Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 28 August 2018

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

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

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 107 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 77 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 13 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 8 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 251 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 120 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 86 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.

I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 13 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 9 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Site ban proposal for User:NadirAli

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

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

Last month, NadirAli's mass sockpuppetry was discovered. Consequently, Ivanvector blocked NadirAli but only for 3 months contrary to the actual standards for such violations.

After I objected the duration, Ivanvector started an ARCA clarification request. The outcome of the request was that NadirAli should be "treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry". I proposed siteban by motion, to which Worm That Turned responded, "you make a strong argument for a site ban... If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour." No arbitrators disagreed with that.

ARCA request has been archived but the outcome is still pending. Some significant points regarding the misconduct are as follow:

• NadirAli was evading his siteban before he was unbanned.
• After getting unblocked he abused IPs and created Boxman88 (talk · contribs) to evade the Arbcom topic ban. The topic ban was later overturned.
• He was blocked indefinitely for copyright violation.
• He was topic banned from uploading any images.
• He was blocked indefinitely for violating that topic ban.
• Violated his ban on image uploading by creating a new sock, Posuydon (talk · contribs).
• Indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict.
• Violated topic ban on India-Pakistan conflict last month, however, he denied any topic ban violation, just like he used to deny copyright violations.

It can be safely said that NadirAli is the most disruptive editor in the South Asia topic area. Had the sockpuppetry been discovered early, the damage that his actions have done to the project could have been avoided. In these twelve years, NadirAli has engaged in a very large degree of disruption and displayed clear inability to act collegially, and this was on display even in his last edit. A siteban is probably overdue for someone who is currently topic banned from several areas for an indefinite period and has been socking this rigorously for such a long period. --RaviC (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. Apparently I don't understand the new rule, because I would have imagined that he qualified for automatic siteban. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• PS, note that NadirAli has three indefinite blocks in his main account's history. Some of us have gotten multiple non-problematic indefs, due to mistakes or testing or rogue admins (I have one mistake and two testing; Jimbo Wales has one mistake, two rogue admin, and two I-don't-know-what), but all of NadirAli's appear to be deserved. It's rare for an active editor to have more than one, and truly exceptional for an active editor with three indefs to get a deserved definite block for violating an Arbcom injunction. I'm thankful that Ivanvector is willing to be gracious, but I don't think it's the wisest choice. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Overall net negative. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. His trolling (I have no better word) has been just out of hands. Orientls (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Orientls, how about you not call it "trolling" at all? The comment is a bit verbose (" judged by the fact that your opinion is a minority view as per these sources"), but I don't see what else is wrong with it. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • He was misrepresenting the author who said Pakistan is not a regional power to be claiming that he says Pakistan is a regional power. As well as "all" provided sources say Pakistan is a regional power, when they didn't. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and reject, the user is already sanctioned and serving out a block as methodically prescribed in this and previous such cases. Sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive. The filer has presented no tangible argument why the already-existing sanction needs to be replaced. I have known NadirAli for a few years, and his contributions to Pakistan articles have generally been thoughtful, constructive, and overall positive. Right up until his block (which was both sad, unnecessary, and a serious lack of acumen on his part), his behaviour was cooperative, normal, and not something that would qualify as sabotaging or disrupting the project en masse. The two (the filer and NadirAli) and others here undoubtedly have had past beef, hence the reason why I would read between the lines and take things with a pinch of salt IMO. Also waiting for comments from Ivanvector, who obviously would've had good reasons of his own to extend the block for 3 months rather than the usual line of action; he would be in a better position to explain why that was decided. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you even read what has been already said above? Arbcom has already clarified to Ivanvector that NadirAli's sock puppetry should be dealt like "anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry", i.e. indef block or a indef ban. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, the line of action for such cases is to enforce a block, which I'm already seeing. The user is blocked. The enforcing admin would've had reasons to determine why this length was appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector certainly had his explanation in ARCA and Arbcom has clarified the misunderstanding. I can just hope that he would agree with what we went over at ARCA. Furthermore Mar4d, you may not know, but NadirAli has edit-warred with you as well by evading his ban with IPs. Interestingly, this is the same article where he was caught socking last month. --RaviC (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support WP:CBAN. Should have been done a while back. Agree with Nyttend that NadirAli got away with a number of violations for which he deserved an indefinite block. When it comes to disruptive editing, NadirAli has done it all - Sock puppetry , Edit warring , factional editing, misrepresentation of sources, and the list goes on. His presence in the ARBIPA area is what can be defined as long term disruptive editing with having the dubious distinction of being banned in first and only Arbcom case concerning this area. Looking at the most recent edit of NadirAli, we get the idea that his motive is further disruption. I think as a community we have wasted enough time on him and he has been given enough rope, hundreds of chances over a decade. It is time to take a binding decision on this matter. Razer(talk) 11:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per Nyttend. NadirAli's editing is mostly shady and the non-shady part is mostly worthless. I don't see why the community needs to keep wasting its time on this editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note This comment was struck by the commenter () Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you elaborate what you mean by "worthless". I saw his contributions over the years, and before the block occurred, and they were mostly positive in terms of content creation and expansion. No one is free from mistakes, including you. I disagree with your unnecessary aspersion. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments: When a a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli was brought to WP:ANI in July 2017, I was one of the people that opposed it. Even though it was hard work to battle NadirAli's POV, I thought his presence was still beneficial for the project. Little did I know that NadirAli had just begun doing proxy edits for a banned editor. I believe his first post as a proxy was this one 3 June 2017. The polished, westernised English of that post is easily distinguishable from NadirAli's broken English a month earlier. The reference to "shady" above was my filing at ARE bringing it to the admin attention. Since there was no admin action, NadirAli and his puppet master were emboldened and, since then, made hundreds of edits across dozens of page. Two other editors were recently blocked/banned by Abecedare for doing exactly this. I really think we need to get rid of the scourge of proxy editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(responding to the ping) I haven't taken a look at NadirAli's case-history in any depth, and therefore haven't !voted in this discussion. As for proxy editing: on a quick glance the case is not as obvious as it was for the three instances in which I blocked, topic-banned and warned recently. This comment, for example, has some grammatical and punctuation errors, but of the sort that are par for the course for talkpage discussions. If there is a stronger case for proxy-editing to be made, I think it would be best to marshal evidence independent of this immediate discussion; the account is blocked for 2 more month, so there is no real rush. Abecedare (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The limited blocks and bans had been tried enough number of times. The Arb case should have been the final whistle for Nadir to stop such activity. The Kind admins like Ivan have already given the user enough WP:Rope to improve but by multiple violations as pointed above the user himself has decided to hang himself. The assumption that this editor will improve his behavior to avoid the ban would have been valid for earlier cases, Nadir by choosing to edit in conflict with the bans has already made the good faith assumption void. Proxy editors and the handlers need to be sent a strong message that indulging in such activity will not get any benefits and will only lead to strong administrative actions. --DBigXray 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support--The length of the rope, provided thus far, was not meant to approach infinity.....Thanks for your services, Good bye.∯WBG 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose-Per V93.And, this partisan noise......∯WBG 12:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this editor has a history of getting indefinitely blocked for many different kinds of disruptive editing, only to be unblocked with a topic ban, editing restriction or "last" chance. People like that should be shown the door. A three month block is very generous for socking by an experienced editor, especially one who has been ordered not to use multiple accounts by ArbCom. Hut 8.5 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's an unfortunate fact that nationalist disputes in South Asia bring out the worst in many of our otherwise capable editors. Nadir Ali has at various points demonstrated that he has the ability to edit constructively, but has chosen not to make use of it. I recommended a t-ban for him a few months ago, but that was before evidence of further sockpuppetry was brought forward. His edits have been a net negative, and this ban is necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose after reading Zzuuzz's comment about when logged out editing took place. I spent some time examining NadirAli's editing history, and their interactions with several other editors. I still think NadirAli's behavior is far from ideal, and they need to take a hard look at how they respond to conflict. However, the fact that much of logged out editing occurred a long while ago, and the substantial probability that some of the logged-out editing was done with the intent of avoiding harassment rather than evading scrutiny, I now feel a siteban would be an over-reach. @Kautilya3 and Winged Blades of Godric: I suspect you may be interested in that comment, though it may or may not change your minds. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• What CU detected as logged out editing was sure "recent" as CU can only detect what happened in last 3 months. If there was no recent logged out editing then CU would not convict the user of logged out editing. CU won't reveal those new IPs which they discovered per privacy policy. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Nadir Ali definitely was a disruptive editor in both South Asia and science fiction subjects. There was an ANI against him last year, and thus, we can't say that he didn't have enough chances since he actually received far too many. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have reason to believe that this request is not in good faith, but yet another example of the factionalized editing identified in the AE topic ban thread from a few months ago in which many of the previous commenters here were named and (temporarily) topic-banned. I should have noted more clearly at the time, but I have doubts that the accounts named in the most recent of the SPI filings against NadirAli were actually NadirAli's accounts, versus a sophisticated attempt at joejobbing - the checkuser result was inconclusive, and the two accounts are blocked for being sockpuppets of each other, not for being sockpuppets of NadirAli. Of course, NadirAli is hardly an innocent party in this ongoing dispute as evidenced by his long block log, including several indefinite blocks as Nyttend noted, but note also that indef != permanent, and all of those blocks served their purpose and were eventually replaced with appropriate limiting sanctions, which NadirAli has largely abided by since appealing to BASC in 2014. He's slipped up a couple times, but who hasn't in this group? It's a literal disaster, none of these editors don't have notations in their block log and/or their names repeatedly mentioned at AE or the various admin boards. The recent SPI hinged on IP edits from a huge (/11) subnet in Brampton, Ontario, a large Canadian city with a very significant Pakistani population, most of which were more than a year old at the time of the report. NadirAli is only currently blocked because of what appears to have been an oversight that his Arbcom topic ban was rescinded but his parallel no-logged-out-editing restriction was not rescinded at the same time (why I asked about it at ARCA), and had that restriction not been in place, I would not have blocked him but treated the situation as time served with a warning. It's only because that restriction remained in place, and admins do not have latitude to admin in conflict with Arbcom, that he is blocked at all. Sitebanning him for that is an incredible overreach. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you but that was unnecessary. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here. In place of righting great wrongs why don't you just try following what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them. You are acting like an apologist. You are degrading your own credibility by encouraging his disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Orientls It's one thing to argue that IvanVector is wrong; it's quite another to suggest that by exercising due diligence, he is an apologist for sockpuppetry. This is precisely the sort of us-vs-them nonsense that earned nine others topic-bans along with Nadir Ali, and I suggest you refrain from attacking anyone else's motives. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • You are right that I need to use better words. My comments were directed on Ivanvector who is exactly attacking others motives and derailing this thread by making vague claims about others who are nowhere near the disruption of NadirAli. Not to ignore the apparent falsification of the sockpuppetry about NadiAli. Orientls (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Doubling down by accusing Ivanvector of lying isn't exactly a great idea either. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • He claims that NadirAli didn't deserved block for sockpuppetry even after having CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions. "3 months block" for long term socking and putting the blame of someone's disruption onto others is absolutely a bad idea. Orientls (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Can you provide evidence for where a CU 'found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions'. Because Ivanvector seems to be correct that in the case of Boxman88 and Posuydon, the evidence was unclear. "The checkuser data for Boxman88 is extremely limited and doesn't provide a direct connection to NadirAli. However there are some other things to consider. There are some technical similarities which makes it possible". Note that I had no intention to take part in this discussion but happened to notice this diversion. Your comments cause me to look into the case and am I am likely to be !voting oppose unless you can provide evidence for your claims because it's looking to me like IvanVector is correct. Nil Einne (talk)
