition to the effective site ban (which wouldn't make a lot of sense). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Well, theoretically any admin could still unblock: the topic-ban is to address that possibility. If we're explicitly endorsing the block (and I started the proposal partly to make it explicit) then a t-ban is obviously not required. I'm inclined to give them this chance, but I'm not going to be particularly upset if the more draconian sanction is preferred. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  With the current consensus that a community-endorsed indef block effectively equates to a community site ban, no, I don't think an individual admin would have the power to unblock without community consultation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: That's only once a formal endorsement has been made, though, which is what this discussion is for; and theoretically, the community could prefer a t-ban over a site-ban. I agree that community sentiment above is reasonably clear—I suspect I'm somewhat more willing to give second chances than most—but I think it's important we go through the proper motions when politically fraught issues are concerned. Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with going through the motions (as a sewer worker once said to me ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban (or indefinite block on the understanding that no admin will lift it without community discussion, which amounts to the same thing), first and only choice, per my comment in the section above; for a Wikipedian to be openly racist creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating. In the case of a fantastically good editor it might be worth spending a lot of time and effort trying to craft a way in which they can continue to edit in a way that doesn't provide them with an outlet to espouse their views, but looking at Wikid77's recent editing history I'm not seeing anything remotely constructive; just a mixture of racist commentary and largely pointless minor edits. (Because he refuses to use the "minor edits" checkbox, it makes looking for any actually constructive contributions in his history difficult, but I'm not seeing anything in either his contribution history, the "articles edited" section on his userpage, or his most-edited pages that makes me think "this guy is so indispensable, we need to compromise our principles to try to keep him".) ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Topic ban from all race related topics, broadly construed. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - Having just seen this (which was posted by Galobtter above) - That post as well the defending of the actress's actions alone warrant an indef, They may well make great edits here but that doesn't give them the right to make racial comments, There are just some things you don't say and certainly don't defend ..... –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• A note about topic ban: My recollection is that Wikid's crazy disinformation posts on Jimbotalk are not confined to race issues. IIRC, he spews all kinds of alt-right nonsense. So a topic ban from race-related issues is not going to cut it in my opinion, which is why my topic ban proposal was a topic ban from Jimbotalk.

  I support a site ban, particularly in view of Black Kite's comment below. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. I was just going to say "Topic ban", but last night, after a block and multiple warnings, creating Negro slave and Negro slaves, both as redirects to Free negro?? Seriously, that's a goodbye. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:I can't see these actions, either in the redirect history, nor the user's contributions. Am I missing something that only admins can see? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: The first versions (which did indeed direct to Free negro) were deleted before the current ones were recreated, so only admins can see them now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both. If he somehow appeals the site ban, he should also be prohibited from editing any areas relating to race. These are not mutually exclusive options. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per Black Kite. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Either, but preferably site ban. He's been trolling JIMBOTALK for ages. In fact I was going to bring this here if Cullen328 hadn't. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Both per Ian.∯WBG^converse 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Curiously, does Jimbo still have the power to unilaterally grant un-bans?∯WBG^converse 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• In theory yes, in practice no. He hasn't exercised his power to unban since he tried to unblock Vote X for Change in 2011, and if he tried to overrule the community nowadays it would probably just result in the 'founder' userright being revoked. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban I don't see enough reasons to allow any editing. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• ¿Por que no los dos? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, per Iridescent. I do not want to work in a joint where we allow such racists to work as well even if they're confined to a couple of the floors of the office building. And now I remember having commented on this user's ridiculous ideas before, at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_228#Battle_for_freedom_of_speech_re_Roseanne. Scroll down to my (rather inane) comment to see what another editor came up with, under the guise of "Maybe I am dumb". And speaking of my inane comments (I did that again the other day, in the thread on Jimbo's page that got us here, thank you Cullen328: you did what I should have done but for some reason couldn't. Maybe I'm still too much in denial, too much in "you can't make this shit up" mode, as if this isn't quotidian enough. I need to step up: thank you for showing the way. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• First choice is topic ban from everything slavery and race related and Jimbotalk. As usual I prefer a solution that addresses the problem directly and allows for constructive editing elsewhere. Second choice is both. ~Awilley (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Wikipedia is not a political forum. We are a collaborative community dedicated to writing and maintaining an encyclopaedia. This requires collegiality, and others have explained above the chilling effect that comments like these create. While editors are traditionally given a degree of latitude on Jimbo Wales' talk page, it is not a "free for all". If, after six months or so, Wikid expresses a desire to return to contribute to the encyclopaedia rather than use Wikipedia as a platform for polemics, it would be reasonable to consider an unban with restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both and anything else we can do to him. I have no use for racist trolls. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's be careful, we aren't site-banning an editor, merely because we don't like his/her beliefs. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• He can believe anything he wants. He may not post just anything he wants on Wikipedia. We block/ban people all the time for postkng ads, spam, hoaxes and yes, racist rants. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• They aren't "beliefs", they are delusional polemics and racist POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Editors can believe whatever they want. Where it becomes an issue is when an editor is stating a public position of hostility to members of a particular group to the extent that it has the potential to discourage members of that group from contributing to Wikipedia themselves; at that point, we need to start weighing the opportunity cost of lost editors vs the opportunity cost of losing the racist/political-extremist/sexist/homophobic/whatever editor. In a case like this, where the racist comments were posted on an unusually sensitive page like Jimmy Wales's talkpage, the problem is exacerbated, since that's generally one of the first userpages external visitors and new editors look at, and when it looks like this (permalink to the current revision of the page at the time of posting) they're quite reasonably going to assume that if this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Jimmy Wales, this kind of racist ranting is tolerated by Wikipedia as a whole, and that this isn't a site with which they want to have any involvement. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban - Wikid77 already has one topic ban logged at WP:Editing Restrictions, once you start to consider multiple topic bans its obviously not worth the effort involved at that point. And yes, its perfectly fine to ban editors who have beliefs that are actively damaging to a community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - net negative to the project, as above. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site Ban - Only choice. Racists go fuck themselves.--Jorm (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikid77 was one of the very first Wikipedians I had a meaningful exchange with more than 10 years ago, but this is deeply troubling. In addition to the Irish slavery comments that started this, there are others like:

• this thread is shocking, it has been partially quoted above, but that wasn't the only problem there
• continuing the argument regarding Roseanne's tweet on her talk page
• various arguments/myths in defense of the Confederacy
• strange non-sequitur about the shift of language 'from "negroes" or "colored people" then "African-Americans"' (though it's possible I'm reading that wrong)
• starts off with "After many questionable claims of U.S. police "bias" against blacks (not proven by facts)..."

If this were a one-off, I'd be straining to AGF while looking for some explanation and assurances. This, however, looks sadly like a pattern and is incompatible with the environment we want to create here. Thus, site ban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Argh. I came back to revise the above. I had given it some thought and figured it would make more sense to issue a broad topic ban on all race-related content on any page, with a possible fixed-term block on top of it. Now that I get here and start typing, however, I see this thoroughly tone-deaf comment on Wikid77's talk page. Thought about swapping out "site ban" for "indef" but he just isn't showing any signs of getting it such that the potential for harm here is too great... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Topic Ban My first impression was that this was just another racist troll that needed to be shown the door. But an examination of their editing history clearly shows they have been around for a very long time and they have a solid record of non-controversial contributions. I think banning people because we find their opinions/beliefs to be offensive, even odious, sets a dangerous precedent. No one should be blocked for their beliefs. We block only to stop disruptive behavior, not to punish those with differing views, no matter how repugnant. See WP:NOPUNISH. Given Wikid77's talk page behavior on this subject I think Cullen's block was good. But a T Ban seems a better fit for an editor with their record. This is not a case of NOTHERE. That said, barring some kind of dramatic conversion which would need to include a formal renunciation of their racism, under no circumstances will I support lifting the T Ban. If such an appeal is made I give permission to any editor in good standing to log my oppose and reference this statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my mind the only way a TBan is going to work is for the TBan to include both race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed, and Jimbotalk. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, where are you seeing this solid record of non-controversial contributions, as (per my post above) I looked fairly hard and can't see it? Going over his recent edits, I can see a lot of pointless minor edits (adding/removing whitespace and the like), the racist trolling that prompted this thread, regular weather reports for Florida posted at Jimbotalk (baffling, as neither he nor Jimmy lives in Florida so I'm not sure why the interest), and virtually nothing else in recent years. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He has been here since 2006, amassing 61k edits. 73% of those are in the mainspace. Approximately 5% are on user talk pages. I haven't any means of breaking down what percentage of those are clearly disruptive but I am guessing not more than half. And those obviously being on the subjects of race and slavery. This is not a case of NOTHERE. Their disruptive editing is clearly limited to a handful of specific topics and represents a very small percentage of their over all contributions. In short, this is an editor who has some seriously F---ed up opinions which do not appear to be a major component of their work here. So again, unless we are punishing them for their views, I think the argument for a site ban is pretty weak. This is what T Bans are supposed to be used for. However, I will agree that any violation of the T Ban should end with an immediate indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, he may once have been a productive editor (joined more than 12 years ago!), but he has not been for the past several years. Where are any constructive contributions from the past few years? Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has been here since 2006, amassing 61k edits. 73% of those are in the mainspace is true but extremely misleading. He has a high percentage of mainspace edits because he makes so many of the minor edits I mentioned earlier (have a look at his recent history and see for yourself), and because he generally refuses to engage with other editors so he has few talk/usertalk contributions (he has twice as many contributions to User talk:Jimbo Wales than to every other user talk page combined, including his own). As far as I can tell, since the sockpuppetry in 2010 that earned him his existing topic ban, he has almost no substantive edits, and those that he did make seem to be things like this which were promptly reverted as inappropriate. Per my remarks above, for someone who's an obvious positive it's potentially worth wasting the time of everyone else trying to find ways in which a racist can still contribute without being in a position where their racism creates a chilling effect for other editors, but the onus is on those making "we can't afford to lose him!" claims to demonstrate that this is someone we actually want around. As I said above, because he refuses to use the "minor edit" checkbox it makes it difficult to search his contributions for anything positive, but thus far nobody has provided a single example. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: A relevant recent quote from Bbb23 regarding another user: "If a users needs two topic bans to be a constructive contributor to the encyclopedia, the waste of time of other editors permitting them to do that is fairly obvious." -- Softlavender (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with broad topic ban that includes Jimbotalk and race, ethnicity and slavery.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Literaturegeek, I have no idea why you are repeating yourself under my post (you already !voted here), because you missed the entire point of Bbb23's statement. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am not repeating myself for the simple reason that I did not define the scope of the topic ban in my vote. Your comment quoting bbb23 is indented and thus part of a threaded discussion and higher up you suggest the scope of the topic ban if one is applied. I replied to your higher comment saying I agree. If you wanted Bbb23’s quote to be entirely separate from above comments then you should not have indented it, I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• My comment is indented to nest under the post I was replying to, this one. Your post is indented to nest under my quote from Bbb23. What or which post are you actually attempting to reply to or refer to? You should add one more colon to the number of colons in whatever post that is. Ideally, your statement should be moved to simply be an addition to your !vote below, as it in its current form and placement it appears as if you have !voted twice. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, yeah, I can see where I erred. Thank you for pointing out my mistake @Softlavender:. I was replying to and agreeing with your viewpoint in your message above dated 21:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC). Have a good one User:Softlavender, cheers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site Ban In 2018, this shouldn't even be a question. I don't care if they have been around a long time and made some good edits. ♟♙ (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban but oppose site ban and feel block should be lifted. I largely agree with Softlavender Ad Orientem. The problems are specific to a topic area. He has a clear history of productive non-controversial edits outside the topic area. Siteban is therefore unjustified.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Softlavender is arguing for a full site ban? ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hah, I messed up. I misread threaded discussion and misinterpreted Softlavender’s response as being the author of Ad Orientem’s post. Struck and corrected. Thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban Although I've seen Wikid77 around, I never thought that they would venture into WP:NOTHERE territory like that. Amazing how racism will drive someone off the rails (or maybe drive them to reveal their true colors). Miniapolis 23:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• No block, no ban - What the hell is wrong with you people? Are we now enforcing ideological correctness??? Guess what? Some people are dumbasses about certain subjects — but they are useful and positive in other realms. Figure out how to rein in the dumbassery. Terrible block, Jim. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. Count this as an advisory for TOPIC BAN, since we've already decided to burn the witch... Carrite (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Figure out how to rein in the dumbassery would be justification for the suggested topic ban. And rejecting the belief that all humanity is on some level equal is rather counter to the assumptions that are behind the goals of this encyclopedia: if humanity is not equal then some races cannot be trusted to improve the site and some races should not even have access free knowledge. It's not simply political correctness, stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic example of a strawman argument there, with a little PC sloganeering tossed in for good measure. Well done! Carrite (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Await comment from colleague whose talk page it was posted on - Jimbo Wales the community would like your opinion on this discussion. No one appears to have pinged you and directly asked for your input. I would like to hear from you as a fellow member of the community. I have my own opinion, but as a matter of courtesy it would be proper to hear from you, as the post(s) occurred on your talk page. Many of us I suspect would be grateful for your views. Simon Adler (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you pinged a blocked user not User:Jimbo Wales Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooops. It proves how much I hang around J'Ws talk page. I don't even know his name! Simon Adler (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nah, the behavior has spilled over to content edits which are thoroughly reprehensible. This is way beyond Jimbo's purview at this point. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that aspect of the situation Softlavender. However, as comments were posted to a colleague's talkpage, I think the talkpage trustee (we don't own T/P's obviously) should be invited to give his views on the comments posted there. Simon Adler (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was pinged here but have nothing further to say about the substance of this editor's behavior. My action speaks louder than any words I might write now. The community is also speaking quite clearly, and I am grateful that most of my colleagues seem to think that I did the right thing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban Their defense is literally "I have black friends"..really? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban – in addition to the above comments, there's a long-term pattern of attitude problems, as exemplified by his RFA back in 2013 (particularly see opposes 1 and 10). Also, I can't resist the temptation to post a little light relief. Graham87 09:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - racism and other attitudes that rank people based on external characteristics are far beyond "dumbassery". We don't need editors who spread hateful propaganda designed to exclude groups of people. From what I can tell, their other contributions are at best marginally positive, but if they should ever successfully appeal their site ban they should be topic banned from making any edits that in any way touch on race, ethnicity, and slavery, in any namespace. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban - Took a while for me to get aroound to looking nto this. Yes, a site ban is appropriate, per Black Kite and Iridescent and others. At this time Wikipedia is essentially under attack from neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and racists of all kinds, most of whom appears an non-confirmed IPs, but others of which have managed to hang on to become autoconfirmed. The last thing we need is an extended confirmed racist stalking our pages. Per Guiy's question below, if a site ban does not gain consensus, a topic ban is the minimum sanction required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I can't believe you people are working up to ban somebody from Wikipedia over this comment (so it says above). He referred to a redlinked black slaveowners article, so I wasn't sure ... but at least Snopes says that this is true. [6] Since when did Wikipedia become about banning people in "free speech zones" because they cite inconvenient facts?! I mean, he didn't even cite some random study trying to support racial differences here, but only raised some issues regarding unusual aspects of slavery that some people think could be used by racists. I mean, it's like gun control for historical information! History is weird - I still can't get over the case of Jews offered the Iron Cross by the Axis during the Continuation War (fear not, it's in the article!) - I think it is a theorem, well at least a conjecture, that in every conflict there has to be some central point where the global contradictions inherent in the conflict all come together in utter absurdity. We should treasure whenever Wikipedians guide us to that point, from which it is easier to see the entire conflict in context. Now you do drag up some more dubious quotes from the past, but this was something he was already put through ANI over, according to this conversation. I am sick and tired of this bait and switch ANI tactic where people complain about something that's not really a problem, then use it to impose a harsher penalty than they already did for the same thing. In the past I have felt that conservatives exaggerated the degree of liberal intolerance relative to their own, but seeing what I have here forces me to reevaluate that. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about denouncing wrong ideas (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it were) but about collecting and sharing knowledge! Wnt (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Plenty more reasons have been found in this thread if you'd bother to read it. The rejection of the belief that humanity is on some level equal is fundamentally incompatible with this site's goals of allowing anyone regardless of their race to contribute to or learn from this encyclopedia. Stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You, Ian.thomson need to stop hectoring your opponents in this discussion and to stop spamming the same self-righteous slogans to multiple people. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Opponents? You need to stop enabling racism -- racism isn't righteous, opposing racism isn't self-righteous. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't be !voting, because at least two of the prior discussions show me directly addressing Wikid77 on this (one of which I did not remember), but I think Wnt has misrepresented the issues. Wikid77 seems to posit that the weight of facts of slavery's history are somehow a slur on the "white" race, and/or a slur on the Confederacy. He also seems to object to people calling those and similar comments "racist", when yes, those comments are racist, and people do have a right to call those comments racist. As for those Wikipedians of "mixed race" in Wikid77's latest comment, well that seems to be an attack on those of us who may be of "mixed race". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. The re-directs created mentioned by Black Kite are the last straw. This is the third serious instance of racially disturbing behaviour we have seen in under a week. The problem seems to be getting worse. Simon Adler (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site Ban, period/full stop. And maybe a trouting to the editors above who are indulging in ridiculous "free speech" posturing, especially User:Wnt's rationalizing. --Calton | Talk 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban like Carrite. There is no policy-based reason for site-banning for some imagined speech code. Yeah, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum but Jimbo's talk has always been one. This certainly shows the dangers of discussing politics and sensitive topics such as race there. Also, not a really defence for Wikid77 because he states he's American on his user page, but it is worth noting that the English Wikipedia is very much an international community and what is considered inappropriate political speech waries wildly in different countries. For instance, several European countries have a burqa ban and it isn't very controversial, but I believe some some American state-level politician got massive media controversy for proposing this. So what is considered politically correct varies a lot. It is not completely obvious to me why using the word "negro" would be considered bloody murder as black nationalist organizations still themselves use the word. Oh, and some more cryptonite for the people who were offended about the prospect of Irish slaves: white Christian slaves were popular with the Ottomans: Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. --Pudeo (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo, are you seriously trying to claim that the word "nigger" isn't considered racist in the United States? ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

??? That's not the word he used above! "Negro" has also fallen out of favor (though not as far!), for reasons that aren't very obvious to me. Still, it seems fair enough as it goes - I wouldn't use "Caucasian" to mean "white", after all, since you'd think I meant someone from the Republic of Georgia. Returning to the use of simple shades (in English rather than Spanish, I mean) may even be a way to help put the racist toys back in the box. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read any of the diffs here? This isn't a discussion about Pudeo using the term "negro", this is a discussion about Wikid77 (among many other things) complaining that he's no longer allowed to call black people 'niggers". "In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more)." ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This site rather requires the assumption that race or ethnicity in no way inhibit or disqualify one from learning from or adding to the encyclopedia -- an idea that is simply incompatible with racism. Stop enabling racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. At some point the time & effort spent cleaning-up after a POV-spewer weighs-down the project and becomes an overwhelming net negative. Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any block or ban. If I were an African-American, I would be offended by all of these self-appointed "protectors" of African-American Wikipedia editors trying to ban another editor because of some of his comments (none of which were rude or pushy or based on ignorance). My guess is that none of the editors trying to ban Wikid77 are even African-American. African-Americans are not so weak or fragile that they need this kind of "protection". I also feel that any African-American good faith editor of Wikipedia would enjoy collaborating with Wikid77 more than collaborating with the editors who are trying to ban Wikid77. Jrheller1 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So a Confederate sympathizer who doesn't think the N word is racist is exactly the sort of person black people love to hang around with? Now, my home town is only 42% black but that's generally not been my experience. Racism doesn't need your protection. It isn't simply about protection but common decency -- maybe you could try showing some. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That's quite enough. Everyone is well aware of your stance. You don't need to bludgeon every comment, and assert moral justice in a thread that's already heading toward a site ban. If you want to fight to good fight, go write an article on an underrepresented group. That's the kindof thing people who actually give a shit are busy doing. Opinions are cheap, and the last time I tried to put together a spreadsheet, I believe only about 3% of our featured biographies were about people who are black. GMG^talk 19:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

People who defend racists often think their hands are clean of racism. They need to know their hands have just has much burnt cross ash on them, even if they otherwise keep their noses clean. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes. And an order of magnitude more people feel that publicly expressing personal outrage washes their hands, and absolves them of doing anything that might actually address the problem. Plenty of people talking round the dinner table, nobody showing up for the city council meeting. When you get done expressing your feelings, gimme the diffs, and I'll let you know how many articles that makes about the 42% of your neighbors who apparently need to be a professional athlete or win the Nobel Prize in order to get a featured article on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because something doesn't meet your ideal doesn't mean that it's worthless. I could reverse this and say that writing articles is a waste compared to off-site actions (while implying that you're doing nothing there with just as much evidence as you have to imply that's the case for me) but I'm not as interested in a "I'm helping more" dick-measuring contest as you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly reverse it, but if you want to argue that writing articles is a waste of time, then you shouldn't be here. Goodbye, and you're welcome to come back when you feel otherwise. GMG^talk 22:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban — A few editors need to get their head out of their arse—not sorry to say. This is not about disliking his “beliefs” or being “politically correct”, this is about offering every editor—whether they are white, black, or any other color of the rainbow—an environment to collaborate. Racism as open and unapologetic as this discourages collaboration and gives me no confidence in the editor’s ability to be neutral—or even rooted in reality.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban, per WP:NOTHERE. This diff is really something [7]. "Be thankful for the black slaves who worked to protect the Confederacy (...) who then returned to Dixie to rebuild from the ruins and mourn their owner families..." & "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house..." -- what in the world? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• No action per Wnt and Carrite. We could consider taking strong action against an editor who posts talk page comments that are so problematic that they need to be removed, also from the edit history of the page. E.g. an editor who has the habit of getting into disputes with others and then starts to insult his opponents, makes legal threats, posts personal information etc. etc. But Wikid77's behavior on Jimbo's talk page is nothing of this sort. His comments can still be found on Jimbo's talk page and Jimbo is quite strict with removing inappropriate comments. Wikid77's comments violate the hypersensitive US social norms on racial matters. He may indeed be wrong about some issues, his overall attitude is similar to going to Saudi Arabia and advocating atheism there. Now, however we dislike the way he discusses topics related to race, we have to acknowledge that he isn't a racist himself. It's actually the attitude of society to be hypersensitive about discussing race openly that has led to the former racists to use their methods against other targets. The problematic behavior underlying racism is tolerated in the US. Gays were the victim until recently, it was ok. for politicians to make discriminatory laws against gays. And when gay rights were settled, the former racists move on to transgender people, inflicting great damage to their cause with impunity. Poor people have always been fair game, not only are you free to insult them, you can make laws that makes it impossible for them to get health care. The politicians responsible for doing that are not formally racists because they don't talk about race, but their actions do end up killing many people of backgrounds they don't care much about. Wikipedians defending these people will not be banned or blocked. No, the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power, you'll be kicked out of Wikipedia based on BLP violations if you dare to call a spade a spade on such far more relevant issues. Count Iblis (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power... Would you care to explain that statement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Children are indoctrinated by their parents and the educational system to accept the values of society as they exist today. In a free democratic society we allow dissenting opinions, we can have vigorous debate and disagreements, but within some large margin all opinions and views are considered to be legitimate opinions that reasonable people can have. This means that a slow drift of the values that society sticks to, can on the long term place old values of society beyond the boundaries that are acceptable in the new society. It may then look like your great great great.. great grandfather was a racist homophobic misogynistic person. Formally these adjectives may be correct, but we normally use these adjectives to refer to persons who live in today's society where you would have been educated to stick to today's values. If 150 years from now there exists a Wold government and dividing the World up into countries is seen as a method of rich countries to enslave the inhabitants of poor countries, then the people living then browsing the archives of Wikipedia, reading this very page may have a difficult time understanding the disapproval of Wikid77's comments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that's pure twaddle. It neither explains your comment that "the real Adolf Hitlers are always respected" nor does it in any way explain Wikid77's comments. You've put together a bunch of words, but you've said absolutely nothing of relevance. David Tornheim put a lot of words together too, and I disagree with them, but at least they had meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Count Iblis: 2018 is almost over. You've made 294 edits to Wikipedia. Of them, exactly five have been to articles. Five edits out of two hundred and ninety four - that's 1.7%. I suggest that you express your opinions less, and improve the encyclopedia more, or move on to another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Directly threatening the editors who disagree with you for expressing their opinions. Is that how Wikipedia establishes "consensus" nowadays??? It seems emblematic of the kind of Wikipedia the people who want this ban are working to create. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Wow" indeed, Writ. Your facts are as askew as your opinions. I am not an admin, and therefore cannot "threaten" Count Iblis with anything except my disdain. Count Iblis has been a boil in Wikipedia's butt for a long time, a fact recognized at various times by ArbCom and at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wnt, BMK is spot-on. I will go to the extent of saying that he can be quite-rationally blocked for a prime candidate who is NOTHERE. He needs to find another socializing-hobby; very soon.∯WBG^converse 17:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I made a large number of edits to the Ref Desks in recent years, but they are all flagged as talk page edits. Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Ref Desks are right HERE at Wikipedia. I know that many editors don't like the Ref Desks, they think that this doesn't belong to Wikipedia, but as things stand now, they are part of Wikipedia and therefore anyone who makes 99% of his/her edits to the Ref Desks should not be flagged as someone who is NOTHERE. Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• (REDACTED by power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)). Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban. Disgusting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Topic ban -- I am changing my position because I see that he had been warned and for some of the others diffs provided here and proof of the strange redirect of slave -> free negro. I do agree with others below that he misused the Davis source, and should have owned up to that, especially now that it has been pointed out quite clearly that his conclusions defy what is in the source. If he showed some apology for the behavior and addressed the concerns and promised to follow the WP:RS in the future, I might cut him more slack. But I am not seeing much desire to change or acknowledge the problems. I am not seeing him taking this proceeding seriously enough, giving only this reply. If he continues to edit these areas with this attitude, then that is a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No action from Jimbo's page:

I agree with Wnt.  Those who are so eager to have Wikid77 site-banned for making "racist" comments, might want to consult the definition of racist.  From our article racism:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity."  A similar definition for "racist" from Google is "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  Do you have any diffs where you can show that he (or the material in his comments) either: (1) believes that one race is superior to another -or- (2) has shown discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity?