              • @Nil Einne: CU said "the CU result between the two accounts is somewhere between possible and inconclusive". But Ivanvector misrepresented that as "the checkuser result was inconclusive". Ivanvector was also aware of that discussion. Not to forget WP:DUCK evidence floating in entire SPI. Orientls (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Thank you for confirming my thoughts. Ivanvector's summary is far more accurate than your highly misleading claim "found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" since no such connection was found. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Do you really see no difference between "possible and inconclusive" and "inconclusive", what about the WP:DUCK evidence? NadirAli was evading CU, but shared same behavior. That is what it is all about. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • This is probably the last comment I will make on the matter. Read my comments carefully. I never said there was no difference. All I said was that Ivanvector's comment was far closer to being accurate than yours. Your comment was highly misleading and you seem unable or unwilling to accept that instead you're just trying to throw fault elsewhere. I do think it would have been better if Ivanvector had been slightly clearer but it's not something major enough that I'd even bother calling them out on it. As I said below, I don't care to debate the DUCK evidence. I've looked into to it and I'm not convinced enough. And note this is beside my main point which is that your misleading claim combined with your refusal to even acknowledge this leads me to believe there is something off with your !vote. The fact that others have evidently violated their topic ban gives me more reason to think it isn't only you. These aren't reasons to !vote no. But my evaluation of the evidence is that it's too weak to conclude anything other than some probably minor violations by NadirAli with logged out editing and a lot of that is a while ago I am !voting even though I probably would have just ignored this case otherwise without these concerns. As mention by Ivanvector and others, it's quite difficult to conclude how much logged out editing has happened especially when done over a wide range where it's likely there are several people with similar views, and in it's in the distant past. NadirAli is definitely far from perfect, but I don't think a siteban is needed yet. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons given by Ivanvector. Nadir's past policy violations resulted in sanctions being placed and time served. Those violations can't be held up against him. We should be viewing Nadir's current conduct, which in my opinion is productive and a net positive. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• You didn't even registered your account when NadirAli was editing. Lorstaking (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you name anyone else who has been sitebanned and indeffed multiple times after coming off from a siteban? Except NadirAli obviously. How can we afford to have an editor who is editing for 12 years and still dont know what is a topic ban violation? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.KA$HMIR (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• And you logged in after 35 days for making your first edit in this noticeboard. Why? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Ivanvector and other editors opposing this unnecessary site ban. Sanctions are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. NadirAli has served time for his past violations and currently under a ban and according to Ivanvector, no current sockpuppetry allegations were proven. We should not be extending a ban without a solid recent violation. It will be definitely a massive overreach as Ivanvector has rightly put it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Competence is required and NadirAli has none. Agree with Kautilya3 that NadirAli's edits were either shady or simply useless. According to the CheckUser: "The first obvious thing to say is that User:NadirAli has clearly been editing while logged out. This is to an extent you couldn't describe as accidental, and includes subjects such as the Kashmir dispute along with the Star Wars stuff.... There is also extensive logged-out editing from this set, which again includes Pakistan-India along with the Star Wars stuff." This is a clear abuse and deception in addition to socking with two accounts for evading the topic bans after being blocked for violating them. Siteban after handing out multiple topic bans to a previously sitebanned user was itself unbelievable. Siteban looks like a delayed formality now. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Five of the above users in support were very recently defending a blocked sockpuppet, who caused a lot of disruption. Many are certainly not here for charity. The vast majority of the above have also been involved in content disputes over the past 12 months. In my eyes, the credibility of this proposal and the intentions of the filer can't be taken seriously. NadirAli did some commendable work on content creation, and has been doing so for several years. Sure, he slipped up, but he got sanctioned for it and remained cooperative. I'm seeing nothing which would warrant replacing his existing sanctions with a punitive ban. This is an extremely weak case and not in good faith, as admin Ivanvector pointed out. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mar4d:-Well, I'm one of those five users and you might wish to go through this thread.I defended him precisely because the SPI investigation failed to satisfy me and that has got nothing to do with your snide generalized personal attack, (at your second line).∯WBG 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support due to abuse of multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and edit in defiance of his restriction, even after a lengthy block. This is someone who does not respect the restriction or our policies. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. I may change my mind if Orientls is able to provide evidence for their claim as I mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nil Einne. Clearer evidence needed. Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Agathoclea and Nil Einne: Do you need evidence of NadirAli's confirmed "extensive logged-out editing" in violation of Arbcom's restriction that he can't "edit from any Misplaced Pages account other than "Nadirali", nor edit anonymously," or do you need evidence for Ivanvector's own words that NadirAli "has evidently created sockpuppet accounts"? NadirAli's socks quack loud,(example 1: , example 2:, example 3:) because they were operated by himself. Ivanvector himself tagged the accounts as suspected socks of NadirAli. Evidence is already here. Lorstaking (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the evidence and agree with Ivanvector. The fact that other editors like Orientls make such misleading claims and then provide no explanation when called out for it really tells me all I need to know about this case anyway. Note that my specific point was that Orientls made a highly misleading claim. I don't care to get into a dispute over the evidence for other stuff. Neither Orientls nor you have provided any evidence for the claim "CU confirmed the intentional logged out editing and also found connection with two socks abused for evading sanctions" as that was about the CU finding based on CU evidence not any behavioral evidence. If editor A says I am editor B and editor B says I am editor A and they edit all the same articles with the exact same edits, that doesn't mean it's okay to claim CU found a connection with two socks when they did not. P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying most people supporting the tban are doing it for the wrong reasons simply that there are clear problems with at least one of the supporters which gives me great concern when combined with what I've seen of the evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • CU is not a magic pixie dust. NadirAli clearly attempted to evade CU but totally failed at it. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • That sort of thing is possible in principle, but it seems not to have happened here. Above, you are claiming that the editor trolled by misrepresenting something. That is exactly what you're doing here, except that in this case it's plain to see. You seem to turn "between possible and inconclusive" into "confirmed", attacking Ivanvector in the process (as noted by Nil Einne, Black Kite, Vanamonde93), which is silly. "Between possible and inconclusive" is, for SPI and other purposes, basically "inconclusive". No one should block or decide on bans or whatever based on such CU evidence, and I hope no one does; it's not even "possilikely", which already demands admins look for other evidence to help base a decision on. So yeah, CU is not magic pixie dust--and yet you take the CU results as if they are, which is just completely wrong. So whatever may be wrong with the editor's contributions, you simply cannot base anything on those CU results. But hey, what do people like Vanamonde and Ivanvector and me know about CU and adminning, right? Drmies (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you Drmies for clarifying that. Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Nyttend sums it up perfectly: When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. It should also be noted that issues are not limited to just deceptive sock puppetry and time has shown that this user is unable to reform himself. MBlaze Lightning 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Administrator note comment struck as violation of user's topic ban Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where the claim of denial is coming from, I have not seen it. Here are some of the user's last edits where he is acknowledging his sanction before the block and SPI closure. He had no other edits prior to these relating to his block. I certainly haven't seen any denial, unlike this case whom several above defended. This is misleading in my view. Mar4d (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, the claim and its proof come from near the end of the initial statement. In this edit from 2 July 2018, NadirAli edits India-Pakistan relations, including bits about their conflict. And in this edit from 6 July 2018, NadirAli says I have not violated the topic ban and have not edited any India-Pakistan conflict pages. NadirAli was subjected to a ban on "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" on 15 May 2018, and clearly India-Pakistan relations is a page related to conflict between India and Pakistan, so unless the ban were repealed in the month-and-a-half between imposition and edits, we have an easily proven violation of the ban. He edited the page in question just four days before making this statement; it's too soon to give him leeway for possibly forgetting, and since he remembered the ban on 6 July, it's going a bit far to say that he may have forgotten it on 2 July. This is what I meant by you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Lean oppose. As the checkuser who checked the SPI, I think I'm entitled to say that I'm satisfied with Ivanvector's actions and drawing the line there. I think I'll also comment a bit more on the SPI. The SPI is stuffed full of IP addresses - many were added after I commented at the SPI - some are from over 7 or 8 years ago - most are from years ago - some of which are credibly disputed - and none of which were recently (if at all) confirmed by checkuser. Most of it is distinctly historical. What I've seen of recent activity, from my privileged position, in my view does not warrant an indefinite ban. For the record, I am sure about the logged-out editing (which has not been disclosed in detail anywhere), and "somewhere between possible and inconclusive" is not a strong proof. -- zzuuzz 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Though extensive logged out editing is itself enough of the evidence of sock puppetry in addition to further disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You've again misrepresented the checkuser's comments: zzuuzz said "I am sure about the logged-out editing" but did not say "extensive", and confirmation (for all intents and purposes) of logged-out editing, a violation of an Arbcom sanction, is the entire rationale for NadirAli's current block, not any "further disruption" as you seem insistent on describing edits nearly a decade old. Your repeated misrepresentation of facts from the sockpuppet investigation is one of the reasons why I don't think you're here in the spirit of what's best for the encyclopedia at all, but rather just trying to pick off your opponents by any means necessary. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