Although I certainly disagree with some of his comments (especially his apology of Roseanne Barr's racist joke and his desire for "free speech" here) and find some of his comments either naive or insensitive (e.g. [8]), calling his comments so racist as to site-banning him is a stretch. 

Many of his claims about the Confederacy he posted on Jimbo's talk page in the section "Prescient comments" he backed up with WP:RS. I do see some level of Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, but what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing. I did not see any of those who attacked his comments as "racist" as providing better sources that disagreed; instead, I believe the objections are based primarily on editors' feeling that the statements are racist based on what they have been taught about the Civil War--possibly from unreliable sources--rather than doing the harder work of looking at the sources.

One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist.

Besides, if the comments are so offensive, why not simply remove them?  Then the discussion could be over whether the comment violated our rules.   --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. My oppose has nothing to do with free speech--more fully explained in my answer to Beyond My Ken immediately below.--David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Once again, as often happens, Wikipedia, a private website whose purpose is to build an encyclopedia, is being confused with government action in a public place.
  In the US, the First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Speech in the public realm, and most other countries have such guarantees, at least on paper, even if some of them do not enforce them. It's different here. No one has a right to free speech on Wikipedia, which is clearly explained at WP:FREESPEECH, and the WMF and the various Wiki-communities are perfectly free to regulate speech in whatever ways they see fit. The WMF forbids pro-pedophilia speech, and we routinely block and ban anti-Semities, pro-Nazis and racists for expressing anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi and racist opinions. It's our privilege to do so, as our primary concern should always be building an encyclopedia, and when obnoxious, dangerous, and insulting opinions such as these get in the way of doing so, becoming disruptive and making it more difficult to do the necessary work of encyclopedia-writing, it is incumbent on us to remove the disruption, without giving the least consideration of whether the individuals causing the disruption would have the right to do so in the public realm.
  This obviously invalidates any "oppose" !vote which is based on a free-speech rationale, and they should be rejected out of hand as not being based on either policy or actual practice. Whether the opposers like it or not, that's the reality of a privately-owned website, and it's never going to change. When the community consensus is that expressed opinions are disturbing and onerous enough to be disruptive, the community not only can get rid of the problematic editor, it actually has an obligation to do so, to protect the development of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• FYI. My oppose has nothing to do with free speech. If Wikid77 was repeatedly making demonstrably racist comments, I would urge action--the Roseanne Barr discussion was the only evidence I found troubling. I did not see any evidence of him talking down to other editors he perceived to be of a different race or ethnicity. I did not see him making comments designed to offend people from other races. He may raise uncomfortable truths found in WP:RS that are troubling because they challenge the "indisputable facts" we have been taught in Northern schools (and in documentaries by Ken Burns*)--but isn't that what Wikipedia is about?--providing the best quality sources and presenting material in an WP:NPOV fashion? The chilling effect is not allowing editors to discuss articles about race using reliable sources if they go against the house POV on the subject. It undermines the encyclopedia to let editors' opinions and biases replace the material found in the best, most reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(*)Note: Ken Burns's The Civil War with 39 million viewers is criticized by historians (e.g. "Faced with the choice between historical illumination or nostalgia, Burns consistently opts for nostalgia.") I believe many in the U.S. get their information about the Civil War from sources like these or worse. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia is not "about" "raising uncomfortable truths", Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say, and where there are differing opinions among reliable sources, what the consensus of reliable sources say. We can mention WP:FRINGE ideas, but we do not given them undue WP:WEIGHT. And we do these things in our articles, with proper sourcing for everything, not in personal opinions expressed on talk pages, that is what creates a chilling effect, and it needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say, and where there are differing opinions among reliable sources, what the consensus of reliable sources say. Where do you get that? Are you saying when there is a disagreement among experts we choose the most popular one (or the "best" view), and can leave out all the other significant minority expert opinions? Are you saying we should dispense with the Second Pillar of Wikipedia and the policy Neutral Point of View?

The Second Pillar of Wikipedia says:

We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence...In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". [Emphasis added.]

The policy Neutral Point of View echoes this:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." [Emphasis added.]

It seems to me you are giving editors the green light to omit minority opinions in reliable sources that make them uncomfortable. Is that true? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that you're conception of how Wikipedia works is in direct contradiction to reality, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the time to teach the ABCs to someone who should know better. In any case, you're wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is and was nonsense to use Davis that way, and it is nonsense for you to defend it. Davis wrote in that book: The secession and the Confederacy's existence was predicated on slavery, on preserving and defending it against containment, as virtually all of its founders from Robert Barnwell Rhett to Jefferson Davis declared unashamedly in 1861 . . . That preservation of slavery and the control of the black in Southern society was interwoven into almost every new significant feature of the Permanent [Confederate] Constitution should hardly have been a surprise to anyone . . . As the framers in Montgomery [of the Confederate Constitution] declared time and time again, it was founded on the bedrock doctrine of racial inferiority. William C. Davis, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America (2002) p. 130 -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I saw some quotes like that too. Why not post that on Jimbo's page to challenge his writing rather than call him a racist? I believe that is how we should argue material on Wikipedia, not based on our personal beliefs. What I saw Wikid77 doing was showing the side we typically do not get in the Ken Burns version of the Civil War, that there were some moderates in the South in high positions. That Wikid77 claims that Confederacy was moderate with regard to slavery certainly does not jive with the whole of Davis. I agree. So yes, I do see cherry-picking from Davis to try to make a conclusion not in Davis. Mostly, my position is we should argue from the sources, point out the problems with use of sources, rather than just calling someone a racist for an opinion that looks wrong. At the same time, I do agree that we are not here for personal opinions or WP:OR --David Tornheim (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No. I should not have to follow this nonsense around to reply to it. It's gross misuse of sources, and of Wikipedia, and then you pop up to defend it because apparently to you it's just great to misrepresent clear and obvious racism -- what's not to understand about, "it was founded on the bedrock doctrine of racial inferiority". Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not defending his behavior and posts. In fact, I said that I do not agree with many of his statements, and I am critical of them. I'm opposed to the knee-jerk reaction of site-banning this long-term editor for some recent objectionable posts rather than (1) making him correct, strike, or delete his posts by adjusting them to be based on what is in the best WP:RS (2) asking him to remove posts that are racially insensitive (3) asking him to refrain from polemics on race--including on Jimbo's page if Jimbos dislikes it--and focus on editing or the other work he does on Wikipedia.

This very much reminds me of when a liberal African-American professor was banned for instructing students (as part of WikiEdu) to edit in his topic of expertise--environmental racism. His belief is that editors here are uncomfortable in talking objectively and factually about race issues. I agree. I am very curious what he would say about this if he had not been banned. See Racial bias on Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, you 'are defending him, and at great and tedious length. I don't know if you believe the stuff you're writing, or if you just enjoy being a contrarian, but I think we've heard more than enough of your defense of racism in the name of free speech -- which despite your denial, is precisely what it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You specifically defended his misuse of Davis, and apparently his misuse of Davis also misled you to defend what he was saying (how many others were so misled by his misuse), nor do you seem to have done the study of why his comments on 19th-century American and Confederate slavery are racist, because if you had done the study you would know racism was in the warp and woof of the institution. Now, you say I should follow him around to clean-up his misuse of sources, I suppose so you won't be misled. Seems he should be stopped from misleading you and others in the first place, because I and others can't and won't always be there to actually read the sources for you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

With the reply to your comments above and my reply elsewhere (that I assume you've read), we're left with the question of what does Wikid77 base his opinions on? Certainly nothing that qualifies as a secondary reliable source for article purposes. I've been involved with debating neo-confederates long before I started on wikipedia and, with the exception of the Irish slave crap, 77 is providing nothing new. Like Alanscottwalker and many other editors who follow the slavery, civil war, etc articles, we know what the reliable sources are and can, and do when appropriate, argue from them. You and 77 have not shown that you have the knowledge or willingness to do so.

His opinions are fringe and have little value as guidance to writing useful wikipedia articles. Community consensus is, and should be, against him. There is certainly evidence that he writes things that people expect would come from the mouths of racist -- in fact they do come from other racists. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia if he is allowed, without consequence or even acknowledgement from 77, to tendentiously mouth the words that most people here are finding to be racist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very glad that the U.S. government is founded on a principle of free speech, because it is an inalienable right and a good idea for running any organization. But to suggest that therefore this is only of relevance to them is a basic categorical error, and obviously in conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:N and other Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia needs free speech for much the same reasons as the U.S. does; because without it, you have a dictatorship. And how do you organize volunteers to do collective encyclopedia writing in a dictatorship??? To be sure, the association of the U.S. with free speech ideals has some relevance -- Wikipedia started here for a reason. I hope it's not racist to say that. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban their Jimbo-talk comments have been unconstructive for quite some time, and their edits in mainspace (apart from technical reference fixing) are POV-pushing. Historical revisionism and the pushing of deliberately misleading narratives (such as their most recent bizarre rant, which seems to ignore the undisputed historical facts of chattel slavery in the 1800s entirely) is also not welcome on any page of the project, including Jimbo-talk. I see no reason to believe Wikid77 can be a constructive editor on this project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban Sorry, but Wikipedia editors saying that slavery was good for African-Americans brings the project into disrepute about as much as pedophilia advocacy and Holocaust denial, in my book. (I'm not comparing this to either of the other two qualitatively or quantitatively, just pointing out that all three bring the project into disrepute and all three need to be stamped out with site bans.) I also find it incredibly disturbing that some other editors think this editor has done nothing wrong and this warrants no action -- David Tornheim, in particular, really should have been indeffed himself a long time ago for this and similar behaviour elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I argued at quite some length on Jimbo's page against banning "pedophilia advocacy" for much the same reasons. At the time there were some countries like Yemen making the news for having radically different opinions from the U.S. on the topic, and I didn't want to set up an official Wikipedia standard that their country was "wrong", though wiping it out with famine, cholera, and bombs works also. As far as Holocaust denial ... if Wikipedians can't defeat a Holocaust denier in fair and open argument we ought to just pack it in. And the very, very last thing we need is some notion to generalize censorship to anything and everything that a person with a different opinion says is "disreputable". Wnt (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: But we're not talking about defeating a Holocaust denier in fair and open argument -- we're talking about a Holocaust denier regularly sneaking references to how the Jews keep pretending like the Holocaust was a bigger deal than it actually was and people are falling for it because they control the media into discussions, while posing as a reputable member of the Wikipedia community. We don't engage such individuals in open argument, but rather show them the door. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If that is what you were talking about, I wouldn't be opposing this motion. There is nothing all that unusual about showing anyone the door when they lie about what the sources say in an article in order to push their own point of view. The problem is, here you seem to be pushing for action against this editor because he made some comments, a bit strange but apparently largely true, on Jimbo's talk page. That's just a bad precedent I don't want. Nor do I want to see the editor penalized more harshly for things that previously went to ANI because that would be transparently a way of doing the same thing. I am not even eager to see him punished harshly for acts of frustration like this, though it is hard to argue that it was a useful redirect. (It is also hard to argue that we really needed the old version deleted so that only a clueless automatic tagging robot and an old-fashioned honest Logs feature not yet fully adapted to keep the doings of the gods to themselves give any indication of the untoward comment) I do admit a suspicion that we are being manipulated here, for example that there might be a "good hand" account doing new mainspace edits while this one goes out in a martyr's glory, but I can't prove that, and the most straightforward way to not make martyrs is, well, not to make martyrs. Please, just stick to policy and don't make this about sending a message that "racism is bad". Because the message you really send when you do that is that "racism is suppressed, so who knows if they're right?" It may seem counterintuitive, but fascist beliefs thrive on fascist policies, no matter who they are directed against. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

And, is defeating Holocaust deniers (or any other kind of revisionist bigot) "in fair and open argument" part of the purpose of Wikipedia anyway? We should be challenging bigotry by providing proper unbiased articles based on reliable sources, not by giving bigots a platform and debating with them in a way that suggests they deserve any respect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely that's part of the purpose! It's not good enough for Wikipedia to know that the Holocaust happened -- we have to be able to prove that it happened, to explain everything about it, and to debunk those who say it didn't. If someone wants to zealously collect a bunch of misleading arguments against the Holocaust for us, it doesn't even really matter if their motivation is pro or against -- they've simply given us grist for the mill. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In articles, with discussion of sources and consensus, I agree, within limit. But not through the poisoning of the well at high profile pages like Jimbo Talk (which, as Iridescent has pointed out, has been painting a horrible picture to newcomers in recent months with Wikid77's being allowed to go on and on with no rejection by the page's proprietor). And even in article debates, I still think the platform we should give to bigots should be limited - as they're the kind of people who will just keep coming back with the same hateful bilge again and again, and it's repetition that gets the hard-of-thinking on their side. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another comment after reading your other comment above - We are talking about someone here who lied about a source to try to claim that the Confederacy was really quite a nice cuddly place that was really kind to slaves, and who doesn't like that he can't use the word "nigger" in what he says is its proper respectful way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is inherently unfair to make an argument that someone deserves negative repercussions by putting a sarcastic twist on their words and imply they said them, rather than actually quoting them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Go read his odious words yourself. He's clearly trying to push a white supremacist meme that slaves were treated well and that slavery wasn't so bad, and trying to whitewash that shameful era in history. I'm really surprised that you can't see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah. So, this is a matter of my lack of vision to see that Wikid is a "white supremacist." How about we stick to rational debate, rather than try to make a case that there is something "surprising" about my calling out your not doing so?