He said "extensive" on the SPI, to which I was referring. NadirAli was the one picking up fight by filing bogus AREs against me by misrepresenting my comments and supporting a suspicious account, which was deemed to be a sock of an indeffed user who's edits have been frequently restored by NadirAli per the SPI. For all that disruption I am supporting the siteban so that we will never have to waste anymore time on him. Is that clearer now? Orientls (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This 'suspicious account' in question is not blocked. Can you be more clear what you mean by "deemed to be a sock"? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. This group of editors has no business at all calling out frivolous use of admin noticeboards, not one editor on either side of WP:ARBIPA. On that very page you linked to (twice) we have four incredibly obviously retaliatory enforcement requests, all from seemingly random uninvolved accounts, all accusing some opponent editor of being a sockpuppet of some other editor. The first supposed "bogus ARE" you link to is one filed against NadirAli, in which he makes just as convincing a case for you being a sockpuppet as anyone has made for him, and the second is just making his observation formal. Shall we indefinitely block you based on these flimsy reports?

• When I said in the mass-topic-ban ARE thread from those few months ago that "these editors have turned this subject away from collaboration and have made it their own personal battleground, and at this point the only way we're going to come back from that is to remove them from the topic" this is exactly what I'm referring to. I've become convinced in the months since that the lot of them should just be indefinitely banned for even after all that still continuing to perpetuate this ridiculous feud. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, they're just here to push their point of view and to fight with anyone who isn't on "their side", and to harass their opponents with "bogus" reports like this one and the many ridiculous reports at SPI and ARE this year. That's all that this entire proposal is. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is interesting that NadirAli had two indefinite blocks since vacation of siteban for copyrights issues. That is something an editor who is editing for a decade would better know about but that's completely missing in the case of NadirAli. There is no denial that sock-puppetry for evading scrutiny and editing in defiance of topic bans was continuously carried out. The recent topic ban violations and zero acknowledgement of problems with own conduct makes siteban as the only suitable option. GenuineArt (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Per my comment to MBlaze Lightning, the "zero acknowledgement" comment is not accurate. Here are the user's most recent edits, and the only one which relate to his block. He is clearly acknowledging his sanction. . He definitely has not denied it anywhere. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He was sitebanned before for same behavior. In this case the ban is clearly long overdue because he is frequently violating copyrights, attacks on ethnicity even after warning, filing spurious reports, breaching topic bans, exhibiting inability to contribute constructively, and engaging in each of these violations using socks for over so many years. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Because of the long list of sanctions and horrible block log. There seems to be a lack of productive editing and continued engagement in battle ground mentality even after being sitebanned for it earlier. The sock puppetry (including logged out editing) was probably last straw but he had to walk carefully since the ban in place of becoming subject to multiple topic bans. Onkuchia (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And strangely enough, this is your second edit ever on WP:AN after this one. No prizes for guessing what transpired there also! Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Comment struck as violation of user's topic ban. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - To ALL partisan editors, please chill out. Blocking your opposition from Misplaced Pages will only reduce the quality of the entire platform. Focus on generating a healthy competition over coming up with reliable sources to support your own POVs which you all clearly hold, and dont turn this into personal disputes. Enough with this constant crying to the moderators over account/topic bans etc. Take the actual issues over content to arbitration, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, leave personal attacks out of it. Code16 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - Last year, I had started an ANI against NadirAli, and proposed a topic ban because of his recurring CIR issues. That topic ban could've helped NadirAli, but now it seems like only a siteban can help him. Knox490 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Time and energy get spent into undoing willfull damage to articles in deliberate manner. Said editor is apparently guilty of doing such things for significant period of time, thereby leaving no other option at all. Devopam (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban as a) overkill (far too rapid an escalation for what is not an on-going problem) and b) unhelpful (would not address the underlyiing issues at all). I agree with Ivanvextor's (slightly) more nuanced approach. This very discussion proves the old adage, "a plague on both your houses" somewhat. The sheer amount of bad faith—on both sides—not only illustrates plainly that more than one editor is at fault, it also shows, equally plainly, that removing said individual from the theatre will make not a jot of difference to the toxic atmosphere. And on that, winding back on the various insinuations of sock / meatpuppetry would be a start. —SerialNumber54129 11:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that you spelled my name wrong. You might say I'm ... Ivanvexed. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ooops! Apologies, Ivanvector  :) That was me (slightly!) more nuancing your name... —SerialNumber54129 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial, you may have made this comment in Good faith, but your rant above, makes me to conclude that your oppose !vote is a "drive by comment" citing "Everyone is fault" and Whataboutery, and I feel it is made without due diligence, just by reading some of the comments here. Well everyone is free to make his opinion in whatever way he feels like, one should understand that these comments of "blaming everyone" not only allows the problem to escape and get away but also encourages him and other similar actors that this is escapable. Knox490 above raised some more valid points. Volunteers are here to improve Misplaced Pages, not to indefinitely coach a tendentious editor who has no regard or respect for policies of WP:NPOV and Blocks/Bans. Do you really believe that Nadir was not given enough chance ? Countless warnings and even blocks were handed out and yet, he continued doing the exact thing he was sanctioned for. Admins dont want to get into content disputes and understandably so, but then the problems continues and editors working on the articles are left to tolerate the tendentious and WP:BATTLE behavior, and when they raise the problem here, Whataboutery is thrown at them. I feel the topic of the discussion is genuine and needs a serious thought based on its own merit, you may not be affected by it, doesn't mean nobody is affected. Yes "Give the person more rope", sounds good, but this has to have an end somewhere. Nadir, is only to blame for this situation by his own actions. --DBigXray 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• • @DBigXray: I wouldn't usually template a regular, but when you accuse editors that are making a good-faith assessment of ranting, that's all ya get. Make sure you archive it as quickly as possible. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 20:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I am well within my rights of personal opinion to consider your "good faith assessment" that accuses the nom and others of "sheer amount of bad faith" as a "rant". Lets agree to disagree. Thank you. --DBigXray 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: You are very much mistaken. The fact is that your remarks verge upon being personal attacks, and mine did not. That you cannot understand the difference is—worrying. —SerialNumber54129 10:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support The editor has clearly been warned of his infractions. The blocking history reflects him to be an incorrigible sock puppet. This creates extremely unhealthy editing atmosphere in the improvement of articles on South Asian subjects. The repeated long term sock puppetry and large block log shows that siteban is necessary. Previous record of contributions can never be an excuse to let off a defaulting experienced editor, especially a repeat offender and one whose contribution history is so tainted. Let us remember that letting off NadirAli would set a precedent which would help future sockpuppeteers to wikilawyer their way from getting appropriate sanctions. AshLin (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - an interesting phenomenon occurring here is the number of experienced and active accounts commenting in this discussion who have either never edited this page before, or have not done so for very long periods of time. I don't have a hypothesis to suppose, but for example the comment above this one was made by an editor who last contributed at this noticeboard in 2012. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits are severely reduced due to my being diagnosed with a blood disorder and complications since some years, I spend less time on WP nowadays and generally prefer to edit constructively and argue less on issues and on noticeboards, though they are on watchlists. Once in a while I visit and comment occasionally. Check out my contribs. AshLin (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a catching thread. Using "evidence" that actually did not prove the point as an argument, caught my eye. AN and BN is a must read even in periods of "inactivity" or at least latest when returning to duty. Agathoclea (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - this user's sockpuppeteering and other abuses outweigh any positive contributions he's made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. -- Begoon 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too many partisan editors for this forum to impose a community ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we're seeing the familiar pattern: editors from the Indian faction are joining to vehemently support the proposal, and the ones from the Pakistan side are fiercely opposing it. But it's easy to see who's who, so it shouldn't be too difficult for the closer to filter out the partisan "noise", should it? – Uanfala (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Ivanvector, funnily enough you had enough time for saying all of this at WP:ARCA but you didn't. Your own actions contradict your current attempts to change goalposts. You had blocked both sock accounts of NadirAli as his suspected socks and now you are saying something that not even NadirAli has said. CU has informed us that NadirAli deliberately engaged in logged out editing in violation of his Arbcom restriction. CU also said that he was doing logged out editing in Kashmir-related subjects. He is currently topic banned from that subject. You can just say that NadirAli tried a little to evade CU but couldn't really evade it or avoid an impression of WP:DUCK. The list of IPs and accounts including the ones that I had provided are not joejobbing because no one has time to replicate behavior of NadirAli. Each of those IPs and accounts  have made the same edits as NadirAli. NadirAli was not editing with his main account around that time and he is the only person who has claimed that Tarek Fateh was born in India, and he enforced that outrageous BLP violation with his IPs too. The high multitude of same distinctive POV pushing with those IPs is evident only in the history of NadirAli. Finally, if you really have problems with any other editors then you should consider opening separate threads about them. At this thread we are only discussing NadirAli and not anybody else. -RaviC (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaviC: ARCA is a forum for seeking clarifications of existing Arbcom rulings, and nothing more. I had a specific question about NadirAli's sanctions, I asked it, I got an answer, end of. You're the one who showed up with an off topic site ban proposal, clearly forumshopping your disagreement with the result at the NadirAli SPI. In much the same way that your ally My Lord did after Bbb23 told them we don't sanction for alleged violations of topic bans which occurred years in the past. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe, if I am not mistaken, it is not forumshopping when Arbcom themselves recommended RaviC to propose siteban on WP:AN. 3 months block is not much for sockpuppetry; and more so when it is still going on for this long. People keep getting site banned for exactly the same offense. NadirAli seems to display multitude of issues such as sock puppetry, attacks on ethnicity, copyright violations, topic ban violations, edit warring, several topic bans, WP:OR problem like Tarek Fateh etc. Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It was forumshopping for RaviC to have tried to effect a different result from the sockpuppet investigation by hijacking an ARCA thread to which they were not a party. Worm That Turned did suggest they should take it up here instead, which I have no issue with as far as forumshopping is concerned. As I explained in my closing comment on the SPI, I felt that Arbcom had already directed the appropriate sanction for NadirAli's logged-out editing, I merely enacted their sanction. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. But people get indeffed for first or at least second instance of logged out editing and NadirAli appears to have done it with intent to mislead people and appears to be doing it for years. "Logged out editing" is not the only issue because NadirAli socked as Boxman88 and Posuydon to violate the topic bans. NadirAli appears to have done this even after promising several times that they won't engage in sock puppetry. That to me seems wrong that they are willing to show remorse and continue with same violation in future! That leads me to support that siteban is still necessary given the large amount of disruption and repeat violations. I certainly understand[REDACTED] should be a constructive, lively forum, but we need to hold users accountable for repeated disruptions. Of course, I do not wish to stretch this any further, but those were my additional 2 cents on this discussion :) Thank you! Sdmarathe (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the evidence for Boxman88 and Posuydon being NadirAli's sockpuppets is highly circumstantial. Those two accounts are blocked because the technical data showed that they were socks of each other, not of NadirAli. The tags on the accounts note the suspicion and refer to the page with details, because that's how the tags work - we don't have an {{obviously somebody's sockpuppet}} tag. Since the close of the investigation it came up elsewhere (in an unrelated case) that it's possible to adjust these tags to more accurately reflect the situation, and I will do so at the conclusion of this discussion but not before, for reasons that I hope are obvious. As for other users being indeffed for socking, yes that happens, rarely on a first offence not involving other misconduct (usually a term block in that case, a week or two) but sometimes when a user is socking but also disruptive or spamming or whatever, we indef them on the first go. When a user has been a contributor for as long as NadirAli has, and when there are many other circumstances to consider such as the divisive nature of the topics they often edit and the sometimes combative nature of others they're frequently in disputes with, when they have a more recent history of improved behaviour with respect to actions they were previously sanctioned for, when the supposed offence is unclear and/or isolated, and when (as I've alluded to in this discussion with admittedly less civil discourse) hardly any editor seeking sanctions for conduct in this topic area does so with clean hands, it's not so simple as "sockpuppetry == ban". I felt at the time and still do that indefinitely blocking NadirAli would cause Misplaced Pages to lose a prolific contributor while doing next to nothing to improve the WP:ARBIPA topic area (and noting that NadirAli is already banned from that topic), and thus on the balance it would be harmful to Misplaced Pages overall and particularly so to the other niche topics to which NadirAli contributes entirely free of conflict. Free, that is, except for the occasional score-settling revert from some other IPA editor from a past dispute. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You had blocked NadirAli because he was "editing from alternate accounts and while logged out". Block log entry made by you says "using multiple accounts and editing while logged out".

• Boxman88 added a WP:SPAM link on Hindu on 6 January 2016 and 11 months later NadirAli edit warred on 11 December 2016 to restore that spam link.
• Boxman88 on 20 June 2015 added wikilinks like "*]" on Languages of the Indian subcontinent and NadirAli on 23 November 2016 added categories like "]" there.
• What about these two 100% same edits made on Dari language?
• NadirAli has a history of censoring the article "Partition of India" from Pakistan article. He censored it throughout 2007, while Boxman88 censored it in 2015, because NadirAli was topic banned at that time that's why he used Boxman88. Once NadirAli could edit this subject again he censored the article using his main account.
• NadirAli censored the word "India" from Pakistan article in 2007, and Boxman88 censored the same word in 2015, when NadirAli was topic banned.
• Boxman88 censored the word "India" on Vedic period in 2015 as NadirAli was topic banned from this subject, unlike in 2007 when NadirAli account was used to censor the word "India" on this article.

I've already explained my rationale at SPI, and my later concerns with some of the findings of that SPI at least twice in this thread. Other editors reviewing can search for my username further up the page for my response to what Lorstaking has repeated. I am considering making myself a template for responses so that when the next editor in the line pretends to ignore what I wrote and drops the "but he's a sockpuppet!" comment, I can just type out {{NadirAli SPI reply}}, but it's not going to be today. I should note here that RaviC's edition of "but he's a sockpuppet!" appears below, and was written a few days before this comment. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apart from making same changes in matter of days or months, these accounts have edit warred in tandem. See this one: Boxman88 makes a very dinstictive edit on History of Pakistan and after 1 day NadirAli edit wars for restoring it. That's complete WP:DUCK. According to your "rationale at SPI", NadirAli "evidently created sockpuppet accounts in violation of an Arbcom-imposed unblock condition". One account (Boxman88) was created for editing Indian subcontinent and other account (Posuydon) was created for Science fiction - the only two subjects of NadirAli. Those two accounts have no overlap with each other, and they can be construed as socks only if NadirAli's editing has been taken into consideration. Lorstaking (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:NadirAli SPI reply Ivanvector (/_Edits) 10:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have prepared the following table after reviewing some diffs above as well as some recalled from my own experience for summarizing numerous severe issues with NadirAli, which are more than just sockpuppetry.

To make it very simple, NadirAli has many issues like language problems, edit warring, frequent assumption of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, copyright violations, sock puppetry, topic ban violations, battleground mentality, casting aspersions, ethnic POV pushing, proxy editing and so on.

He is exactly doing what resulted in the ARBCOM siteban in 2007 and his behavior has never improved but only deteriorated and retrogressed. We have enough evidence to establish that he is, in overall, disruptive. RaviC (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good research. Interestingly, just a few months ago, NadirAli was alleging others of "IP socking", "using IP socks", and I find that very ironic; since he himself engages in mass "IP socking". Bharatiya29 15:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are 18 blocks in his main account and many more in his IPs and socks. Even if he had never socked, the continued attacks by speculating nationality of users, several topic bans and complete failure to understand the policies are enough grounds for a siteban. Capankajsmilyo 09:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As I had pointed out in this user's topic ban appeal at WP:ARCA; this is someone who has been intentionally and recklessly causing disruption to our project for a very long time now, be it through WP:CIR issues or sockpuppetry or copyright violations. He has been given so many "last chances", yet instead of compensating he has only caused more disruption. I believe the recent topic-ban violations, sockpuppetry, among other violations as noted in the table above are the last straw--and as a community we should not hesitate to show him the door. Bharatiya29 12:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the very persuasive evidence posted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Given the gravity of the sanction being considered, may I ask you to actually read through the "evidence" above? As Ivanvector has said below, there's a lot of misbehavior listed there, but much of it is multi-partisan in nature, while a lot of the rest represents a genuine content dispute as evidence of incompetence. Maybe you will still believe a site-ban is necessary; but, at the very least, you would be supporting it with a more complete picture of what's going on. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nice observation VNM, the editors here should simply disregard the loads of evidence that has been presented and instead think about the Illuminati and !vote accordingly. No picture is complete without mentioning the omnipresent Illuminati. I reckon, Nadir Ali had done all these above violations under the influence of Illuminati, so no one should blame Nadir. All Hail blame the Illuminati. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Don't be silly: all I'm doing is asking BMK to read the evidence for themselves. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Do you think that I had someone else read the evidence and then tell me how to !vote? I said explicitly above that my comment was based on the mass of evidence presented. I feel no need to go through it again, nor do I think that doing so will expunge NadirAli's block log, which remains one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: By "read the evidence" I really meant "read the entirety of the linked diffs and page histories". The table above is also evidence, of a sort, but I believe that it isn't an entirely accurate portrayal. If you've read through all of the links, and you're conclusion remains unchanged, we can agree to disagree on whether the site-ban is necessary. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I got a weird email today asking about NadirAli, followed up on the emailer's talk page], and from there discovered this whole magnificent thread. (I did not see a notice about this discussion at NadirAli's talk page, though I'm happy to drop one in.) Anyway, I'm reluctant to say support because Misplaced Pages isn't as much my community any more -- unless a wealth of time and energy kick me back into gear, I won't really be affected by this decision, and "the wiki belongs to the living." It also doesn't help when I only recognize ~two user names in this whole mess, both of whom I respect, and there's Black Kite (talk · contribs) saying a site ban too much and JzG (talk · contribs) is for it. All this hemming and hawing aside, though, I will share that when NadirAli and I bumped heads a couple of years ago, his underlying "I don't hear you" reminded me very much of User:A Nobody, nee Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Take that as you will. Miss you all. --EEMIV (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Prolonged display of incompetence as adaquately evidenced above. Failure to understand massive violations in defiance of dozens of sanctions including blocks and topic bans shows another siteban is the only option we have. Excelse (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If an editor shows a constant trend of violating Misplaced Pages's policies, such as been presented in NadirAli's case, then a ban is necessary I think. I am always for second and third chances, but apparently NadirAli has continued with the pattern presented despite being given another shot. I have personally had only one run-in with NadirAli a few months ago, but on that one occasion he displayed a battleground and POV-pushing attitude and at one point I even suspected he was possibly using sockpuppets to influence a voting regarding the deletion/merging/keeping of an article. I voiced my concern and in that specific case it turned out he wasn't (despite another sockpuppet being discovered) but I now guess my intuition wasn't far off regarding him. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  @EkoGraf:. Re this diff, were you canvassed for this !vote? Please do make a declaration here if that was the case. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark:. Nope, that was a completely different matter, see my next edit here . What happened was Lorstaking accidentally saw my personal email when I mentioned it in a discussion and wanted to advise me to remove it with the help of oversighters so others wouldn't see it. But you could say him contacting me on this matter (the email) lead to me coming here, because while I was waiting for his reply I checked his contribution history and saw he made a comment on this noticeboard about NadirAli. I remembered NadirAli from my previous encounter with him (see my above comments) and decided to state my own opinion on the matter of this editor. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: Between, here's where I first voiced my suspicions of NadirAli being a sockpuppeteer several months ago . I hope this all clears it up? :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As per WP:EW and bringing a sense of confrontation to already sensitive and edit warring pages, also had to go through lot of arguments with a sock ! ? , have also noticed has misused wiki in all possible manner creating kind of menace, unfortunately see no other way Shrikanthv (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I have encountered with this user before on some Iran-related articles, including on the articles of Iranian cuisine and Iranian peoples, where I undid his edits per WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. It appears that he has for long been violating WP:POINT and is WP:NOTHERE.
  —Rye-96 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rye-96 is another user who has just suddenly remembered a two-year-old beef with NadirAli, having just today apparently randomly stumbled across a file NadirAli uploaded that was in use on a page Rye-96 has never edited, and that hasn't been in use on any page on the project since the end of 2016. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I have been editing articles related to Iran, especially in the area of ethno-linguistics, for a quite long time, actually. And yes, I happen to remember NadirAli. With or without my vote counted, this looks like a popular concern.
—Rye-96 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few notes on RaviC's table:

• The supposed copyright violation discovered in May 2018 was subsequently discovered to have been uploaded by a different user almost a year earlier. RaviC is the latest in a long line of editors who have misattributed this violation to NadirAli, clearly trying to draw sanctions inappropriately.
• The topic ban in May 2018 was applied to ten users simultaneously, in what was very much an end-of-the-rope "let's ban everyone and see if it helps" solution. Obviously it did not, but it is highly inappropriate to attribute this ban solely to NadirAli without mentioning the other nine users who were also banned. Some of their comments have already been struck in this thread.
• That edit wars in South Asian topics are "too numerous" should hardly be news to anyone here, but again, NadirAli is hardly the sole source of this problem. Same goes for personal attacks.
• As for CIR, these are content issues not competence issues. I just picked this one out because RaviC provided the source. As far as Pakistan's status as regional power is concerned, the quote provided is pulled from an introduction to a section discussing the query, "how do we understand Pakistan as a regional power?", a query which to me appears to be phrased as though the author is arguing the affirmative. It does open the discussion saying "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power." It then immediately qualifies this with "This alone requires additional clarification." The source then discusses interpretations of regional power for a few lines, and near the end of the source's preview we can find this statement: "Pakistan is clearly a significant power from a simple materialist perspective." It then goes on to discuss that argument up to the end of the preview; I don't have the offline source and cannot see what the author actually concluded. Regardless, I find it highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to assert that Pakistan is factually not a regional power based on this source. RaviC's insistence on one interpretation is a matter of fair editorial disagreement, not one of competence.

As I've asserted previously in this thread, the cherrypicking and misrepresentation of evidence on the part of the original proposer should be considered in context of the partisan nature of these editors and disputes. RaviC did not prepare this proposal to address a pressing issue (at the time, NadirAli had not edited in a month and is blocked for another two), chose a time when NadirAli could not reply directly, misrepresented my conclusions from SPI and continues to misrepresent them having had that misrepresentation clarified in this thread several times, has misrepresented a copyright investigation, and has misrepresented at least one source, in making the argument for NadirAli to be site banned. Not to mention EEMIV clearly being canvassed by GenuineArt, my comment above about Rye-96, other editors appearing here who never edited AN before, RaviC's arguments having been pulled from other editors who have tried the same arguments before - it feels like there is more to this than what we are seeing on the page. I don't suspect that whoever is behind it has the project's best interests in mind. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. NadirAli has major competence and temperament issues. He has been a time sink and numerous topic bans and blocks have proven that nothing has helped him enough to reform.  Second site ban is simply overdue at this situation. desmay (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support a Site-Ban. The block log is one of the longest I have seen. Enough is enough. This is an editor who obviously is not here to improve the encyclopedia, even if we don't know what they are here for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support for indef block/site ban Misplaced Pages must not entertain such editors who are involved in disruptive editing and using socks. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४० 09:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

I suggest that an uninvolved admin evaluate this thread and close it appropriately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we have enough feedback from the community on this case. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang for Orientls

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

Going through this thread, it does not look like NadirAli is a problem anymore but continuous battleground behavior, misrepresenting the CU results, and attacking admins unnecessarily on Orientls part are a problem so why not turn it around against them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but I would like to note this is a wider problem involving others as noted in my comments regarding this case. The entire premise of this mess is axe-grinding and one-upmanship. Sigh. Mar4d (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reason I oppose the ban on NadirAli... Please stop involving admins over personal disputes, it wastes their time. Focus on the content and take content disputes to arbitration committees, and/or find more reliable sources. Code16 (talk)
  • The Arbitration Committee does not handle content disputes. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For disputes where the locus of conflict is a particular content issue, avenues for resolution are available in the guide at WP:DR (there's a thread somewhere up this page about exactly that). The disputes here are all bad blood and entrenchment, and admins should handle them with that in mind. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (probably moot given the subthread directly below) - while I'm disappointed and frustrated by yet more deliberate cherrypicking of sockpuppet investigation results to support a conclusion presupposed by the original filer of the ban request, the subsequent bad behaviour in this thread is not on Orientls. At least, it's hardly solely their doing. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violations in this thread

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

I've just blocked four different editors for violating their topic bans by participating in this thread. If you are topic banned from this topic area, the sniping is over for you. Further topic ban violations will result in further blocks. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose the closer can ignore those contributions (both opposing and supporting, ironically) per WP:G5. —SerialNumber54129 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • They most certainly can and should. It wouldn't hurt to evaluate whether the topic bans in this area should be expanded as well. I'll leave that to someone else. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13, to make things easier for everyone, would you mind striking what these four have said? I don't think the closing admin should have to check everyone's block log when evaluating votes and statements. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13 and Nyttend: I went ahead just now and struck the topic-banned users' bolded !votes, but left the other comments intact since other users have already responded, and also noted where Kautilya3 struck their own comment. Feel free to check my work. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Ivanvector, thank you for the help; it's nice and clear and neutral. And yes, thank you for noting that Kautilya's was self-striken, lest someone think that he'd been penalised for something. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: speaking of expanding sanctions, I noticed yesterday that you warned Kautilya3 to drop the stick (my paraphrasing) after a comment on Mar4d's talk page. Did you happen to notice that Kautilya3's next edit after your warning was to use the revert button on two year-old wikiproject assessments NadirAli made on an article he created two years ago, outside the India-Pakistan conflict, in a topic which Kautilya3 had never edited before? Maybe it's nothing, or maybe it's reflective of a series of NadirAli's edits that MBlaze Lightning swung by to revert, outside IPA and on topics they'd never edited before, after NadirAli was most recently blocked? Especially these two which were also messing around with NadirAli's WikiProject banners, but also all of these reverts. Given this discussion and everything else going on here, Kautilya3's revert hardly seems in good faith. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. That was completely accidental. I have just reverted it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you just happened to be scrolling through NadirAli's edits, went back over a year, accidentally picked out one that was a most recent revision on an extremely niche topic you have no apparent interest in, accidentally clicked on Twinkle's big red vandalism button, accidentally accepted the resulting popup confirming you wanted to revert all of NadirAli's 2 preceding edits, accidentally closed the new tab that opened to NadirAli's talk page, and accidentally didn't undo your "accident" until eleven hours later and only after someone else pointed it out? That's one hell of an accident. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, that's actually an easy mistake to make. If Kautilya3 was investigating past overlap between MBlazeLightning and NadirAli, it's unsurprising that he ended up there; and clicking rollback or twinkle rollback accidentally is something we've all done. I am however seriously concerned by all of this reverting outside the topic, and I'm wondering if an interaction ban may also be necessary in addition to the t-bans. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I accept that clicking on one of the rollback buttons occurs by accident, we've all done it, I've done it several times I'm sure. But this is not that. Kautilya3 reverted on a page where the last two edits were made by NadirAli, and the edit summary indicates it was done with Twinkle. Unlike WP:ROLLBACK, Twinkle always reverts all contributions by a user back to the revision prior to that user's edits, and when reverting more than one edit it generates a browser message asking you to confirm that you intend to revert all of the user's past # of contributions; you then have to click "ok" to confirm. It would have been at that time, had Kautilya3 clicked the rollback button by mistake, where he could have cancelled the action, but chose not to. That's assuming he clicked the "vandalism" button; had he clicked "rollback" then Twinkle would have prompted him for an edit summary, and he would have realized the error at that time. But the edit was reverted, it's right there in the revision history, meaning Kautilya3 saw the dialog and accepted the action, and was aware that he was doing so. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that my apology and self-revert haven't been accepted. I was indeed researching into NadirAli's edits around June-July 2017 late in the night. I was either half-sleepy or had dozed off in front of the computer. So I have no consciousness of what I did to achieve the result that occurred. All I can say is that it was completely unintentional, and I self-reverted as soon as you pointed it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up

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

Resulting from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Block review for Clockback, Peter Hitchings has published a rather critical piece on Misplaced Pages's handling of the case.I don't know or have an opinion whether it warrants review of the previous discussion, but I suspect this may lead to some off-site activity related to the issues (both on the original matter around Bell, and on this ban). --Masem (t) 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The piece is fairly typical of the kind of hyperbole that we hear from banned users. He may have a wider audience than most but I don’t see anything of substance that would merit re-opening the closed discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably not (and I also do not see why, since he pledged to never return), but he is right that there are content areas in Misplaced Pages where a dissenter can not do anything does not matter what quality sources they bring and what arguments they make.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that audience overlaps quite a bit with Daily Mail readership, who I don't believe have the capacity to accomplish anything meaningful or lasting (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the Daily Mail). There might be a handful of new users or inactive ones crawling out of the woodwork to try to "fix" this (the ban, the topic that got him banned, whatever) with about half of them pretending that they aren't Hitchens-fans (just "concerned about the neutrality of it all") but they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything beyond temporary annoyance and disruption. A couple of users blocked in the immediate future could possibly cite Hitchens in their sour grapes complaints disguised as unblock requests. I will (buy a hat and) eat my hat if this gets so bad that Arbcom has to get involved. Five years from now, the site regulars are probably not even going to remember this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• There’s nothing to reconsider here. He was already given special treatment in an attempt to prevent this very article. I specifically closed his community unblock request early so that it wouldn’t unnecessarily escalate into becoming a CBAN. I explained to him clearly and specifically that he had the right to appeal to a new administrator ad infinitum, that an indefinite block is very easily lifted with a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request, and I all but guaranteed him an unblock if he only read and followed the GAB. I also clearly explained to him that the situation would change if he insisted on a community appeal, and that he would likely end up CBANned with no options on the table. Apparently, according to his article, the sticking point was his generational inability to “surrender”, so, I’m spite of my warnings, he insisted that he be given the “due process” of a community appeal. As I forewarned, the discussion resulted in a community ban, and now he wants to act like he was kicked off of Misplaced Pages with no second thought. He’s omitted the full story in his article, and while I feel bad that his situation ended badly, nobody but himself tried to bring about that result. Swarm ♠ 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is nothing the admins or the community can do about it unfortunately. He is already CBANned, and the only thing higher than that is a global ban or WMF ban. But I don't think he qualifies for any of those. Afootpluto (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t think there is anything to be gained by even discussing this. He’s banned. He got the due process he asked for, and it didn’t go his way. He says he doesn’t care but he’s clearly very bitter about it.(this isn’t the first blog like this he’s written elsewhere) Sounds like a lot of not my problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor point - I wouldn’t call his treatment due process. He immediately received an indefinite block, which then required him to explain why he was innocent. Quite backwards from the real way it is done. It’s no surprise the community failed Hitchens; he had already been judged guilty by a quite powerful admin.Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No, he did not receive "Due process", since he wasn't blocked foe a long time for his obvious COI/POV editing, and after he was blocked he received a block review that was incredibly more extensive than is normal, by at least an order of magnitude. That's not "due process" that's "extraordinary special treatment". He's got nothing to complain about, since he brought it on himself, and then refused to even attempt to understand what was required by way of a response that might get him unblocked. His current article was to be expected, and there's nothing that could have been done to stop it, except perhaps to have immediately unblocked him, chopped off the head of the blocking admin, apologize profusely, collectively tug at our forelocks and offer Hitchens the keys to the city and a Wiki-knighthood. He's a partisan "reporter", for crying out loud!Now, would someone please close this? Enough innocent electrons have already died because of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Electrons do not die, the lepton number is conserved. They can recombine with positrons, but this typically does not happen at low energies because we do not have any positrons around.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You can see for yourself that they do die, since I've provided an image of one just above -- so who are you going to believe, those darned over-qualified government-grant-guzzling sub-atomic physicists or your own eyes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : As an uninvolved editor I must say I find some of the comments above quite disturbing. Irrespective of the exact core issue (articles, COI, ban, etc), this strong-arm discouragement of dissent is anything but welcome. An admin above even drew a portrait of any editors that would dare in the future question the course taken by Misplaced Pages, i.e. by its administrators: Such editors would be ignorant ("they won't be aware enough of how anything works to accomplish anything") Daily Mail readers who seek "annoyance and disruption" motivated of "sour grapes"! And just to pre-empt such "attempts," the prediction is that "five years from now," no regular user will remember the issue!