Nothing unfair about using sarcasm when appropriate. I assume anyone that is commenting here has read the thread and is perfectly aware of what is being discussed. Is "cuddly" really so out of line to refer to language from Wikid77 such as:

Well, check the facts of imagined "ill treatment" of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died, etc.

All the reliable sources that make it clear that slavery, from the slave's perspective, sucks are wrong and it's all in my imagination? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about the suckery of slavery, we're talking about a simple statement. I believe that the statement you take so much offense to is true. Some slaves "lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died." Is it wrong to speak of mitigating facts about slave-holders because slavery is inherently wrong? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You ignore the context and deliberately do not discuss the language that sets the context. Specifically you ignore, "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans". What you claim are facts are presented to support the premise that slaves were not ill treated. Why did you ignore this essential part of the sentence that you claim, w/o any qualification, "is true"? If the statement by 77 is unqualifyingly true, why did you use "some" when 77 said "often". Bottom line, would you like to retract your unqualified support for 77's claim, that it "is true" that "ill treatment" is "imagined"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not ignore the first part of the statement; it is simply not something I can speak on outside the context of the discussion in which it is made, unlike the fact that came after it. And "some" is not a variable of "often." "Some" refers to a quantity of a noun, "often" refers to the frequency of an event. Both terms are highly subjective and not mutually exclusive. Provide some context for why I should retract rather than twist what I said. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

So you have no idea of the context of the statement? How is it, then, that you said elsewhere:

"Not that I necessarily think that the things he's said warrant any ban; I also think its wrong to say that on their face they are racist statements and to call him a racist, but its appearing that the reason he's saying them is to provoke, rather than discuss"

when you apparently haven't read much of the material that has been discussed? Have you read anything from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Horrors of a POV-fork page and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#How to mention political groups in a page? Let me know when you have. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also check out User talk:Wikid77#Previous warnings and block which points out the fact that the statement we are discussing was a prime cause of 77's block. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that when someone is trying to make a case that someone should be banned, they provide the evidence. I evaluated the evidence provided. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-responsive. You had said, "I believe that the statement you take so much offense to is true" and I said, "Bottom line, would you like to retract your unqualified support for 77's claim, that it "is true" that "ill treatment" is "imagined". You asked for context on the statement we're discussing and I provided three links that show that context. So do you still stand with 77 in saying that the universal acknowledgement that ill treatment of slaves existed in the U.S. is actually nothing but imagination? In the absence of any reputable scholarship that supports 77's take, what other than racism could inspire him to say such a thing? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not going to answer the question you asked because it twists the statement Wikid made. I looked back at the context of his statement: "Well, check the facts of imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans" It started out as a discussion of the Irish Slaves myth article. Wikid's statement was a response to this statement: "No doubt Irish people were treated poorly at times, but there's just no comparison at all and there's not a serious debate about the subject - just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans." Wikid made the mistake of following down the path he was being led, rather than challenge B's assertion that discussion of the treatment of the Irish is "just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans" No, the treatment of the indentured European servants is its own story, regardless of whether or not it is being currently being exploited to hammer blacks into "getting over it" The discussion devolved from there, with others leading Wikid further down the path by putting words in his mouth ("Then again, seeing as how you already said that you believe that blacks enjoyed being slaves") ending in Wikid's rambling dissertion that basically makes the point that the history of the relationship between blacks and whites has been and still is complex and cannot be summed up in words like "ill treatment." So, no, I do not see obvious racist intent in Wikid's statement, just someone who is trying to bring another point of view to the table, but expressing himself poorly. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

77 has had plenty of opportunity to claim he was tricked or clarify his meaning, but he didn't do so in the discussions, never commented on his recent 48 hour block for racist comments, and continued to make similar comments. Absent the best possible explanation (a convincing argument from 77), I'll go by what he actually wrote. Your comment that "the history of the relationship between blacks and whites has been and still is complex and cannot be summed up in words like 'ill treatment'" is certainly true, but says nothing to justify saying that ill treatment is imaginary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"I'll go by what he actually wrote." Ah, well that is progress then, if you would actually do it. "imagined ill-treatment" does not mean the same thing as "ill treatment is imaginary" "imagined ill-treatment" does not deny the existence of ill-treatment, but is leaving the attributes of it open. In this case the "imagined ill-treatment" would be B's since he is the one that brought it up, but did not define it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You really should do some reading if your honest response to B is, "What is this mysterious 'ill treatment' of which you speak." 77 accepted the challenge of what B said and responded to it. What is clear is that 77 felt the way to refute B was to try to claim that (1)if the small number of slaves that lived in the manor house may have got treated better than the vast majority that didn't (2)then no mistreatment occurred. No reasonable person can believe that a slave is not being ill treated by the very fact that they are a slave as long as they might be freed when their owner dies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We're getting closer, but you still insist upon twisting the words. Now, let's go back to the context. B stated: "just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans." Okay, so what ill-treatment did B "imagine" there? Not that it was imaginary, but if I said to a crowd of people "imagine the ill-treatment of African Americans" everyone would probably have a different perspective. So, what was B's "imagined ill-treatment?" He didn't say. Wikid responded by making the point that some slaves were treated as well as white servants. It was you and others that put the twist on it that Wikid was "refuting" B by trying to make a case that no mistreatment occurred. If Wikid assumed that B's "imagined ill-treatment" was how masters treated black slaves relative to how they treated "Irish people," his response makes a lot more sense. Basically, he made the same mistake all of you are doing by responding without getting clarification of what was an enigmatic response. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, again that time Wikid77 misused and abused sources, a source he attempted to rely on specifically said: "In recent years, right-wing whites have inundated social media and cyberspace with the lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." and "In contrast to those of African descent, the Irish were never legally nor systematically subjected to lifelong, heritable slavery in the colonies." (emphasis added) When this was pointed out, Wikid77 attempted to argue against or ignore his own source, and arguing against or ignoring your own source is textbook POV-pushing, and that ultimately led up to Wikid's "imagined 'ill treatment' of African Americans" comment. Ill treatment, imagined? Come on, what part of reading history says ill-treatment of African American's in slavery is "imagined", unless it's racist history, because slavery itself was a racist system according to the sources, even for house slaves. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is validity to the idea that white indentured servants were treated worse than black slaves. Someone who bought an indentured servant had a limited time to make a return on their investment, so they extracted the maximum work from them and gave them a minimum of care. A slave owner had incentive to take care of his slaves. But again, you are making the accusation, you have the obligation to do a better job of supporting it. You haven't even supplied a link to the supposed POV pushing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You believe. So you have an unimpressive POV. It does not change the facts that the source says and said, the "lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." And pretending you don't have the link to the discussion around Wikid's "imagined" comment is just bizarre, they have been supplied several times.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that the totality of the discussion revolved around one source. This article states: "According to Rodgers, masters sometimes worked servants harder because they only possessed their service for a limited time, and this fact underscores 'the complexity of making comparisons' between slavery and indenture."Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? So, you are unaware of the very details of the Wikid77 comments and the sources there that you claim to be commenting upon. There, he cites only two sources (not one) in his OP, one on the "myth", and one discussing the "lie". Your quote from a Wikipedia article does not change or even challenge the sources he posted -- that a comparison is complex would not mean there is not lie nor myth about it. At any rate, this CBAN discussion is pretty much over because the CBAN has functionally already been endorsed, and whatever your arguments where you somehow see mistreatment of African Americans in slavery as imagined are rather pointless, if nothing else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your attack on my comment. And your attempt to characterize what I have said is that I "somehow see mistreatment of African Americans in slavery as imagined" is another example of the way some of you here lead less chary editors down paths they do not mean to wander. Fie! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment was attacked? That does not even make sense. Perhaps, you should stay on topic when discussing a series of Wikid77 (or another editor's) posts. At any rate, only you are responsible for the paths you trod down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

All that stuff you hear about downtrod paths is imagined. EEng 19:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that AlanScottWalker has voices in his head? Just clarify so that he can properly respond. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No need. Probably, it's just the case that, on this page, the paths you have chosen to trod down are imaginary, and winding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• No block, no ban. There ought to be no speech codes on Wikipedia. If people make contributions supported by good refs, what does it matter what their personal opinions are, even if we don't like them? Wikipedia ought not to be a place where wrongthink is deemed to be doubleplusungood and consequently terminated. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The "if" in "If people make contributions supported by good refs..." is a big one. If you've actually read these discussions, then you will know that it has been demonstrated that Wikid77 will play fast and loose with references. If you've read about 77's claim that there really were Irish slaves and then go to the article Irish slaves myth, you should be able to realize that 77 has provided no reliable secondary sources to support his claims that there really were actual Irish slaves in the U.S. Not to mention his claim discussed right above that the ill treatment of slaves is imaginary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Systematic misrepresentation of sources is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated. While I choose to be legally precise and refer to indentured servants as such, the Wikipedia article you cite makes it clear that "Some books have used the term Irish "slaves" for captive Irish". It adds: "for centuries, Irish folklore or various books had referred to the captive servants as Irish "slaves" even into the 20th century". Does citation of these sources, or use of what for centuries was day-to-day popular language not couched on precise legal terms, now entail banishment from Wikipedia? Were sources actually systematically misrepresented on Wikipedia entries by the person about to be made an unperson? XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You cherry pick. Both the article title and the article lede makes it clear that the article is about a false ahistorical claim (i.e. that there were Irish slaves). The lede says:

The Irish slaves myth concerns the use of the term Irish "slaves" as a conflation of the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the chattel slavery experience of Africans and their descendants, have used the myth to attack contemporary African American efforts for equality and reparations. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.[1]

The myth has become increasingly prominent since the 1990s and has been prominent in online memes and social media debates.[2] This has led a large number of historians to publicly condemn it.[2][3]

77 wants to cherry pick the same language you did and ignore the 99% of the article (and the reliable sources that supports it) that refutes it and give equal time in the article (which would have "myth" stricken from the title) given to the white nationalist view. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Horrors of a POV-fork page for 77's own words.

I go back to the part of your original post above that I originally questioned ("If people make contributions supported by good refs..."). 77 wants an article that with elevate fringe pinions and minimize the "good refs'. In answer to your question ("Were sources actually systematically misrepresented on Wikipedia entries by the person about to be made an unperson?"), that is clearly 77's intent here and in all the other instances cited in these discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I question wheter 77 or for that matter anyone could get away that will "elevate fringe opinions and minimize the "good refs'." From your response it looks like 77 has not engaged in systematical misrepresentation of sources at all. Banning should not be cleanup. Looks like 77 is being punished for having an unpopular opinion. Banning 77 will reduce diversity of thought and accelerate the creation of a monoculture on Wikipedia.XavierItzm (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom (North Shoreman) references the wrong article. Irish indentured servants gives a much better overview of the subject. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not true. If you read the links you asked for that I provided you, you would realize that 77's arguments deal with the myth article. His position is that there were actually white Irish slaves. He argues that that this position, promoted most vigorously by white nationalists and neo-confederates, should be given equal space with those reliable secondary sources that are the backbone of wikipedia. The article you reference is based on those sources which is why 77 finds it insufficient for his agenda. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

XavierItzm, LynnWysong just so you both know 77’s original indefinite block has been upheld. This current discussion is pretty much inconsequential because he has shown he lacks the skills to acknowledge what he did wrong; hence an appeal will almost surely be unsuccessful and he will remain blocked long-term. Do you both really need to make a stand for a Confederate apologist who insists the mistreatment of slaves was “imaginary”—that slaves actually loved their masters and the Confederacy; is that the kind of shit that belongs here?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Slick. I see that your own recent justified indef block has made you an expert on whether someone else "lacks the skills to acknowledge what he did wrong." When you were indeffed, I made a statement on an off-wiki site that you certainly should have known better, and the fact that you are here now should make you a bit more humble towards those facing the same fate. Instead, you are doubling-down. Tsk Tsk. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

LynnWysong I find it a bit disturbing you had nothing better to do but talk about me outside this site, but that is besides the current issue. And a bit funny that you can have a condenscending tone against me while defending a staunch racist and historical revisionist. I’m not “doubling-down; go ahead and defend him—the real “lost cause”. I see racism will not die with 77 from Wikipedia—you made that apparent enough.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Slick, I would not want to infer something that you did not mean to imply. Are you accusing me of being a racist? Because if you are, your denial that you are doubling down needs to be re-evaluated. In fact, you should be the one reading the Lost Cause article. It is the inclination of people to not be introspective and take responsibility for their part in conflict and the consequences of conflict that causes them to be embroiled in conflict again and again.

I don't know if Wikid buys into the Lost Cause mindset, but I do know that the subjects he touches are complex and fraught with controversy. I also know that the impulse to squelch discussion of those subjects with screams of "Racism!" is what will prevent racism from dying on Wikipedia because racism is not actually being dealt with. It's a lot easier to focus attention on someone with unpopular views than to really deal with Wikipedia's problems. So quit flying the Wikipedia banner. It's starting to look suspiciously like the Confederate flag. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

What prevents racism being minimised (it will never be eradicated as there is no shortage of racists) on Wikipedia is that editors who engage in bullshit like wikid's are indulged by a small number of apologists and it gives them the (false) impression their views are welcome and deserve a platform. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

On behalf of me and my fellow "apologists": Fie on your labels!Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• No ban per Wnt and others. As long as the discussion is not a directed personnel attack, nor a massive BLP violation, and the language is not completely whacked out BS of their own design, it is within reasonable talk page guidelines, and a ban or block is unacceptable. Maybe the speech is bitter and different to accept but sometimes you have to discuss hard truths. Unfortunately, too many experienced editors want to drown out any challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views, which is 100% unacceptable. --Masem (t) 04:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: too many experienced editors want to drown out any challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views, which is 100% unacceptable To whom does this refer? I haven't seen anyone explicitly say they want "to drown out challenging speech because it doesn't meet their views", so unless you can provide evidence for that kind of accusation it would seem you are the one engaging in unacceptable actions here. That's a pretty foul accusation to make against any experienced editor, let alone several unnamed ones, and accusations without evidence are personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Too many experienced editors" is a broad statement, I have no specific names only that discussions in places like here, ANI, AE, and elsewhere which is frequented by admins show an alarming state of the larger problem, which is a trend overall WP is suffering from. Even in this discussion, several of those supporting the site ban seem to be on the reason they don't like what was being said. It doesn't seem disruptive (on Wales' page which tends to be an open venue), not BLP or NPA related, so barring any other extraordinary reasons, the only reason to see out remedies would be to quiet a voice that is in disagreement. --Masem (t) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I would call redirecting this to this disruptive, and certainly not in a "hard truth" kind of way. That's what tipped the scale for me, and it seems like people are missing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruption on mainspace is actionable, but I'm not reading that from those supporting a ban above but instead supporting the ban based on what was posted to Wales' talk, given this all started with a block based on content posted to Wales' talk. --Masem (t) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, having seen the mainspace effects, do you think they are disruptive/actionable (especially with the additional context of the edits to Jimbotalk)? From your vote, I assume not. If that's a correct assumption, why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard truths," Masem? I suppose you're right about this. But it's also true that sometimes we must confront hard nonsense. And sometimes, to my mind, extraordinary measures (such as site bans) are appropriate responses. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

77 argues that the ill treatment of slaves is imaginary and falls hard for the white nationalist promotion to diminish African American slavery by falsely claiming that there were actually Irish slaves who suffered the same indignities. Those positions certainly meet my criteria for "completely whacked out BS". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban per NOTHERE. He doesn't seem to do anything worthwhile except hang out at Jimbotalk. He should just join a discussion forum somewhere else.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban Wikid77 has a few folks lawyering for him that want this to be about free speech. In deciding whether 77 belongs in the wikipedia community, the main question is does he help or hinder us from writing an encyclopedia. It has been demonstrated that he argues for fringe theories -- not minority but fringe -- and cherry picks and distorts reliable sources. It's impossible to collaborate with an editor whose every word needs to be fact checked. Some people are waiting for Jimbo to join the conversation, but this [9] statement on a slightly related matter seems to be on point:

The bulk of the discussion below forgets the simple fact that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. We have the right and the ethical responsibility to ban people who bring evil world views to Wikipedia, or we are very likely to find ourselves with insurmountable problems. I have not looked into this specific case, but I think that in general, this notion that we can't ban people unless they break some already-written rule of Wikipedia is not consistent with our heritage or values. We can ban people for being awful human beings, and that's that.--Jimbo Wales

77 is bringing ideas about race to a very visible discussion page that are very arguably evil. These discussions have been going on for awhile now and 77 has posted on his own talk page, but he has not addressed the core of the argument against his continuing presence in this community. The only one who can possibly convincingly say what needs to be said (i.e. I had good intentions, screwed up, and won't do it again) remains silent. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a small class of editors who polarize and divide the community, about whom there is no consensus from the community, but who then continue to cause division and hard feeling. This editor is one of them. The community has really only two alternatives. The community can decide to stop the division by Site Banning the editor, or the community can [[punt (gridiron football)}punt]] the case to the ArbCom and strongly urge the ArbCom to take the case for deliberate quasi-judicial action. If the community cannot conclude that this editor is a net negative, the case should be sent to ArbCom. Therefore:
• Site Ban with the alternative of:
• Send to ArbCom Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Why do you always want to escalate these things in that very specific manner? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Two options are on the table: site ban and topic ban. Site ban is unambiguous, topic ban requires clarification. My reading is that the decision is between:

1. Unblock
2. Topic ban with the scope: race, ethnicity, slavery and Jimbotalk
3. Site ban

Questions:

1. Could anyone supporting topic ban above, who does not agree with #2 above, please clarify here what scope you would prefer?
2. Since the original question was either/or, could anyone advocating site ban but not discussing topic ban, please clarify if the topic ban would be sufficient?

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Given that I said Site ban (or indefinite block on the understanding that no admin will lift it without community discussion, which amounts to the same thing), first and only choice, I'd like to think it's clear that I don't think a topic ban is sufficient. As I say above, if this was an editor who genuinely had something positive to contribute, it might be worth discussing ways in which everyone else could waste their time monitoring his edits to allow him to continue contributing. Since not a single one of his defenders has responded with even a single example to my repeated challenges to demonstrate any constructive recent contributions from him (contribution history, "articles edited" section on his userpage, most-edited pages, if you want to have a go), I see no reason why we should go out of our way to accommodate someone who publicly espouses views that are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's core values. ‑ Iridescent 12:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• I support the topic ban I proposed above. I do not think a t-ban from Jimbo's talk is necessary; a race/ethnicity/slavery topic-ban covers the really problematic content; we don't need a t-ban to cover other forms of trolling, because you don't need to be t-banned from trolling to be blocked from trolling. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've not commented above,but I think topic ban will suffice for now. Their last block —before this —was about eight years ago, and although violation of topic ban was the cause for that block, I think we should give them one more last time for them to reconsider their behavior. If they violates the ban, then we've more reason to believe they should go than now, and if they comply with it, then it is a win-win situation for all. As per as concern with the scope of the topic ban, it can be as broad as necessary for it to be effective which will in turn constraint them to either reform (a win for the Project) or to hasten the siteban by violating the topic ban (still a win for the Project). Re: @Iridescent: No one needs to monitor their edits, I believe if they indeed violate the topic ban, someone must see it. I don't think that's an issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've not commented above, but based on what I've gleaned from the diffs and the discussion at Jimbo's page, this whole affair is having a chilling effect. WP is supposed to be uncensorsed - it's where we discuss issues, not site ban editors for expressing their views of history during a discussion. We can't sweep the truth under the rug - we need to discuss it so those atrocities will never happen again. I haven't had many exchanges with Wikid77 but they never came across to me as a racist. Good heavens, let's hope we haven't reached a point that simply discussing race has become taboo. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Forgot to add that I oppose 2 & 3 based on the evidence. 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme don’t pretend being a slavery apologist, downplaying the racism behind the word, “nigger”, and excusing it with the ol’ “my friends are black, so I cannot possibly be racist” trope is all in the spirit of “simply discussing race”.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with you - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - WP is an encyclopedia and we don't ban editors because their views do not align with our own on a user talk page. If that were the case, we would not have any editors. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: In fact we do - pro-paedophilia activists, for example. The issue is that advocating for the Confederacy involves both being defiantly wrong, indicating an inability to properly follow sources, and creating a chilling effect, a hostile environment where people of colour may feel unwelcome, thus reinforcing systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. He cited to it on Jimbo's page in this section. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist. Are you saying that is an improper source? If so, please explain.

Also, if you are going to accuse an editor of improperly using sources, please provide diffs. I do not see those above. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? Read the Jimbotalk comments. After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation and a series of confederate-apologist cherrypicking. David Irving also cited valid sources, it was his conclusion that was the problem. Same here. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation cannot be sustained from the material he presented and would require some strong sourcing, which I doubt there is. Without it, it's no more than WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. And as Alanscottwalker correctly pointed out here the same source contradicts his conclusion. So, why not ask Wikid77 for a source that gives that conclusion and/or use Alanscottwalker's quote? And if he gives none, then ask him to strike? It seems to me far more productive and creates a better editor than banning someone for articulating an opinion that can't be sustained by the WP:RS.

And for the record, I do think his polemics are unnecessary. However, I have seen many people get away with polemics about their personal opinions about all kinds of subjects on Jimbo's page and elsewhere without admonishment, saying things I know are patently wrong. I say, let's correct them if they have the wrong facts, wrong conclusions, etc. I think the problems can be handled without calling him a 'racist'. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We do ban editors who post hate speech per WP:HARASSMENT. This user has posted problematic things on his userpage during this discussion. Without a site ban this will never stop. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just learned something I was only partially aware of, but then I was not aware that this particular editor fell into that mold. Atsme signing off. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Answer to question #1: I support the topic ban as proposed by Vanamonde93 on 16:16, 14 December 2018:

"Wikid77 is topic-banned indefinitely from race, ethnicity, and slavery, broadly construed. They may appeal this ban after a minimum of six months."

I do not see any need to ban him from Jimbo's talk page as long as he follows the topic ban. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• One month topic ban on the subject of American Slavery and the Confederancy. Not that I necessarily think that the things he's said warrant any ban; I also think its wrong to say that on their face they are racist statements and to call him a racist, but its appearing that the reason he's saying them is to provoke, rather than discuss. Even if I'm wrong about his motivation, I think he needs to spend some time reflecting on how he could have been less provocative in the way he makes his points Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose block and ban as with Carrite and a few others, a sunday teacup storm of internet indignance, unblock him, tell him to watch his words and all get back to work, Govindaharihari (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Response from Wikid77

Copied by request from User talk:Wikid77... (Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

• Response from Wikid77: User:Wikid77 here. I'm sorry for all the confusion, and Cullen328 has posted specifics now about the various concerns over my remarks (see talk-page diff: [10]). In the case where my remark was termed "racist nonsense" about "yard work" then I should have linked the entry ('yard': [11]) in Oxford Reference (from Oxford University Press) to describe the workman as differing from a house servant as one working in the fields, but even then I saw many people did not want that issue discussed on Jimbo-talk as being too public a forum, especially for those unaware the field worker was a historic term, not a pejorative. In the 2nd case, I should have linked more sources, such as page "manumission" for how slaves could buy their freedom with regular payments, especially in Cuba. However, now after reading concerns at wp:ANI, I realize many people do not like discussing slavery on Jimbotalk and instead reach consensus on an article talk-page.

  "I honestly did not realize there were Wikipedians still here who had checked dozens of books about slavery and wanted to present only the majority viewpoints, rather than present a topic from a range of various sources per wp:NPOV even years ago. I had thought the missing page "Slave weddings" was a tedious omission, to summarize over 10,000 antebellum weddings from U.S. government records, but now I suspect various pages were purposely omitted from Wikipedia, and I need to learn who is doing this and what can be done to bring Wikipedia forward. I had imagined when discussing these pages at Jimbotalk, then someone might say, "Hey, ask at Wikiproject:Weddings" or such, but instead got blocked for "racist revisionism" [12]. Apparently all these slavery topics are tangent to WP racial problems or opposition to wp:NPOV. That might be why WP is decades behind in covering those topics. So tell friends to read specific outside sources, when Wikipedia omits a particular topic. --Wikid77 (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Someone is not aware of the Law of Holes. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That was precisely my thought, though I admit I was initially left speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For me it's not the racism but the stupidity. A racist editor's relatively easy to spot and fence off. But stupid just keeps going and going and going. EEng 02:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact Check Wikid77 claims, "I had thought the missing page "Slave weddings" was a tedious omission, to summarize over 10,000 antebellum weddings from U.S. government records, but now I suspect various pages were purposely omitted from Wikipedia, and I need to learn who is doing this and what can be done to bring Wikipedia forward." Using what some people call the "Google Machine" I searched using "slave weddings wikipedia" and the fourth result was Jumping the broom. From that article:

Slave-owners were faced with a dilemma regarding committed relationships between slaves. While some family stability might be desirable as helping to keep slaves tractable and pacified, anything approaching a legal marriage was not. Marriage gave a couple rights over each other which conflicted with the slave-owners’ claims.[28] Most marriages between enslaved blacks were not legally recognized during American slavery,[29] as in law marriage was held to be a civil contract, and civil contracts required the consent of free persons.[30] In the absence of any legal recognition, the slave community developed its own methods of distinguishing between committed and casual unions.[31] The ceremonial jumping of the broom served as an open declaration of settling down in a marriage relationship. Jumping the broom was always done before witnesses as a public ceremonial announcement that a couple chose to become as close to married as was then allowed.[32]

Incidentally the first search result was Slave breeding in the United States. Clearly sex and marriage of slaves is covered -- another conspiracy theory bites the dust. Of course, the real reason this was even mentioned by Wikid77 is that he wanted to imply that somehow 10,000 sanctioned marriages was further proof of how great slaves had it.