Another administrator, writing in rather angry prose, wants to see this discussion terminated a.s.a.p. even when the issue has gone beyond a mere ban of a user to become a public matter concerning Misplaced Pages's inner workings. Don't we at the very least owe to the public at large a stronger response to Hitchens/Clockback's claims? Because I fail to see such unanimity against dissent improving Misplaced Pages in any sense of the word. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I am not an admin. Never have been, never will be. (2) No, we don't "owe the public" anything except to build the best encyclopedia we can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suppose part of the process of building the "best encyclopedia" would also be avoiding such incidents. But if everyone feels this has been handled as best as it could've been, then there's little more one can say. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you'd suppose wrong. The internal behavioral processes are almost completely irrelevant to whether the articles in the encyclopedia are neutral, well-sourced, well-written, and well-presented. That is what makes up a good encyclopedia, not whether some biased editor is pissed off that he got kicked off the team because he refused to follow the rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think I'm wrong here. The process of creating something cannot but affect that something. And this applies to everything from edibles to encyclopaedias. I'm actually pretty certain about this! And part of the process, of course, here in Misplaced Pages, is the regime of interaction among the multiple creators of content, i.e. what you call "internal behavior." For instance, an authoritarian regime in Misplaced Pages would most probably produce a very different work than what the current, quite open and free regime has produced. But, like I said, if everyone feels this has all been hunky dory, then fine. -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your surety, I happen to know that you're more wrong then you are right. I've been involved with the creation of many, many works of performing art, and I can tell you from personal experience that some of the ones which were undeniably great were absolute hell to live through the creation of. The general angst of the creative process was not reflected in the finished product. A creation can be in some way affected by the process of creating it, but it is not necessarily determined by that process. Alternately, I've been involved with productions that were a dream to put together, but which were not artistically successful -- and every conceivable combination in between, because the process and the product simply don't have the one-to-one relationship you posit.And if you don't want to rely on my personal experience, I offer as Exhibit B every sausage ever made by mankind: you really don't want to know what goes into them, but they can be delicious anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about Exhibit C: The Pyramids. Built by slave labor, in a process that was undoubtedly cruel and unfair to the workers, yet they remain one of the Wonders of the World -- because the process of building it had little or nothing to do with the majesty of the work.We ain't building the Pyramids here, but building an encyclopedia is still creative work (something that some editors tend to forget as they try to force it into the mold of an assembly line). It's the materials used which are most important, in our case good research, good writing, good layout makes good articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The pyramids were not built by slaves, as stated by various sources and repeated on here. (But if the pyramids are a product of slave labor, who are the slaves hauling the stones around in this analogy? I hope Jimbo will not lash me if I refuse to create content. ) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That section of the article is reporting a theory by one man "Dr. Zahi Hawass / Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments". I can think of many reasons why an Egyptian politician, even assuming they are scientifically qualified, would want to think that the pyramids were not built by slaves. The section is supported by a NatGeo article, a Harvard Alumni Magazine article (!), an Associated Press news report, an article by Zahi Hawass and an archived article by Zahi Hawass: in other words, they are all essentially regurgitations of the same thing. I'm about to go back to the article and remove that section per WP:WEIGHT, as there appears to be little independent evidence to support Hawass' theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NB: That section of the article has now been re-written and re-sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• To sum things up: "Talk shit, get hit." --Tarage (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the place to air unrelated grievances, thank you. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh please, this isn't a "public matter concerning Misplaced Pages's inner workings". This is an editor with a newspaper column who got banned from Misplaced Pages by the community via a public forum, in spite of our best efforts to afford him special treatment and all the "due process" in the world, even in spite of direct attempts to shield him from a community ban so that he could quietly negotiate an unblock. He insisted on making a big spectacle over his block, insisted the community review it, and then when that tactic backfired spectacularly and the community endorsed the block, he goes running to his audience (either in an attempt to save face or simply garner sympathy) with these bizarre claims that he was shadowbanned by some sort of faceless and soulless bureaucratic establishment or something. I assure you "the public" at large does not actually care about Hitchens' ban and Misplaced Pages will go on in spite of his whinging. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the specific person's "audience" is by definition the people who read his column. And there is no other audience available to him, is there? As to what others will make of the episode, I cannot tell and thus cannot share your confidence that "the public at large does not actually care." After all, The Spectator has a circulation of around seventy thousand print copies. But I agree, of course, that Misplaced Pages will go on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens attempted to recruit his Twitter followers to argue his case and did not receive much support, so the project likely will not lose many editors over this. But I imagine it has not been a great few months in terms of British public confidence in Misplaced Pages, with the Philip Cross case alienating some Corbyn fans and this now possibly alienating some Rees-Mogg (or whoever Hitchens is aligned with) fans. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

SPA has COI

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

So this SPA Balochworld (talk · contribs) from the day first has been trying to write this BLP Nabil Gabol in a promotional and biased manner using unreliable sources. I fixed this BLP earlier this month, but this SPA is back again and for the past couple of days has been trying to revert the BLP back to his own version which is poorly sourced and promotional. For the past couple of hours, SPA has been edit warring using this account and an IP despite several warnings on their talk page from several different editors. --Saqib (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Comment the user Balochworld (talk · contribs) appears to be "not very familiar" with the policies. Saqib you being the more experienced one, did you try and engage BW for a discussion on this content dispute on the talk page ? I dont see any thread on the talk page, Please do and inform him that Edit summary is not considered a discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User Indici, uploading copyrighted images, automated creation of gastropod articles.

There is a user Indici, which appears to be either some sort of bot, or a user using automated scripts. The user has recently created a very large number of articles on gastropods. There is a concern that all of the images being used on these articles are copyright violations, some of which clearly have a watermark which indicates so. The user has also taken to overwriting articles with thier script's output, with dubious increased usefulness (See: Calliotropis_philippei). The user has not responded to the numerous comment and complaints about their behaviour on their talk page. The issue gets bigger with every new article they publish and I fear that what I have seen is just the tip of the iceberg. I cant spend time investigating myself at the moment, as I am at work. Could someone please look into this user's contributions and decide if action needs to be taken? The copyright images issue seems to be a pretty big problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, They claimed to be the owner of the images here=, but that is pretty much the only interaction they have had with other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere 01:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is user Indici here. I'm only trying to contribute our information that we have of the new described species of shells by citizen scientist and book author Guido Poppe. Many of the species do not have a page on[REDACTED] or have outdated information that has been pulled out automatically out of WoRMS many years ago. Also many of the species do NOT have an image. So a few days ago I took it on myself to start uploading all the missing information and images of all species that we described and discovered. I read that some people think these images are not mine. They can always contact me for more clarifications. There is no BOT, it is me who is entering and uploading all this information to wikipedia. ....added at 02:26, 23 August 2018 by Indici

Yes, you have been contacted for more clarifications. Make them here and now. These images that you are uploading: Do you own the copyright to all of them? -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

More urgently, please respond at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be moving along at a snail's pace. Lugnuts 06:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, apart from the image issue, it is extremely bad practice to completely overwrite existing articles with new material of doubtful quality. Taking as an example Conus beatrix, over which you edit-warred (as in a lot of cases) with Plantdrew: your version erases the reference to the original species description, distribution and size information, a number of useful external links, and the synonyms list. This amounts to a net loss of information, not an improvement. You cannot wade into articles like that and expect everyone to cheer you on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Understoond: I'll review this, it seems I misunderstood some of the workings of the system. I'll check and revert where needed and add the new information where suitable. --Indici (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, you have said "I've ownership of all the images uploaded." Unless you explain this persuasively at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Indici, I fear that they'll all be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And the image ownership claim implies an additional concern with WP:COI, besides the mass rapid-fire unexplained reverts and problematic changes; an advance discussion of game plan at WT:GAST might have saved some trouble. Dl2000 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the final version (1 Feb 2011) of the soon deleted page Conchology, Inc. read:

In cooperation with other companies and museums, we aim to provide the best services worldwide and to enrich the malacological world with new informatic tools of significant purposes in the taxonomical/nomenclatoral fields. The secondary function of our company is, as a consequence of the above, to promote the study of the systematics of the Mollusca.

(my emphases). This was after seven edits by Indici; the only other edit was Zachlipton's request for speedy deletion (G11). -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici may have dropped out. See this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC close review

The RfC Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance? was recently closed by Winged Blades of Godric (WBG). Given the controversial nature of the topic, and the "close call" in opinions expressed by editors, I had requested a closure by an uninvolved admin. Accordingly, I asked WBG to revert and let an admin process the close. (See User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?) However, shortly after our dialogue started, WBG failed to reply further, probably busy in real life. Meanwhile, the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it the wording in a new section. For all these reasons, I believe that fresh eyes on the RfC are needed. I'm not sure of the procedural details, but I was advised to post here. — JFG 20:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: There was prior consensus, established in February 2018, to omit accusations of racism from the lead section. Obviously, we all know that WP:CCC, but the question becomes: is there enough new information about Trump's "racially charged comments" since February, and does this new RfC express sufficient support to override the consensus from six months ago? — JFG 21:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve just read through the RFC and I’m finding it difficult to understand how the closer found consensus. This needs to be revisited. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of academic, because the RfC has effectively been superseded by a more recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was predicated on the disputed close and was started 21 minutes before the close was disputed on the closer's TP. Few if any editors knew it was disputed, including me. Perhaps JFG should have posted a comment to the effect that the "specific-wording" discussions were premature until the dispute about the more general question was resolved; I'm guessing he failed to anticipate an argument like yours above. But the shortest path to article content, if any, was, rather than suspend the issue for a week or two while the close dispute was processed, to allow the "specific-wording" discussions to proceed with the understanding that they were contingent on the close holding. That reasoning is just as valid without a "premature" comment from JFG. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was puzzled to see this "weak consensus" quickly added to the current consensus list, which traditionally has been reserved for strong and undisputed consensus adjudications. Then, reading the reasoning of the closer, I was even more puzzled. In particular, I wonder how he could assess consensus from "a rough weight-based re-count of heads" (his words), which, not knowing how he did his weighting, and seeing 8 support and 10 oppose unweighted !votes, brought me to doubt the outcome and request fresh eyes here. If we don't count heads and just look at the closer's reasoning about discussants' arguments, he seemed to dismiss the voices of opposing people because he was "not much impressed" with their arguments, but he did not comment on the voices of supporters, except for one person who wrote what he called an "excellent rebuttal". The conclusion of consensus to include looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE to me. — JFG 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: As I understand it, a supervote is where the closer expresses a position on the issue and allows their position to affect their close. Consensus is about strength of arguments, and who should judge strength of arguments if not the uninvolved closer? I grant you that this is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I can't read the closer's mind, and I wish he could clarify his reasoning if he comes back online. I am only disputing his reading of the discussion. Some experience at WP:Move review has rendered me sensitive to the possibility of supervoting, even unconsciously. We are all humans, equipped with an intuitive pattern-recognition engine that we must actively silence when processing contentious discussions. — JFG 00:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I support any call for admin review from an established editor in good standing who lacks a reputation for wikilawyering abuse of process. This qualifies. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Blush) (There must be an emoji for that but I'm on an old-skool physical keyboard.) — JFG 00:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

{{blush}} › Mortee _talk 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It's not exactly "academic" because the topics are different. The new discussion is about using the "racially charged" euphemism or directly reporting allegations of "racism". The main topic of the RfC was whether to include something about "racially-charged comments and actions" in the lede section at all. Prior consensus was a clear "no", but the recent RfC was more evenly divided. The new discussion started developing while the RfC closer was off-wiki, hence the overlap now. — JFG 23:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG, this statement of yours is inaccurate: the closure asserted by WBG has been implemented in the article, but editors are already disputing it in a new section. That “new section” you linked is not a dispute of the close. It is a discussion of the exact wording to be used, implying an acceptance of the close. Exactly as anticipated by the closer, who said But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. I honestly don’t see any dispute of the close on that talk page. (Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at that page.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree; I have amended my statement accordingly. It does not change the fact that this RfC was a very close call on a sensitive topic, so that a review of this NAC is warranted. I have not participated in the discussion about wording because I think the close should be revisited first. The fact that the same arguments are coming back in the discussion indicates that consensus is hard to find. Note that even though I opposed the inclusion in the RfC, at the end of my long discussion with Snow Rise, I suggested that perhaps there was a way forward with writing the text from a different angle. — JFG 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree it was a "close call" at all. The weight of argument was clearly on one side, even if the number of !votes was less persuasive. I didn't even bother !voting, since it seemed so clear cut. Frankly, I'm weary of the number of RfCs at that talk page. In the good old days, RfCs were only necessary when there was some kind of a deadlock that needed to attract more editors, but now their only real purpose is to get an uninvolved editor to perform a close and stop the squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure why Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) hasn't submitted to the RfA gauntlet yet ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're seeing the reason right here. ansh666 03:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Isnt it expected that a closing editor (admin or non admin whatever) is expected to explain in detail (if asked) his judgement for the closing statement ? There has been a request at Winged Blades of Godric could have explained his closure but I dont find that explanation anywhere. While we are debating it here, can someone point me to it, if I missed that explanation from Winged Blades of Godric. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of explanation:

I am not much impressed by the arguments from some of the opposers (MONGO, JFG, GW) all of whom has been excellently rebutted by Snow.I similarly fail to parse PackMeceng's last line, in light of the abundance of reliable sourcing on the issue and some arguments by the last !voter, which can be assigned as OR. That leaves us with WP:LABEL (which does make an exception in cases of abundance of reporting by reliable sources) and WP:WEIGHT. A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion. But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. ∯WBG 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi  Scjessey You have simply copy pasted the Closing statement from the RFC. Clearly this statement was not sufficient for the folks invovled in the RfC which is why they approached WBG on his talk page here . And since then I have not seen any statement from WBG explaining the consensus. What I am trying to say here is that the Closing editor should be ready to explain his closure to the people who ask for it. If the Closing editor is unable or unwilling to further discuss his closure with the involved editors, then I believe he should not proceed with the closure in the first place. All this debating/drama/time on this thread at AN above could have been prevented if WBG could provide a suitable answer for his actions. That is missing and that is all I am trying to point here. cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Godric has been offline for the last four days. He made a couple of edits today so maybe he is back, but he can't be blamed for not replying when he hasn't been here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