There is an interesting article by a Princeton history professorat [13] that offers a perspective on what 77's POV probably is. In it she starts by writing:

WAS slavery an idyllic world of stable families headed by married parents? The recent controversy over “The Marriage Vow,” a document endorsed by the Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, might seem like just another example of how racial politics and historical ignorance are perennial features of the election cycle.

The vow, which included the assertion that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President,” was amended after the outrage it stirred.

However, this was not a harmless gaffe; it represents a resurfacing of a pro-slavery view of “family values” that was prevalent in the decades before the Civil War. The resurrection of this idea has particular resonance now, because it was 150 years ago, soon after the war began, that the government started to respect the dignity of slave families. Slaves did not live in independent “households”; they lived under the auspices of masters who controlled the terms of their most intimate relationships.

Using the same method as above, with this edit [14] 77 created a red link to black slaveholders black slaveowners which at least one of his supporters feels is significant. 77's obvious (to me) intent is to muddy up the waters on the link between slavery and white supremacy and pretend that wikipedia is ignoring the subject. What he obviously ignores is that black slaveholders is discussed in the main article at Slavery in the United States#Black slaveholders. Was this omission intentional or a sign that, for all his posturing, he hasn't even read the main article on the subject he is pontificating on? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question So what's the point of continuing this discussion? There is consensus that the indefinite block by Cullen328 has been endorsed: unless there's a successful appeal, anyone who unblocks Wikid77 is in violation of WP:NEVERUNBLOCK and may well be desysopped for the incident. There's no practical difference from a siteban. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Wikid77 has not submitted an appeal. There is no reason to reverse Cullen328's original decision until an appeal is submitted. We should probably suspend all further discussion on site ban, topic ban, or let it be until we get a response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above is Wikid's appeal (read: "the block was in error because everyone just misunderstood me"). That it doesn't read as one for most people is in itself relevant. Let's not reward being out of step with the community by shelving a discussion that already demonstrates consensus for a site ban so that the editor can appeal a much lesser sanction (indef block by a single admin, even if subsequently community endorsed) six months down the road when there will be far far less attention paid to the discussion, and it can be much more easily derailed by cheerleaders or free-speech extremists. Let this discussion run its course and whatever the outcome it will at least be the closest we can come to a real community consensus.

Nyttend I'm concerned by your argument that a lesser remedy should invalidate the need for a greater remedy. The road back from the two are quite different, and the hurdle to clear to even get each sanction in the first place is different. If the community, in a fairly widely seen discussion, reaches consensus for a site ban, that is a much stronger basis than the community merely failing to overturn an indef made by a single admin. The community may also opt to go for a topic ban (which implies lifting the indef), though that seems somewhat unlikely based on the above. Given this, what possible good could be achieved by shelving this discussion? --Xover (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

time to move on?

Wikid77's reply above has not been treated as a formal appeal; in the meantime discussions continue here. User Kover has suggested that 77's response was a de facto appeal and anyone reading this should, IMO, read his post carefully. It seems the community has four options:

1. Do nothing and see if 77 decides to make it clear he wants to appeal. This appears to be what we're doing and it seems like the ongoing debate has about run its course.

2. Have an administrator treat the above as an appeal and take appropriate action on the appeal.

3. Have an administrator direct 77 to [15] which will show him how to submit the normal template to request an appeal.

4. Close all the ongoing discussions and treat the indefinite suspension (the original issuance of it was determined by consensus as appropriate) as the final word. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikid77 appealed or not is irrelevant. This is verbatim from WP:CBAN:

Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

So,

(1) Wikid77 was indef blocked by Cullen328

(2) The indef block was considered by the community, and was upheld

(3) Therefore Wikid77 is now "banned by the Wikipedia community"

There is no need for an appeal, formal or de facto, and no need for any further discussion. If Wikid77 decides to appeal his community ban, the community will consider it, not any individual admin, and the community will decide whether he should be unbanned, and if so, under what conditions. Invariably, this discussion will be referenced, and someone will bring up the possibility of a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page. That's all in the future, though; right now Wikid77 is most definitely community banned. To this effect, I will be closing this discussion. Please do not re-open it unless there is a policy-based reason for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Bomberswarm2

Bomberswarm2 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by 331dot as an apparent sock of Drowningseagall (talk · contribs), based on this diff. Bomberswarm2 claims that this is not the case. 331dot has given the go-ahead to lift the block if a mistake has been made. As I don't see any evidence of WP:GHBH, I feel the block is unjustified, but would like more opinions before lifting it. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 10:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Already investigated and unblocked; the evidence does not show any relationship between the accounts. Happy to explain my reasoning further if needs be. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the correct place, but I just checked Drowningseagall (talk · contribs)s' talk page again (where he has again claimed that he is me) and it appears to me he only has a temporary ban for vandalism or something. As I said in my appeal, I couldn't find an appropriate place to report him when he started harassing me earlier this year, So I'd like to request here that he be sanctioned for repeatedly harassing me, stalking me and targeting and reverting my edits and claiming he is actually me.Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this obvious, actual sockpuppett of his just posted this on my talk page just minutes ago, I better report this to you before I'm banned again for no reason. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Bomberswarm2#Now_THIS_is_EPIC Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom election results

They're in for anyone not watching that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Friendly discussion welcome at WT:ACE or user talk pages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies is a sad puppy. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sorry Mr. Dr. mies💵Money💵emoji💵💸 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Oh my... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Is that "they" as in "the results" or "they" as in "not Drmies and especially not that other guy"? SemiHypercube 22:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Yeah, withdrawing from the election after that particular fiasco might have been prudent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)Also, for your amusement, look at the net votes for GorillaWarfare. SemiHypercube 22:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC) As I said on Drmies' talk page, the results don't quite make sense to me, by which I mean that I understand the methodology used, but when I look at the raw numbers, the results do not seem to correspond well to my intuitive take on who the "winners" should have been given those numbers. This is the first year where, for me, I question whether S/(S+O) is the best metric to use; other years the results have made sense. It may be time to rethink our criteria for election. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Interesting...I only missed one in my win-place-show line-up. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Can we have a re!vote ? .... I'm genuinely surprised Drmies wasn't reelected tho ....–Davey2010Talk 23:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC) I think the key concern is the failure of Isarra to be elected Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Challenging close of WP:BLPN#Gavin McInnes

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

---

I challenge the close of the discussion at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard about whether the category "White nationalists" should be added to the article Gavin McInnes. I do not believe the closer, a non-admin with limited experience (3 years and 3,800 edits), properly assessed the consensus of the discussion. I request that the discussion be re-opened and closed by an admin or an experienced editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's a competent reading of consensus and the closer has sufficient experience. I would have also closed it as no consensus, not that that really matters.- MrX 🖋 00:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree on both points, but especially on the editor's experience being "sufficient". These was bound to be a controversial close, and should have been made by an administrator or a very experienced editor. Do you think that the closer's 3,800 edits in 3 years would have been sufficient for them to pass an RfA? Almost certainly not, and neither is his experience sufficient to close controversial discussions.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Serious question: how would you have closed it? Bradv🍁 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to answer, but first: why do you ask? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I ask because I don't see consensus there either, and not sure how else it could be closed. No one had edited the discussion in a week, so there's no indication that keeping it open longer would have helped. I'm wondering how you see it differently. Bradv🍁 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, erase the drive-by votes, which mostly came in at the end - do you see a consensus then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I see marginal support in favour of the category (especially if you include the non-bolded !votes and discount the blocked editors). But what I don't see is the requisite support in reliable sources for the category. Lots of search results for Gavin McInnes white nationalist, but we're lacking the is. Bradv🍁 06:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Can you cite why they closure may have been incorrect and what are the actual points that you are challenging made by the closer? Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, given the slight majority in favor of adding the category, and the fact that several of the "oppose" votes were essentially drive-bys, the factor given by the closer as determinative was the quality of the arhguments, and I think they simply got that wrong. To my eye, the arguments were relatively equal, if not slight better on the "support" side. If the arguments are equal in value, then the slight majority should have determined the close. I could be convinced that a close of "no consensus" was warranted, if the closing rationale made sense to me, which this one doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close - Agree with MrX. The arguments are near evenly split between "he founded a white nationalist organization and sources call him far-right or racist (hipster racist apparently)" on the one hand, and "but they don't call him a white nationalist" on the other. I do question the choice to include [i]n my view, the opinions in group (b) and (c) are more strongly aligned with policies and guidelines in the close, particularly since no policy/guideline is cited alongside it. Despite that, I can point to several support rationales (Jytdog's most prominently) that don't come close to providing a policy/guideline basis or sources for inclusion. Jytdog cites two sources in support of his rationale, neither of which call the subject a white nationalist. Hell the Vox one out-and-out calls Richard Spencer a white nationalist, but not the article subject one. Moreover, sources have been provided showing he disavows white nationalism (e.g. Nblund's !vote) to counteract the claim. There isn't a consensus here, and "a slight majority" is a red herring. Discussions are closed on strength of argument, not number for/against (ideally that is). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• A subject's disavowal is hardly terribly relevant. How many racists walk around saying -- in public, to the media -- that they are racists? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse that actually looks like a good close to me. In summary while the subject's views can reasonably be described as white nationalist nobody was able to point to any sources which actually use the term to describe him. The relevant guideline says that a category shouldn't be included unless there is verifiable information in the article to justify it. As we are talking about a highly pejorative label on a BLP, we have to be particularly cautious (WP:BLPCAT). Given that I think the close is fine on strength of argument. Hut 8.5 12:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• (acknowledging my obvious bias: I commented in the discussion opposed to adding the category) Though I know such a close would definitely not fly, I think this honestly could've been closed as consensus against inclusion of the category, because "He's obviously a white nationalist" which a large portion of the support arguments boiled down to is not an argument based on sources, policies, or guidelines but clearly an interpretation of his statements (that I'd personally support but that doesn't matter) that thus violates WP:OR and even more importantly, WP:V, which is a fundamental policy. But a no consensus close that results in exclusion of the category is perfectly reasonable here, especially considering that the WP:ONUS is on those who want to add the category and there are BLP issues here, and even ascribing equal quality of !votes a slight majority isn't generally considered to be a consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• It is quite possible that the category in question is an appropriate one. However, the support !votes do not present this argument as convincingly as they could; certainly there are far fewer sources presented than I would have liked. I could not justify any other close here. Given that the article is a contentious one, yes, a non-admin ideally should not have closed it, but reversing a close purely for that reason is unreasonably bureaucratic, and I'm not going to do it. Vanamonde (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Given the community input here, I'm withdrawing my challenge to the close. Thanks to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved admins needed

Could you please take a look at this matter --> User_talk:Borsoka#December_2018. Thank you! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, if the admin vanishes after pulling off a 48 hour block under AE; sitting out the block is the most practical thing to do. AE blocks can't be overturned at individual discretion and a solid consensus of un-involved editors is mandatory for any amendment of the block-provision. That typically takes a few days to form esp. in non-brightline cases like this and before that the block itself lapses.

FWIW, that's a ridiculous block (2 of the 3 folks that Amanda referred to as ones who were not heeded to by Borsoka in his warring-edits, supported his unblock and wholesale-praised his editorial efforts whilst the other got rightfully T-banned in a separate thread, hours after). Hence, unblock.

Aggressive mopping in areas where nobody seems to have much of a problem among themselves is unwarranted.∯WBG^converse 21:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: your aspersions above are inappropriate. I did not disappear after the block. I posted to my talkpage and to Borsoka's talkpage, and as much as a WMF Labs server move and sleep allowed me to, I responded. Also, you only need to look at what the mess was before I got involved to understand that this is not "where nobody seems to have much of a problem among themselves". Also I have unblocked the editor at this point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir:, thank you for your assistance. I think DeltaQuad misunderstood the whole issue from the beginning. First of all, DeltaQuad did not recognize that two new editors (who had surprisingly detailed knowledge of WP policies) stirred up the edit war months ago. Instead of applying a topic ban, she tried to force other editors to build a consensus with them. Actually, I tried. I ignored their absurd restructuring proposal, but otherwise I took into account their remarks about the text. Secondly, DeltaQuad obviously believes that two of my edits are related to each other and I made the second edit to secretly undo a revert. However the two edits are totally independent, and they were independently discussed on the Talk page, nobody but DeltaQuad made a connection between them. Thirdly, I am convinced that both the two mentioned issues and her always changing explanations for the sanction against me suggest that she was at least negligent. So I would like to achieve the cancellation of the sanction, because it can any time raised against me. I also would like to persuade DeltaQuad to undo her revert: for the time being I cannot undo it, because I would be sanctioned again. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Experienced users got blocked but malicious activities by provocateurs left untreated for months. No one cared that the newly arrived users tried everything to ruin this article. They started endless content disputes (check the talk page history) and edit warring. The opinions of experienced users were totally ignored by other editors/admins and it seemed that the now topic banned provocateurs' aims were even pushed forward by accountable users. Let's take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_170#Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article how our opinions were completely silenced by User:Robert McClenon. After witnessing this ignorance and incompetence I have to say that I am slightly disappointed with Wikipedia.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was sympathetic to the editors who wanted assistance in "restructuring" the article on Origin of the Romanians and went to lengths to find them one moderator or two or three moderators. I thought and still think that this case illustrates the stupidity of the decision to close down the Mediation Committee. However, now that I see that my efforts to help are only drawing insults, I also see that User:Fakirbakir appears to be the sort of editor who leaves a wake of wreckage behind them. If anyone here is willing to try to mediate a dispute about Origin of the Romanians, mediation may still be an alternative to discretionary sanctions. However, the fact that there had been a suggestion that the mediation should be between two Hungarian editors and two Romanian editors maybe should have been an indication that the parties were looking for a compromise between nationalisms rather than to set aside their nationalistic tiff. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a Romanian, but I do not have advanced knowledge of the issue. I just know that there is an equilibrium/truce/stalemate between the competing theories. So I cannot be part of mediation. I saw my task as teaching the newbies the WP:RULES. Thereafter they could indeed cite policies and guidelines, but I really doubt that they have understood these. If they would have understood our rules, they would have behaved. They would have understood that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Also, some of their edits were pretty ridiculous, pushing extreme views and pseudoscience to the extent that I had suspected that they are Sockpuppet (Internet)#Strawman sockpuppets. Their aggressive, uncompromising attitude just does not make sense for Wikipedia insiders. I warned them about two months ago that they are WP:SPAs and they still did not tried to change that. I am also harsh and uncompromising, but only in respect to vandals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I highly appreciate your mediations and I am personally grateful to you for your hard work. However, I must say now that your above remark was offensive. You implied that all editors involved in the debate are narrow-minded nationalists because one of them (who had meanwhile been topic-banned) made a stupid, nationalistic proposal. Please remember that all other editors refused his proposal and I explicitly stated that if a two-to-two situation were required, I would choose a Romanian editor ([16]). On the other hand, I am grateful for the same remark to you, because it demonstrates an attitude (and bias) which enabled two trolls to play their games for months. Administrators who were approached either refused to intervene ("this is a content debate (among Eastern Europeans," they added in their mind) or started to throw discretionary sanctions without investigating the issue ("we administrators can apply discretionary sanctions, because you are Eastern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans are well-known nationalists"). Are you administrators sure that your power to apply discretionary sanctions relating to "Eastern" European articles still helps to improve WP, or it is only a pretext for you to ignore your duties in connection with the same articles? Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I've seen this same problem crop up in the past during my involvement in articles related to the Ukrainian crisis. There is a very strong tendency on the part of administrators to either refuse to enforce DS, for fear of getting involved in a dispute that's more trouble than they deem it worth, or try a 'both sides' approach, where hard-working longterm editors are forced to try and compromise with POV-pushing SPAs, regardless of what horrible effect that will have on our articles. It's for that reason that I supported shutting down the Mediation Committee...it attempts to force unnatural compromises to satisfy 'both sides', without bothering assess the value of each side's approach in line with our policies, resulting in articles that have a WP:FALSEBALANCE and are otherwise of poor quality. It is also for that reason that I submitted the AE request that I did, and I thank the administrators there for responding to it. However, what should've happened, in my view, is that the relevant SPAs should've been topic banned at a much earlier juncture. Specifically, Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) had the ability to topic ban Iovaniorgovan, but instead tried 'conditional unblocking', which was based on seeking a "consensus" that could not possibly be formed because of the nature of the changes being advocated by that user. The user was blocked again by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), but no one bothered to try and topic ban him. It took my AE request for that to happen. Administrators in these topics areas NEED to be willing to assess the nature of the advocacy of users like this. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. When unacceptable positions are being consistently advocated, when disruption carries on for months, administators need to avoid treating "both sides" in such a dispute as equal, when they are clearly not. That's my opinion...but, in the meantime, what's done is done. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, RGloucester, it sounds like bringing your request to AE was the right move to get attention to this problem. Admins frequently only know about problems when they are flagged and brought to their attention through a noticeboard. Personally, I understand editors and admins keeping their distance from areas of the project that seem prone to disputes that can be intractable. I agree that admins need to assess the motives (as much as one can) among editors pushing a POV, but it can often seem like a no-win situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I know it was 'right', but it was also somewhat of an absurdity. I have no involvement at all in this topic, and was only made aware of the dispute by Mr McClenon's posting at the Village Pump. Unfortunately, AE is so Kafkaesque in its workings that I fear that the average editor has trouble approaching it...or, perhaps, is afraid of receiving the treatment that Borsoka did. That's why I made an AE request...because, as an uninvolved party with AE experience, it was possible for me to do so...but given that administrators were actively patrolling this page and instituting various remedies to curb disruption there, I would've hoped for a more thorough response at an earlier juncture...and by that, I mean evaluating the effect that these SPAs had on the article. The whole so-called 'dispute' originated with them...and yet, the remedies used didn't address the source of the problem, and instead treated the situation as a 'content dispute' between two equally valid 'sides'. That's the problem that I've seen. But, in any case, I think it's time for us to put this behind us, and hope for more constructive editing at that article in future. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Do you have your admins right? I didn't block Iovaniorgovan. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant Vanjagenije (talk · contribs). RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Count Iblis NOTHERE case

Prompted by comments and responses in the Wikid77 thread I did some looking around and have come to the conclusion User:Count Iblis (Contributions) is WP:NOTHERE.

Jumbo Wales, whose talkpage is referenced herein.

-EEng

Surely you mean Jimbo Whales, EEng?

-FlyingAce

No, he meant that other one with the hat

-Martinevans123

• At the top of their talkpage we learn "Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there." and "Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds."
• They basically stopped contributing to mainspace 6 years ago. In 2018 they managed just 5 mainspace edits against 329 total edits. The previous 5 years are not much better. [17] A focus on the Refdesk [18], Jumbo Wales Jimbo Whales talkpage and AN(i) with no effort to improve mainspace is NOTHERE.
• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. " [19]
• Comments at AN around racism are reprehensible with "we have to acknowledge that he isn't a racist himself." (except many editors have found wikid77's comments to be racist) and " former racists" have turned on other targets... link and " the real Adolph Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power" [20]. Most concerning he directly linked a Hitler speech Youtube hosts but restricts in a way I've never seen before (seems to be commentary on our NOTHERE policy).
• General stupidity about Wikipedia operation like [21] [22] and editors [23]

Propose an INDEF of Count Iblis for WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think this may be an inappropriate forum Legacypac, ANI I think would be better. The Hitler video post (WTF?) I believe could be interpreted as an 'incident'. Copyvio and other issues, like sanity. Copy and paste it there methinks. Simon Adler (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (strike my oppose; this is looking worse and worse power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)) I haven't been thrilled by some of their edits, but supporting WP:IAR and not being particularly active are definitely not sanctionable. The "he's supporting an editor I think is racist, so he's also racist" argument is also very bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

However, Legacypac has buried the most sanctionable concern. If there's evidence that his claim I have often given fake citation is actually true, a block would be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Simon Adler (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally discussions about longterm behavior come to AN. I take him at his word he has used fake cites. I'm not saying he is racist because he supports one but because he posts racist stuff himself. If he was making useful contributions to mainspace there would be a bigger case that he has a purpose here but he does not seem interested in building the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at some of their "recent" mainspace contributions. The worst referencing I've found is [24], which links to a TV show I can't access that says it's "recent research". Edits like [25] are only slightly problematic; it's unreferenced but is generally straightforward math. The claim that this is an "ancient Indian algorithm" does need to be referenced; the "ancient Indian" part has since been removed. I'm not sure why 1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + ... is an article at all, but oh well. The Vitamin D edits do seem to be him pushing a point of view that isn't necessarily backed by sources; but none of Legacypac's comments seem to suggest anything regarding a medicine topic ban. In this case, topic bans are extremely likely to be counterproductive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Not seeing any justification for a site or topic ban. The reasoning behind this request seems to be extraordinarily weak.--MONGO (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Further elaboration seems to indicate an issue of concern so awaiting explanation by defendent.--MONGO (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I find the Hitler video and it's background context and comment accompanying it to be highly concerning. I can't view the clip as YouTube says it is unavailable in my country. But if it is footage of a Hitler speech giving an Anti-Semitic rant, with the accompanying comment of Hitler saying that Jews are NOTHERE - which appeared to be the gist of it - then I would be highly pissed off, and no doubt the community would. If it is more nuanced, such as a parody video, then it still deserves a massive trouting. It would seem to show the editor has poor social judgement at the very least. Simon Adler (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler - it is the first case exactly as you laid out, historical footage of Hitler with English subtitles where he says Jews are not here. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

yep just saw the video, I concur with LP and I am highly pissed off. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's siteban shit. It makes 77's issues look positively mild. Fuck that. Simon Adler (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted that comment by Iblis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of ANY valid reason to post a Hitler video in an AN discussion. That post is what got me looking into this user. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've watched Count Iblis' activities on Wikipedia for a long time, and it seems to me that he has never been here to improve the encyclopedia, that his only purpose is contrarian argumentation. I'm not even sure he believes all the b.s. he's spouted over the years, or if he just enjoys stirring the pot for its own sake. From his involvement in the User:Brews ohare situation back in 2008 or 2009 through to his statements in the Wikid77 discussion above, including the video he linked to, Count Iblis has simply never had the betterment of the encyclopedia in mind -- or the well-being of the community, for that matter -- just whatever perverse gratification he gets from what he does. It's really well past time that the community dealt with him in the only appropriate way, which is the show him the door with a NOTHERE indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per nom and Beyond my Ken. WOPR (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT - I would ask any Administrators watching to check out this diff. It is linking a Hitler speech (I cannot view it due to YouTube copyright regs in the UK) with virulent Anti-Semitic content to some purile WP:NOTHERE justification. The editor seems to be making an implicit connection with Jewish Wikipedia editors. I have never seen a Nazi era video linked to a board discussion. I would ask you to examine, and take any necessary action as you see fit. Simon Adler (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems pretty clear the video was meant to show demonization of the outgroup in the extreme, as in what the commenters were doing and what Hitler did relied on the same base psychology. Supportable. Speaking of psychology I'd encourage those eager to join the latest 'Nazi' burning to research the history of witch burnings and reflect. D.Creish (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose for now. I think the outrageous comments in/around the Wikid77 thread has a lot of people [understandably] running a bit hot. There seems a world of difference between the kind of arguments that wikid77 was making and what iblis is saying. Linking to a Hitler video was a bad move, but it was obvious (to me anyway) that it was not actually an expression of support of Hitler (in the way that wikid77 actually persisted in his racist lines of argumentation) but a hyperbole/joke relating the subject to WP:NOTHERE. Bad taste, bad form, problematic... but falls far from making the case for WP:NOTHERE. I should say that I think my only interaction with Iblis was this thread a few years back, where I was arguing for him to be tbanned from the refdesks. At the time I found/find his general wikiorientation to be trying (with wikipolicy and community norms seemingly just beneath him). However, I would want to see a lot more evidence than this for a NOTHERE indef. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I want to see a smoking gun, preferably five or six diffs of it. Perhaps editors cannot deliver this because he hasn't many mainspace edits, therefore the point about tricking WP:OR warriors is quite moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I see here is intimidation of and retaliation against Count Iblis for his testimony opposing aggressive action against Wikid77 in the above thread (permalink). I was threatened too. How can Wikipedia decisions be based on consensus when witnesses are threatened with blocks and bans for expressing an opinion not shared by the majority?