May be, but WBG did reply to the involved editor here and he chose to ignore the Elephant in the room, which is the "further discussion" of his closure statement. WP:AN/RFC clearly states that Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. The whole point of writing these policy lines on the RFC page, was to avoid threads such as this one on the AN pages. hope WBG returns back soon and explains his closure. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WBG made two edits today and not a peep from them about this, despite the multiple pings here. Not even a "hey real busy IRL but I'll get to this soon". This thread amounts to a non-admin review of the close, by editors including three involved. There is no such process in policy. We are not here to debate the close, we are here to debate the legitimacy of the request for admin review of the close. That's the process. There is zero evidence that the request was brought in incompetence or bad faith, nothing more should be required, and I suggest an admin accept the request for review. If Scjessey is correct, it will be an easy review and JFG will no doubt accept the result. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been quite busy in IRL and have not received any ping or notification, as to the existence of this thread aprior to Pac's t/p message.I'll try to address the issues, sometime later in the day.Best,∯WBG 03:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected to post this notice. Glad you're back. — JFG 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE are undertaken by the community, not by a single admin; if a consensus exists here to overturn the close it will be overturned. There is no especial process for reviews of non-admin RfC closures whereby one admin can review it (and overturn it if it is bad) that I know of Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. It is ok to ask for a review but lets first wait for WBG to explain his closure. the community can then comment if it is supported or needs to be overturned. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

and this makes sense, because involved parties whose opinion did not match with the (non-admin closure) will follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and misuse this option to request an Admin as a new closer with some possibility of a favourable close. Not so much. The same potential for abuse exists whether it's one admin or multiple non-admins. Either way is another roll of the dice.
I stand corrected then, Galobtter. I got it wrong partly because a single-admin review would make more sense to me than a "consensus about a consensus" discussion—who assesses that consensus? (I have to keep reminding myself that the words "logical reasoning" do not occur at WP:5P.) At the very least involved editors should be excluded from the review for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is basically like a WP:DRV or WP:MRV Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I know it was a copy/paste. My point is that the rationale provided at closing was more than sufficient explanation. I'm uncomfortable with close reviews being sought by editors who aren't happy with the result of a close, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A "close challenge" is meant to be made when there is some sort of obvious problem with the closer's reading of consensus that should invalidate it, not simply because you disagreed with the closer's reading or because another person might have closed differently. You are correct that WP:NACD advises that "close" or "controversial" discussions are "better left to admins", though as a general rule, WP:CLOSE is clear that being an admin isn't a prerequisite. The non-admin close was, procedurally, poor form, but not necessarily a breach of policy. That aside, it looks like a valid close to me. I'm not sure how anyone can claim there was no explanation, there was a clear explanation of how weight was assigned in determining the consensus, with specific arguments and rebuttals specified. A non-admin doing the closure is not a sufficient reason to overturn, given that the closer is a highly established editor in good standing, and the only other reason I'm seeing for even disputing the close is this comment, which directly prompted this close review and was essentially echoed above with the SUPERVOTE allegation. Let me be extremely clear: accusing a closer of making a bad faith close based on personal bias, without evidence, is a personal attack and an aspersion. It needs to be directly substantiated with evidence, or it is in itself an offense. So, if the concern is strictly an NAC, I will endorse the closure, problem solved. If the concern is bias, evidence is required, or the claims need to not be repeated again. If there are other valid reasons for overturning this close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, let's hear them. Swarm ♠ 22:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm The !votes were 8 support and 10 oppose, with the closer somehow finding consensus in the clear minority. That is not consensus. If RFAs are closed no consensus at 70% then I’m simply baffled how an RFC finds consensus at 44%. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Surely this is a textbook example of WP:!VOTE at work, is it not? The closer found the "majority" did not present a solid enough argument, despite accumulating more !votes. What's more, the discussion about the specific wording in the more recent discussion, and the strong consensus it appears to be achieving, backs up the closer's reasoning (albeit after the fact). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly right. It is entirely possible to have a minority consensus. It's unusual, but fundamental. The theory behind this is that when a minority viewpoint demonstrates that it's more in line with overarching consensus (i.e. policies and guidelines) than a majority viewpoint, the overriding community consensuses supporting that minority view are factored in. Not only is that allowed, but it's the fundamental principal behind the system by which this whole project is governed. Consensus is judged by adherence to policy above all else. If the closer felt that multiple !voters were refuted with policy-based counterarguments, then that very realistically tilts the reading of consensus away from the typical "majority rule" we're used to. The key here is that such readings are not meant to be arbitrary. They need to be rooted in hard policy. That's why the first thing I checked when I saw "excellent refutations" was whether these refutations were rooted in policy or whether the closer simply "liked" them better. They were indeed rooted in policy, so it seems procedurally valid to do what the closer did here. Swarm ♠ 01:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I hear you saying that, while "'close' or 'controversial' discussions are 'better left to admins'" per NACD, a non-admin closer is free to ignore that guidance—even if an admin has previously been requested per that guidance. Per Misplaced Pages tradition, it's guidance that means nothing in the end, is unnecessarily complicated, and serves only to send even experienced editors in several different directions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, it's guidance that's there for a reason, of course. But that's not a firm rule, even relative to the rest of Misplaced Pages rules, which are supposed to be considered flexible and ignored when needed. I understand the frustration, and certainly think WBG should learn from this (it's usually best to avoid actions that result in avoidable drama). However, it's not a valid objection to overrule an otherwise-valid close. Swarm ♠ 01:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The lack of inclusion of recent consensus into the close makes this a bad close and one that should be overturned. Consensus can change, but a minority vote should not be able to change a firmly held decision made by previous consensus. It reeks of a "you quoted policy but I interpret it differently" supervote. I personally think the line should be included, but there is no way I would ever try to pull a support consensus out of that discussion, especially with something similar reaching a different consensus just six months prior. Nihlus 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The guidance from consensus policy appears to be the opposite of what you're saying. See WP:CONLEVEL. The previous discussion was a local consensus, whereas this was a formal RfC, which is a higher level of consensus that inherently overrides any previous local consensuses. And there's WP:CCC, but I think that point is moot, because the two discussions didn't ask the same question. The "previous discussion" was a direct proposal to include the phrase "criticized as racist". The RfC was a general question to include a sentence about Trump's racial stance, with a tentative proposed wording that was entirely different than the previous discussion. No, I think you're grasping at straws here. You were the one who actually prompted this challenge, and in the same comment you directly claimed that the close was influenced by personal bias. Do you have any evidence of that? Swarm ♠ 03:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Where did you read that it is a "higher level" of consensus because I don't see that on that page anywhere? There is no global consensus on it so your point is irrelevant. And obviously consensus can change, that was very clearly not the point I was trying to make. The topics are so close to being the same that the small difference doesn't matter at all. Even without the prior discussion, I would not have closed it the same as it is obvious there is no consensus there. Further, please point me to where I said that the close was influenced by "personal bias," because I assure you I have made no such comment. I'll actually ask you to retract that statement. Thanks. Nihlus 04:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, I think Swarm is talking about this quote from User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Admin close?: No, it's a terrible close by WBG and one in which your perception is biased. I think it's reasonable to interpret your comment that way, although I suppose you may try to distinguish between "perception" and "personal"; in either case, it would be helpful to have evidence of perception bias to move things along. Alex Shih (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL is a very fundamental aspect of consensus, and it's not complicated. A community consensus is a higher level of consensus than a local consensus. An RfC is a community consensus, as opposed to a local consensus. I find it hard to believe you're not yet familiar with this concept. And, yes, I don't see any other way of interpreting the phrase "your perception is biased". That's an allegation of bias. Now, I'm not going to pedantically argue about what you intended to say, I will gladly retract my comment as soon as you clarify what you meant by "bias". Swarm ♠ 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You both realize that my comment was directed towards MrX and his bias in saying that the close was appropriate as he had participated in the discussion, right? Further, there is no local consensus trying to override an RfC, which is why I was confused by your seemingly misplaced comments. The “local” discussion came first where there was strong opposition to include. The RfC followed and reached a no consensus but was closed incorrectly. Your train of thought is hard to follow as I am struggling to see the relevance to the discussion at hand. Nihlus 05:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no, I misunderstood your comment as being directed at WBG. Sorry, that's my mistake. I've struck that out. I'm sorry you find my "train of thought" hard to follow, I'm just trying to cite the relevant policies in the most simple way possible; if you need clarification on anything, I'm happy to provide it. The point of contention here is obviously that you think WBG misread a "no consensus" as a "weak consensus". That's simply not sufficient reason to overturn, or even challenge, a closure. The prior "local" discussion that you're claiming should have influenced the reading of consensus in the RfC, in short, would have no bearing on the RfC, even if it was the same discussion, which it wasn't. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling a sitting president a racist in the lead, whether or not it is true, is something that needs to be done carefully and a "weak consensus" to do so is problematic. Failing to take into consideration a pattern of consensus, regardless of whether or not you think it is local or not, is problematic. As it is the basis of almost everyone's argument here, I'll ask that everyone read the second line of their WP:CCC argument: On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. What may be recent to some may not be recent to others, so your mileage may vary. With that being said, I don't need clarification on your interpretation of a policy; we'll just agree to disagree, as we are wont to do. Nihlus 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Holding a political office does not afford a subject any special treatment on Misplaced Pages, for very good reason. I honestly don't know what a pattern of consensus is supposed to be.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep citing WP:NACD. That is a shortcut to the deletion process. We're not talking about a deletion discussion, so it's not really fair to say that it was e.g. "poor form" for a non-admin to make this close as WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE (which has separate sections for challenging deletion discussions and "other closures" like RfC) are clear that any uninvolved editor can do the close. Might as well say it was improper because WP:RFA says discussions should be closed by bureaucrats. I also don't get emphasizing numeric majority. If we're going by numbers then it's a vote, not a !vote. The reason we call it the latter is because consensus isn't necessarily reflected in the numbers. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I only brought it up because JFG cited a WP:BADNAC criterion as being the original reason for his complaint, and I remembered NACD it to be the actual policy behind WP:NAC, which is merely an information page. As both redirect to specific sections, I completely overlooked the fact that neither of them are even applicable as they refer to deletion policy. Thank you for pointing this out. Winged Blades of Godric, I apologize for saying your closure was in poor form—that was purely an oversight on my part. Agree with the rest of the above sentiments. Swarm ♠ 03:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: An apology is non-necessary and I agree with your comments, in the entirety except as to the point of non-admins not closing controversial RFCs.Thanks,∯WBG 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Closer's rationale

• Comment--
  • I will start off by apologizing to to JFG for not tending to the t/p thread due to RL issues.
  • I will largely border on an overall analysis of the !vote(s), (along with their corresponding rebuttals) and how I weighed them.
  • Thus,
    • To start off, it is beyond dispute that the host of sources do mention Trump to be indulging in some form of racism with varying words and forms.
      • Caspring's argument
        • OK
      • Snow Rise's argument has been excellent (Vide something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead).
      • GW
        • Snow's rebuttal has been again superb, in my eyes. (Vide and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV......we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"....)
        • I will say that I was convinced that given the volume of reliable-sourcing, the inclusion can't be countered on grounds of word-style, alone.But, I will also concede that there were scopes for improvement which led to my scopes for tweaking.
      • MrX.
        • Initiator.Brought a host of sources.Good enough:-)
      • MONGO's argument, is in my opinion, worthless.
        • Read Snow Rise's rebuttal, for my classification.
      • MarkBasset's argument was good.Also, goes for PacEng's arguments
        • Except that I'm hazy about how it violates WP:LEAD (Please point to specific lines, when you are pointing to page-long guidelines....) and also that WP:RACIST does not offer a blanket prohibition on the usage of racist et al.
      • HunterM267's argument might have been been far more valuable if the sources did not pertain to Fox News.Umm........But, it was good, as a direct rebuttal.
      • JFG's argument
        • It was a pleasure to read his discourse with SnowRise.But, once again Snow's arguments have been superb.I also do not like JFG's last reply which sought to indulge in original research to discover about Trump's racist stances.What matters and what solely matters is how reliable sources perceive Trump's actions/statements/policies.We don't have to rake our brains to double-check the media.
      • Wumbolo's argument was Okay-ish.
      • OID
        • Hyperbolic but well-grounded enough in light of previous arguments and evidence.
      • MarieParadox
        • Was seemingly just a vote but ought be counted in light of Caspring's reasoning.
      • Fleischman
        • Quite potent argumentation. (Vide tremendous amount of RS coverage)
      • Fyunck
        • Supports the theme but not the wording.
      • Coretheapple
        • Logical and good enough.Placement's a matter of editorial discretion and no weighintg can be done.
      • Aquillion
        • A very-well-crafted succinctly-put argument.Agree in entirety.
      • Dankster
        • Good enough.Thinks the statement to be prudent enough to deserve a lead mention, unlike Coretheapple.
      • LiteratureGeek
        • A host of original research.Media might be sensationalist but when a host of highly reputed media sources choose that path, umm.......we have to go down that line.Also, read Snow Rise's reply to MONGO.

In my opinion, the above discussion leads to a policy-based consensus for inclusion of the broader theme of perceivement of trump's comments and actions as racist/racially charged, though there is a bone of contention as to the precise wording of the sentence.

Further discussions at a subsequent thread for fine-tuning the wording seems to be moving quite productively.