This kind of coercion is no doubt why Count Iblis made a comparison to Hitler, as explained by D.Creish here. People compare others they disagree with to Hilter so often, that one of the Wikimedia Foundation's prominent attorneys, Mike Godwin, created Godwin's law:

If an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Now, instead of declaring his comparison to Hitler as Reductio ad Hitlerum, ending the discussion, or ignoring it, you want him banned too? Please. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT why I filed this report. I saw a Hitler video posted and found an editor that is Not Here to play by the rules of Wikipedia. Legacypac 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone have diffs to support the fake citations claim? That would be a pressing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

From the filer who wrote:

• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. " [26]

I do agree this is a problem if he has done it, and should be confronted about that. Interrogated about when he did it, fix them, promise not to do it, again, etc. Let's keep in mind that was posted a year ago. Why didn't anyone say something about it then? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

He posted it in a non-high profile area, and we don't know if anyone said anything. Given the low number of mainspace edits, he may be talking about the ref desk. Maybe he can explain if he is lying or telling the truth. Either way it is a problem. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is problem either way that he needs to address. If he refuses to acknowledge it is a problem, refuses to strike that post with an apology and/or refuses to correct any fake citation he made, etc., then I would support some kind of action against him until these issues are addressed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor behaves in a way that worsens division and polarization in the community. This case should not be closed out as No Consensus, which will simply come back in the future. Either the community should impose a Site Ban, or the community should punt this case to ArbCom and hope that ArbCom is willing to run with the football by conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry. Either ban this editor or let the ArbCom consider whether to ban this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While the video linked is in extremely poor taste, it strikes me as more of a case of Godwin's law in action, rather than an actual racist tirade. Well, it has been a good 17 years, but Godwin finally got us. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block I agree with those users who interpret the Hitler YouTube link as a case of Godwin's Law rather than a direct racist comparison of other editors to Jews, etc. However, I disagree with (some of?) said editors regarding whether comparing other editors to Nazis in any capacity is acceptable. It's what (ultimately) got Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) / Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) indeffed, and what definitely should have got Catflap08 (talk · contribs) site-banned (and would have probably done so had it not been for two or three wikilawyers defending him for their own reasons). Not only is this user casually throwing out the accusation "You sound like Hitler!", but he admits on his user page to rejecting all of our policies and posting fake citations? This is the kind of behaviour I'd expect from an already-banned editor posting about Wikipedia on Wikipediocracy or WikipediaSucks.com, not here. (I should note that I believe most of the editors who are arguing that it's "Just Godwin" are merely playing devil's advocate and are not themselves at fault, but David Tornheim (talk · contribs), given his behaviour in the Wikid77 discussion and other places, appears to be deliberately ignoring the context, and I fully expect him to ignore Legacypac (talk · contribs)'s clear elaboration that the Hitler video was not the only reason this report was filed, similarly to how he ignored ... well, pretty much every other time I've seen him corrected on something, most recently further up this page with regard to Wikid creating racist redirects that had since been deleted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction. Yep, I think that video is more a "This is what you're sounding like" comment than racist in itself (ie a Godwin, as others have said). I find it very bad taste, but is there a pattern of comparing others to Hitler or is it (along with his other comments in the Wikid77 thing) a one-off during a heated discussion? I don't see where anybody has shown a pattern, and a one-off does not deserve a ban as a first response. He says he doesn't follow Wikipedia policies? Is there any evidence that he actually does not follow polices, or evidence of a faked reference? If not, then it's just a bit of hot air on his talk page, and that does not deserve a ban either. Let's not turn this into a witch hunt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I'm quite appalled by some of the supports Wikid77 has had, but a response of trying to root out all of his apparent supporters would be a heated over-reaction here and would be getting dangerously close to an attempt to eliminate dissent (and you know who else did that, right? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Joe McCarthy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  That's the guy ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - A few years ago, there was an editor (can't quite remember who it was) who had a swastika on his/her user-page. The community forced him/her to delete it or be site-banned. A tricky topic to be sure - because A) Wikipedians don't have rights, but only privileges & B) Were we being intolerant by not accepting intolerant symbols? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Related to your b) point, that is covered in the paradox of tolerance. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Evidence is convincing that he doesn't need to be here anymore. --Jayron32 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – I concur with Boing regarding the Hitler video. As for the rest, do we actually have proof that there are any fake citations? For all we know, they could have been trolling with that post (again, not ideal, but not worth a tar-and-feather response either). –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban on the basis of the Hitler video issue, and the admission to fabricating refs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also their statement on their userpage that they encourage people to violate AE enforcement decisions is troubling. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing! and others; I agree that linking to that video does not seem to have been intended as Nazi propaganda. As for the statements on their talk page, an editor is allowed to express dissent so long as they are not actively disrupting things, or actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose (remember WP:IAR is a thing). And to the suggestion they deliberately fabricate references: I see no evidence of it. The comment Legacypac linked to seems to be in the context of providing a reference for a mathematical proof developed from referenced information which Iblis felt did not thus require its own reference: the method of developing such a proof would be verification in and of itself to someone versed in the topic (WP:BLUE but taken to an extreme). That might fall broadly into a discussion on original research (considering Iblis mentioned appeasing the "OR warriors") but does not seem to be a broad endorsement of fabricating references to support false information, more like fabricating references to shut people up. That's not great, but the worst I can say about the comment is it reads like an expert in a subject trying and thoroughly failing to explain the situation to a general audience. In summary I don't see anything that warrants a siteban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, I'm not supporting this as I think it's disproportionate but how is Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. not "actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose"? ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Because they're not actually doing it. Or at least there's no evidence of such an organized movement, just the usual haphazard assortment of trolls. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, much as it pains me as I do think Count Iblis is a textbook WP:NOTHERE case. This differs from the Wikid77 case in that 77 continued with inappropriate conduct after being told it was inappropriate. In the absence of evidence that Count Iblis has done something inappropriate after being asked not to, it's too much of a jump to go straight to banning—given how long he's been doing this kind of crap without being called out on it, it's plausible to assume he genuinely thought the rest of Wikipedia considered him some kind of court jester and was deliberately allowing him to do things that would normally be considered disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• This. Count Iblis is basically a NOTHERE, largely unfunny version of EEng. I dare say that most of us don't pay the Count much attention, and he probably realizes that. Perhaps that is why his explicit endorsement of anti-Arbcom anarachy has not previously caused much angst. I think he's harmless enough that we could probably ignore him, but he's also technically disruptive enough that we would be justified in trying to rein him in. It's probably not going to have a huge impact on the pedia either way, which makes me wonder if I wasted my time writing and revising this comment. Oh well. Lepricavark (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's quite stressful being a community byword, let me tell you. EEng 09:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be an insult. I think you play the role of Wiki-jester quite well, and I believe you are good for the sanity of the community. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - What next ? ... Are we going to ban myself, BMK, MarnetteD and many others for having the "Ignore all rules" banner on our talkpages ? ...., To a certain extent the Hitler comment is problematic but as far as I can see it was one comment ... they're not referring to everyone as Hitler on a daily basis ...., I'm not seeing anything that remotely warrants banning, blocking, sanctions, topic bans or anything else that I've not thought of. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of WP:IAR, which says

  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  In other words, it's not intended to be blanket permission to ignore every policy, guideline or rule on every occasion, but, instead, to make an evaluation of whether a rule is standing in the way of an improvement, in which case one is empowered to ignore it. That isn't an invitation to anarchy, it's a way to ensure that rules don't impede progress. On the other hand, what Count Iblis is saying -- and, worse, encouraging in others -- is anarchy. His statements

  Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there

  and

  Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds

  would, quite literally, if adopted by all editors, lead to complete anarchy on Wikipedia.
  Quite possibly, Count Iblis considers that possibility, of anarchy on Wikipedia, to be a good thing. I -- and I believe that vast majority of Wikipedia editors -- do not. We recognize that freedoms and responsibilities must be balanced, and that structure is necessary to ensure the continued existence of Wikipedia. We already spend much too much time litigating disputes between editors, and Count Iblis' version of an anarchic Wikipedia would increase that overhead tremendously. We'd be spending so much time ironing out disputes that no one would have any time to actually improve the encyclopedia.
  No, Count Iblis simply is not suited to be a Wikipedian, and his statements make that abundantly clear. Add to that the fact that he doesn't actually do anything to improve the encyclopedia (whether you agree with its purpose or not, there is no argument to be made that the Ref Desks improve the encyclopedia in any way shape, or form; they are purely an ancillary activity), and you've got a very strong argument for their being NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• On the face of it, this doesn't seem like such a big issue. But (and of course there's a but), this isn't the first time Count Iblis has done something like this. This discussion brings up pretty much the exact same issues in 2015, and it led to a voluntary ban from the Refdesk after it was becoming clear they would be banned by consensus anyways, which allowed them to claim no wrongdoing. I have to leave my computer now so I can't finish, but suffice to say that this incident should not be viewed in a vacuum. ansh666 19:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support some sanction short of a siteban From Editing Wikipedia:User pages:

Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence.

From Count IbIis's User page:

'Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there'.

and:

'Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. Some banned editors have told me that they have been editing here anonymously and they are not being prevented from doing so. So, I guess ArbCom has a secret policy of tolerating banned editors here while publicly denying this to save face'.

From the above I would suggest that CI is WP:NOTHERE, as his/her statements have strong potential to influence others to grossly harm the project. We do not know if this is humour, or his/her true belief.It appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP:IAR, either by accident or design. That would indicate WP:CIR problems with communicating and functioning in the WP enviroment. Coupled with previous ref desk issues and the continued fascination with Godwin's law, I would say the community does have an issue here. I am not advocating a siteban, yet (although it may be the logical outcome) But I do believe some consensus on sanctions should be arrived at here. Simon Adler (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis, I have removed problematic material from your user page as per the guidance which I quoted in my post above. If you are comfortable with that, and do not revert, I would be willing to WP:AGF and change my position. A lot of the posters above may well agree and we can drop this issue. Please can you comment here? Regards, Simon Adler (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• If everything asserted at Count Iblis' user page is to be taken at facial value, then

This user is visiting from an alternate universe.

proves that we have indeed a clear cut case of wp:not here, this user being an alien from somewhere else. Pldx1 (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But are we sure he's an undesirable alien? Maybe he's fleeing something much worse? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Has CI been following through on the statements at his userpage? GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• A Joke? I see zero evidence that Count Iblis is trying or succeeding at humor. Perhaps the people suggesting that idea are trying to be funny? I never found Nazis funny. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Never? EEng 14:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  This isn't about you. Let's not exaggerate the extent of CI's wrongdoings and let's not get outraged based on such an exaggeration. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - Topic ban

Given that the above seems to be heading for a no-consensus result, let me propose an alternative:

Count Iblis is banned from editing outside of the article space, except for the following reasonable exceptions: 1) To discuss article text on article talk pages 2) to notify people on their user talk pages of discussions pertaining to themselves 3) to respond to discussions on noticeboards where he is explicitly named as a party to the discussion. As points of emphasis, he is completely banned from discussions on the Reference Desks, Village Pumps, Help Desks, Teahouse, and User talk: Jimbo Wales, and banned from discussions on any admin noticeboard except those that involve himself as a named party.

This should address the locus of CI's problems, remove the temptations from him, and return him (should he choose to do so) to editing article text in constructive ways. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any proof, that CI has been editing Wikipedia disruptively? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help request for page move from Autonomous cruise control system to Adaptive cruise control

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

---

Help request for page move from Autonomous cruise control system to Adaptive cruise control. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Autonomous_cruise_control_system#Rename_to_%22adaptive_cruise_control%22 for more info.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

2019 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2019:

• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2018:

• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining both CheckUser & Oversight)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2018 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Euryalus, Newyorkbrad

  Oversight: Euryalus, Newyorkbrad

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of Euryalus and DGG at their request.

The Arbitration Committee thanks DeltaQuad for volunteering to join the arbitration clerk team and appoints her a full clerk effective from the completion of her term as an arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 12:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 Arbitration Committee

Help with autoblock

User talk:172.56.36.237 appears to be experiencing a cookie block. I've read through Wikipedia:Autoblock and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking and I'm still at a loss as to how to determine where the autoblock is coming from and resolve it. Would having them clear their browser history work? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Autoblocks are anonymized so the ONLY way the user can be helped is if they follow the EXACT instructions on the autoblock notice. That notice contains information that will allow an admin to find and fix the autoblock, however the admins can only see it if they autoblocked user follows the instructions for requesting an unblock. The block notice that the autoblocked user sees contains a 7-digit number that admins need to find the autoblock. --Jayron32 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nmatavka

I noticed that in the previous thread where Nmatavka (talk · contribs) banned from creating pages in his userspace (for creating porn galleries in such area), there is a link to a subpage of his userspace, titled "Prawn", that contains exactly the type of content that got him edit-restricted (and later indefinitely blocked). I would like someone, not necessarily an administrator, to have this subpage and any similar ones deleted, whether by MfD or an applicable CSD – I do not wish to do so myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. ♟♙ (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"exactly the type of content that got him edit-restricted"? It was a picture of a prawn/shrimp. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And the user was blocked in 2012. Fish+Karate 13:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please help

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

---

The ref desk troll is out in force. Per usual all of the desks need protection and the edits need r/d as well. Any help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 09:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks taken care of already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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