I will also like to invoke the fact that closing discussions aren't executed by a count of heads and that an argument which has been countered well-enough is quite less weigh-able, in the eyes of the closer.

I also agree with Mandruss that whilst I try to evaluate arguments, as neutrally as possible (and I am not editorially involved, either in APOL in any form or manner), this (the closure) is susceptible to the closer's natural bias, but this is the best we can do until we eliminate humans from the close process.

Nihlus, consensus can change and the poser(s) are not same.

Thank you.∯WBG 05:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for that full explanation, which I think fully backs up your close rationale, and will surely satisfy JFG. As I mentioned before, I did not participate in this discussion but I would've supported the inclusion of the material, of which the wording is now being discussed in the subsequent thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WBG for bringing the dish everyone was killing over. Courtesy ping to JFG,User:Mandruss, User:Nihlus to confirm if they have anything more to add to this discussion. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If the only requirement is that the closer lay out some detailed reasoning, with no need for highly-qualified, uninvolved, thorough evaluation of that reasoning, then that requirement has been satisfied. It may be the best we can expect with limited resources. Nothing further to add. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal: no consensus

First, I thank Winged Blades of Godric for taking the time to provide a more detailed rationale for his close. Unfortunately those details only highlight a contradiction between the closer's reading of the discussion and his own conclusion. In WBG's closing message, he stated: A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion. Now we can read his clarification of the weighting he applied to each participant's arguments:

• Supporting arguments accepted: Casprings, SnowRise, MrX, Only in death does duty end, Marie Paradox, Dr. Fleischman, Aquillion, Dankster
• Opposing arguments accepted: Markbassett, PackMecEng, HunterM267, Wumbolo, Coretheapple
• Supporting arguments rejected: none
• Opposing arguments rejected: GorillaWarfare ("Snow's rebuttal has been again superb"), MONGO ("worthless, read Snow Rise's rebuttal"), JFG ("once again Snow's arguments have been superb"), Literaturegeek ("A host of original research. Also, read Snow Rise's reply to MONGO.")
• Unclear assessment: Fyunck (opposed the RfC text but said he would support an alternate wording)

This gives a "weight-based re-count" of 8 supporting voices (all accepted), 5 opposing voices accepted, 4 opposing editors whose arguments were rejected, and 1 opposing who was not counted because he might support an alternate wording. Even if we entirely discard the opinions of 5 people that WBG rejected (almost all on the basis of SnowRise's comments), that leaves us with 8 supporting voices and 5 opposing ones, so that it's very hard to infer even a "weak consensus" from such an assessment; the prudent path would have been to conclude "no consensus". WBG also had the option to contribute his voice to the discussion and let somebody else close it.

There is indeed no dispute that many sources have reported on Trump's "racially-charged comments and actions", and those are appropriately reflected in the article, in a "Racial views" section. The question under examination was whether this issue should be mentioned in the lede section, and how. WBG concluded that it should be mentioned, and left the wording to be discussed further; however the wording was a key element of the question. Other RfCs had been launched in parallel with different wording proposals, and they failed. Contrary to WBG's assertion, the post-RfC discussion about wording is not "moving quite productively", it has plunged into a quagmire of opinions arguing whether we should qualify Trump's deeds as racist directly or using various euphemisms including the one proposed in the RfC text. The very fact that it is so hard to agree on wording should have weighted the closer's conclusion to a "no consensus" reading.

WBG also failed to address a key argument in the discussion: how to take prior consensus into account. In my introduction to the close review, I wrote: There was prior consensus, established in February 2018, to omit accusations of racism from the lead section. Does this new RfC express sufficient support to override the consensus from six months ago? I have not seen a reply to this question. It is interesting to note that the proposed wording in February sounded milder ("Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied."), and was nevertheless rejected by a wide margin of editors (5 support to 13 oppose + 1 neutral). Some commenters argued that the question was different, but others have assessed the questions to be essentially the same; again, it all depends on the wording.

For the last two years, disputed statements in the Donald Trump article have been closely monitored with a list of accepted consensus, including formal RfC outcomes and informal discussions that showed clear-cut agreement among a large sample of editors. This mechanism has promoted article stability, and has avoided repeat discussions of similar issues. When new information arises, consensus is amended. This latest RfC has too weak a consensus (according to WBG) to be elevated to a binding item on this list.

In summary, I urge the community to revert to a finding of "no consensus" for this particular RfC. Editors could then propose other variants to address the racism theme in the lede section. There are many ways to skin this cat, but the one proposed here did not gather sufficient agreement. — JFG 05:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Anything around 60% is indeed weak consensus, unless we are setting up new policies/guidelines.As to why I derived from Snow's rebuttals, was that they were too well based in policy. The prior discussion was with an entirely different poser and quite much ago.Consensus can change.∯WBG 06:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish people in this discussion would stop spouting "consensus can change" as if that will make people's concerns immediately invalidated or something. Of course it can change, no one has said that it couldn't. People are merely saying that such a "weak consensus" (your words, not mine) should not be enough to overturn a previously established and "strong consensus" for the opposite. The best route is to either let the conversation continue until a stronger consensus can be reached or default to the previous consensus (or no consensus). Dismissing individuals' arguments that you don't agree with is a supervote and another reason this should be overturned immediately. Nihlus 07:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nihlus here, this is not a consensus can change situation. Especially after such a short time with nothing new added. It is a rehash of the essentially the same RFC. Also they are correct again that a weak consensus like that should not overturn a recent strong consensus. Finally, setting aside if this is actually weak consensus, is weak consensus really the bar for inclusion of a contentious label to the lead in one of the most viewed BLP articles these days? PackMecEng (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Why are you continuing to question this? A large proportion of the "regular" Trump article editors have clearly moved on and are working constructively on appropriate language. Does this serve any useful purpose whatsoever? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering our feelings about Trump, I think ethics would suggest that we let uninvolved others decide when to shut down a review of a close that adds Trump-unfavorable content to his bio. Don't you? And this is not a WP:STICK situation when there are three experienced editors opposing the close. As for other editors moving on, see my first comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Would this be paid editing?

See this page for details of the research and other issues.∯WBG 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Around a year ago, a WMF staff member reached out to me about participating in some external research to understand how experienced closers on Misplaced Pages go about closing an RfC or other similar discussion. At the time, I received compensation for participating in the interview, but no on-wiki contributions were made, so no paid editing disclosure was needed. Now, I've been contacted for a follow-up. The researcher has developed a tool that attempts to assist editors in analyzing and closing RfCs. They're looking for editors on Misplaced Pages to use the tool to close an RfC and then provide feedback on it in a follow-up interview. It's unclear to me whether this would require a paid contribution disclosure. While I would be compensated partially for making an edit, the actual contents of the edit are entirely up to me; I choose which RfC to close, and I close it exactly how I would normally with no input from any outside party. I simply test out their tool while doing it.

Could I get some opinions on whether this counts as "paid editing" that would require a disclosure? ~ Rob₁₃ 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the same position as Rob.So, comments are equally welcome from my end:-)∯WBG 06:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you've disclosed it, so whether or not it counts, you're safe :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: While I've quite literally disclosed it here, this disclosure wouldn't meet the requirements of a paid-contribution disclosure per WP:PAID. For a variety of reasons, I wouldn't be willing to disclose in the manner demanded there. If I put a disclosure on my user page, I'm worried it will be taken the wrong way (e.g. to mean I'm paid for my contributions generally) or used by abusive paid editors as "proof" there are paid administrators. If I disclose in the edit summary/talk page related to whatever RfC I decide to close, I'm worried it will be used by any participants who are unhappy with the result to challenge my close, even though I would (of course) perform it neutrally and without any outside influence. Worst case, if the community isn't clear that this doesn't require a disclosure, I'll participate in the study while requesting the researcher take what compensation would come my way and donate it to the WMF instead. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth disclosing (as you have), but no, that's not paid editing. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's clearly paid editing and it is fine to undertake with the required disclosure. Btw, in my experience most university ethic boards overseeing such research would advice that that the compensation structure for such research be based not upon the number of RFCs the participant closes (since that would create a perverse incentive) but on a fair estimate of time/effort devoted to giving feedback on how well the tool worked.

(It hopefully doesn't need to be said, but my comment is about the principles involved, and not the persons. BU Rob13 IMO is taking exactly the right approach by being open about the project and inviting feedback here.) Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see this as any different than (say) editing while at work (where you are allowed to "browse the web" if you have no other tasks to do). Could you explain your reasoning? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The compensation is technically for the feedback, not the act of closing an RfC. Of course, closing a single RfC is necessary in order to evaluate the tool. Does that change anything for you, Abecedare? ~ Rob₁₃ 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The fact that you are getting paid for the feedback, and not the close(s) themselves addresses exactly the issue I had raised in my post above, and increases my confidence that this is a thoughtfully-designed research project. But IMO the requirement for disclosure remains since the payment still creates a secondary incentive for you to close RFCs (I am ignoring the possibility of using the tool in the sandbox). Now, I realize that in your case that inducement is essentially a hypothetical concern, but the very point of having universal ethical and disclosure guidelines is to avoid such case-by-case considerations. Consider the thought experiments:

• Lets say the researchers had put up an ad on Mechanical Turk: "Use this tool to close an RFC on wikipedia, and you'll get paid for your feedback". Would we not call that paid editing?
• Or lets say, instead of of being open in your original post, you had logged out and posted as an IP, "Hi all. I have an account on[REDACTED] and around a year ago..." Would we then not have asked that the activity be disclosed?

Now both the above scenarios, and especially the first one, raise concerns other than the simple question of whether the activity is paid or not. But my aim in presenting them is to (hopefully) show that if we anonymize the scenario (ie. remove you and and your established on-wiki reputation from consideration), it becomes clear that the activity does qualify as (ethical) paid editing. Does that make sense to you/others? Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In both of the scenarios you listed, no one would be required to disclose. Payment for use of a tool and providing feedback on it is not payment for contributions.Also, I’ll repeat my objections to saying that our standards are the same for research conducted on Misplaced Pages as a topic vs. commercial editing, and note how much I hate the use of “paid editing” as a term. The TOU and our guidelines were intended to target commercial editors and make it harder for them to use Misplaced Pages as an advertising platform. In an attempt to make it seem like we aren’t discriminating against spammers, we sometimes take ridiculous stances like the community appears to be taking in this case by forcing an arbitrator who is well known for his privacy concerns (I think this is a fair description of Rob) to disclose more than is required under the TOU, breaching his personal privacy for a minimal sum just because a blind reading of the TOU without looking at the context can be read as “money must be disclosed.” That’s not the intent here, nor is it required, and forcing disclosure in these circumstances only increases the legitimacy of parties who use the disclosure as a weapon to ignore local policies on advertising for their clients. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the key phrase from the terms of service, "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation", RFC closures are encompassed as a contribution. As the FAQ says, "...you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project. This includes edits on talk pages and edits on projects other than Misplaced Pages." isaacl (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I suppose that may actually be the key here. I'm not actually required to make a contribution to Misplaced Pages in order to receive this compensation, technically. I have an option to "close" an already closed RfC. The compensation is for the feedback on the tool, not the edit I would be making. Does that change your thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃ 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: are you saying it is sufficient for you to use the tool to figure out how you might have closed an RfC, and then report this to the study in a way other than editing Misplaced Pages? If no contributions to Misplaced Pages are involved, then the terms of service do not come into effect. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be sufficient to complete the feedback phase and receive compensation, yes. Obviously, if I spent time closing a difficult RfC, though, I'd like that close to be implemented. Otherwise, I'm wasting some other volunteer's time to repeat my close. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t think this falls under WP:PAID, and don’t think the mandatory disclosure applies (for full disclosure, Rob asked me about this before, and I told him the same thing, but agreed it would be best to get community feedback in the interest of transparency.) Rob would be paid for providing feedback on a tool, not paid for any specific action taken on-wiki. Classifying this as paid editing is equivalent to the strawman argument that getting an $8 coupon to buy a sandwich at a university cafe during an editathon counts as paid editing: it doesn’t, it clearly isn’t the intent of the terms of use or the local guidelines, and people need to stop pretending that the TOU disclosure requirement is broader than it actually is. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree this isn't the same as conventional paid editing. For better or worse, the terms of usage are broadly drawn to minimize gaming, and it's too easy to see how non-neutral interests can influence editing through compensation of supporting tools. Think of how the soft-drink industry funds studies on the value of hydration; it could fund edit-a-thons where it didn't direct you to edit any specific pages, but provided you with tools to help find hydration-related information. Or... it could fund a study much like this one, to see if RfCs for hydration-related topics are closed differently based on the tool. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
    • And it wouldn’t be paid editing or covered by the terms of use, which cover only paid contributions to Wikimedia projects. Not analysis of contributions to Wikimedia projects or being a test subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, agreed, as I said above, the terms of usage only take effect for contributions. But if the test subject is making edits as direct part of the study, even if it's the tool that's being evaluated, then the edit is a consequence of the compensation. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Responding to the post at COIN...

If you decide to do this, it is paid editing. The payment is for behavior, not content (which is indeed unusual), but it is still pay.

Because the pay is for behavior not content, there is no need for "prior review" so there is no issue with actually doing the close directly.

With regard to the reputational/mischief risks around "paid editing" you mention, the simplest way to avoid them would be to not accept the money. So perhaps ask yourself if the money is worth those risks. Only you can judge that for yourself. But not disclosing at your userpage and locally, is not the correct way to manage those risks. Doing that ~looks~ like avoiding scrutiny which is actually more opportunity for drama.

In my view if you choose to do this, of course you should disclose this clearly on your userpage, as well as when you do a relevant close. The disclosure should be simple: "I am receiving compensation as part of a WMF university research project into a software tool I am testing that is meant to help closers evaluate the discussion, and my feedback on the use of this tool. The judgement expressed in the close is my own". The disclosure on your userpage should provide the start and end date of the consulting gig.

Since the pay is for behavior and since the research project involves your behavior and judgement, it would be interesting when you are done to see if participating changed your behavior:

• for example you might close more discussions than you usually would. (The fact that you are testing a tool, which is interesting in itself, also could change whether you close more or less, of course). I don't think you closing more or fewer discussions is a bad thing; there is no real risk here.
• Use of the tool will effect your closes. It would be like closing a discussion with a 2nd closer, where you have some other opinion you have to consider while writing the close. That's kind of interesting, but risks to the project would seem minimal. The final judgement will be your own.
• I wonder if your approach to challenges of any given close made using the tool would be different (maybe influence you to be less open to a challenge since the tool might give you a sense of higher objectivity or something). Again this seems like a minimal risk.

Those are my thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (initial redaction based on further information provided here. I may change further based on other clarifications... Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)) (again redacting, the gig is to do one close, not a bunch of them. This is really small potatoes. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is creating a false equivalency when none exists, and is dangerous. Rob would be getting paid for external research related to Misplaced Pages, not his contributions here. If consensus is that this falls under PAID, I’ll be proposing an RfC to exempt external research from the disclosure requirements, because I feel very strongly that such a reading of the current policy is harmful to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I understood from the OP that the pay is for doing closings using the tool. The pay is connected to the editing; not the content but the behavior. No closings, no pay. This pay-for-behavior thing is something we haven't thought much about as a community. I haven't thought much about it, at least. I will think about other sorts of behavior people might be interested in paying for that doesn't involve getting some certain kind of content into WP or about swaying some community decision. It's interesting. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically, I do not need to perform a close to receive the pay. I was explicitly offered the option of "closing" an already closed discussion (e.g. evaluating how I would close it, using the tool, ignoring the existing close). What they're after is the feedback, and that's what I would be compensated for. I think this whole thing highlights how poor our definition of paid editing is, though. I think it's rather clear everyone agrees this shouldn't be covered, but several think it is due to an overly broad definition. We could do with some further exemptions or refinements of the paid editing definition, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃ 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree this shouldn't be covered. Lots of research is funded by special interests, and so it's unclear to me that avoiding a disclosure is desirable for this scenario. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would only close a single RfC with this tool to provide feedback, so most of that wouldn't be relevant. I will not be making a full disclosure, for sure, since I do think the risks outweigh the benefits. If the consensus is that this is paid editing, then I'll instead have the researcher donate the compensation to the WMF on my behalf. That way, I'm receiving no compensation and am not a "paid editor", but it's going to a good cause. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you not be closing, were you not paid? I take it the answer is, you will be closing just as you would normally, except using a tool, and you will get paid if you report on the tool's use. Well, I think there are multiple ways one could handle this to ally any issue, but my suggestion is that in the edit summary, you put 'closed with '', as that is the way our system often discloses similar things, like when I and others edit with Provelt . And I guess I would also put on my talk page "I am testing '' and the WMF will provide some compensation for my report on its use", and when you're done, then that can just archive. See also WP:ADMIN where it discusses paid by WMF. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not the WMF providing compensation, but rather a researcher at a major research university. I likely would not close an RfC in the absence of this research merely because I'm fairly busy these days with my role on the Arbitration Committee, but I'm receiving absolutely no influence in which RfC to close. I plan to just pick something complicated-looking at WP:ANRFC - probably whatever's been there the longest - and close that. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mention WMF up-top, so this research is in conjunction with WMF? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The researcher is working with the WMF, as external researchers usually do, but I don't know that it's in conjunction with them. A WMF staffer reached out to me initially along with other closers for a round of interviews, but since then, all contact has been with the researcher. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I would amend what was on your talk page to trace the connections, but you would first have to clarify the WMF connection, which you can probably clarify by contacting the WMF person. You might also want to think about if you have not closed in a while closing without the tool, so you have the experience fresh. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I see above, you say you could do dry re-run of closes, not actually doing anything for the pedia, if you did do just that, no extra anything is needed (You could also try to know as little about what the close was and later compare, by eg. having someone else transfer the pre-closed RfC to your sandbox - just have them follow copying in Misplaced Pages). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, ditto, but I would not take any money so all good here :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(1)In my opinion, this not paid editing. To think it is, is to misunderstand the basis for our rules about paid editing and COI. The reason we have these rules is because of their effect on writing NPOV encyclopedic articles--NPOV is the fundamental principle upon which these guidelines rest. There is no reason to expect that someone given money for writing or editing or reviewing anything they might choose to do will cause a violation of NPOV, and this goes for routine administrative actions also.

(2)However, the enWP is reasonably concerned to keep its contents and decisions about content independent of the WMF. This is based upon the basic principle that we are a volunteer organization where everyone can edit. Professionalizing our decisions goes against the very reason that WP was founded in the first place. As WP has become complex, there has been need for a certain involvement by the WMGF in some aspects--but we have never accepted any involvement in content (except to make sure its legal & help us keep it free from external influences).

(3)That goes for research into WP also. It's desirable and necessary there be research, but it cannot be allowed to affect content or other decisions at the encyclopedia. This prohibits breaching experiments--it also prohibits editing or adminsitrative actions which are done for some purpose that might even potentially conflict with the true purposes of the encyclopedia. We are I think rightly particularly sensitive of this for actions by admins, or similar decision-makers, even when they do not directly invovle content. Therefore I think this sort of activity must be explicitly declared. This is the same whether or not there is money involved. (There are indeed certain types of otherwise desirable research which this might prohibit, but it's like any rule on ethical research.) DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:BU Rob13 would you please clarify what activity this involves? In the OP you wrote use the tool to close an RfC then here you said you could just go through the motions and not actually do a close. This matters, since the first involves actually saving an edit, while the second does not. Also I just noticed that the OP says do this once and this is what you have said a few other times. Are they really just looking for you to do this once? This is also relevant... Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have just seen a similar email in my inbox, which I suppose makes me "involved" enough to join the conversation and reply to your query. The researcher in question has developed a new tool to help close RFCs. They want users like Rob and myself to use their tool to close 1 RfC, give feedback, and we will be paid for our efforts.

  I am in the same line of thinking of TonyBallioni and others on this matter, in that we are not being paid to close a specific RfC (there is even the caveat given of or a previously closed one), but rather that we are being asked to use the tool. To me this does not sound like a "paid contribution"; it's saying "hey, here's this thing, how well do you think it works?" The caveat mentioned basically means that it doesn't have to be a "real" RfC that's being closed, so it could be used on a "fake" RfC but something tells me the point is to look at a convoluted RfC and see if this tool makes it easier to edit.

  In other words, I do not think disclosure is required. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, what Primefac said. A single RfC, and technically, we don't even need to make the closing edit to be paid. They want the feedback, and that's what the compensation is for. Having said that, from my perspective, I want to improve the encyclopedia, and if I'm going to the effort of working out a close, the thing that most improves the encyclopedia is for me to implement that close. It's a waste of effort for me to "close" a discussion off-wiki but make another closer duplicate my work for an on-wiki close. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  As one of the editors, approached in a follow-up to test their tool, I pretty much agree with PFac.∯WBG 16:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Two things. If you are saving an edit and will be paid for that, it is "paid editing". We get all kinds of sophistry from people around what "editing" is (e.g. talk page discussion is not "editing"; editing policy or discussion about policy is not "editing"). Second, people considering doing this, should not be evaluating themselves how the community should classify this. See Bias blind spot. I can't tell you how many discussions I have had with editors with an WP:APPARENTCOI who start out insisting "I have no COI here" and when I finally draw a disclosure of the relationship from them, they are in the PR department or are friends with the person or the like. Most everybody who has a COI thinks they are "doing just fine, thanks". The thing to do is disclose, and let others evaluate. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Jytdog, whilst I'm obviously not the one to evaluate the aspects of PAID declaration, I think your equivalence is grossly hyperbolic.Neither I nor PFac nor Rob are liaisoning with any PR department.All that we will do, is to choose a random RFC, and execute a closure via the help of the tool and later provide feedback about our experience et al.∯WBG 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Too much emotion. Bias blind spot is a very, very human thing. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have no interest in participating, so I'm not really sure how knowing the specifics/answering your question/giving my thoughts mean that I'm biased, but whatever. I can see where you're coming from, and while I'm not quite as firm in my belief that it doesn't require disclosure as I was before, I still think this doesn't fall under the definition of a "paid contribution" (since the close would have happened regardless of whether the pay is coming). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  the thing about "blind spot bias" is about a person who is involved with it, judging how to consider it and what to do about it. It's just a human thing. That's all. I hear you, that you don't intend to take them up on their offer. It's unhappy to me that there is drama around this; nobody here has said "wow this could really damage the project". If there is one clear consensus in the discussion, it is that. I have acknowledged that this is pay-for-behavior not pay-for-content and that is some different kind of animal. But it would be better just to disclose it since money is involved and edits are being made, exactly to avoid stupid drama later. The not-disclosing would become the point of drama, and it would have a "hook". Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)A third thing - since they are really are looking for just one close from each person (which I find a bit strange from an experimental design perspective, but whatever) the effect on the project is really minimal and again there is no big deal here. But everybody doing this for pay (or even if they refuse pay and as part of the research, as aptly noted by User:DGG above) should disclose it at their userpage and when they do the close. It is not complicated. Paid editing is paid editing. This is very GLAM like and benign. I hope the researchers doing this have a page somewhere in WP where they describe the project; they should link everybody doing this there (and the disclosure each person makes should link there). Disclosure is good. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Disclosure is good, but in re-reading Rob's original post it sounds more like he's concerned about the outcome of such a disclosure. Is "I tested a thing for a person" (hyperbolic shortening intentional) acceptable, or would he have to use {{paid}} and give specific details, which could then potentially be used to track him down? Primefac (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  The disclosure does not have to use {{paid}}, look for example what I have on my user page. I would not call myself a paid editor, and in fact I oppose paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  The {{paid}} tag is never required; the main thing is the disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then why don't you just forgo the payment and help without it? I find the payment for stuff like this to be highly inappropriate and the secrecy surrounding the "tool" to be problematic. In light of the community discussion and Arbcom's decision, closing an RfC as an administrator while being paid to close it could be viewed as a violation of this restriction. I highly recommend that no one move forward with this if they wish to avoid the obvious trouble that it will carry. Nihlus 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

But they're not being paid to close an RfC, they're being paid to use a tool to close an RfC. Also it is not a use (or abuse) of admin tools because there are no admin tools being used. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing to me. If editing the wiki is a requirement for using a tool, then they are being paid to edit the wiki. It's that simple. As to whether or not it is a violation, it could very easily be viewed as one and desysop requests could be made (with merit) if someone found them to be troublesome or a violation of the rules surrounding it. Closing it as an administrator while being paid can easily be seen as leveraging the sysop bit while being paid as it has implied authority that comes with it. As I said, if you want to focus on improving the encyclopedia, then all of this can easily be done without being paid. However, the questions will linger as this bell can't really be unrung. Nihlus 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt seriously those alleged desysop claims would find merit, if they were made at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

if they were made at all I assure you that someone will make a formal complaint. Nihlus 17:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

So? Sometimes like 75% of the project is complaints (no biggie). :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think allot of discussion is just unneeded. It costs nothing to do some kind of disclosure here, no-one is wanting anything "private" or you all would not be here right now disclosing this stuff, just follow the spirit of nothing wrong with some disclosure and minimally do something like in the edit summary, and on your talk page etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• BU Rob13, someone is paying you to make a contribution to Misplaced Pages. That falls under "paid editing". But you don't have to add anything to your user page. It would be enough to say on the talk pages when you close the RfCs that you've been paid by to test a new tool. SarahSV 19:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That sort of works but if there is a choice between local or central (at the user page), then local is better. The purpose of the local disclosure is that people who are "affected" are made of aware of it at the time; in my experience people who have had some interaction with someone editing for pay or with a COI, learning after the fact about that (say by going to the person's userpage at some later point in time after the interaction has been underway), have a negative reaction, in great part due to the lack of local disclosure. Again the only problem I see with this, is someone coming across it later and thinking they have found some scandal. That is all avoidable with clear disclosure. So normal disclosure (user page + local) Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Definitely not disclosing. The risks of an admin having to publicly disclose as a paid editor outweigh the benefits of this research, in my opinion. I guarantee if I made such a formal disclosure, abusive paid editing groups would be impersonating me by the end of the week, backed up by a convenient paid editing disclosure they could link to on-wiki to "prove" they have an admin willing to pull strings for the highest bidder. Further, I'm now worried that even participating in this study at all will cause harm, as paid editors could point to this discussion to show admins do engage in "paid editing" if I go through with it, even if I do some gymnastics to avoid having to disclose (e.g. declining compensation). I'll certainly respect the community's decision on this one, but it's the wrong decision. The community has deprived a researcher attempting to benefit Misplaced Pages of useful data. It's unfortunate I will not be able to participate in the development of a potentially useful tool. ~ Rob₁₃ 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

      @BU Rob13: Why can you not do it for free? Nihlus 09:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

      At this point, I feel that undertaking any activity as an administrator that the community has decided is on the same level and requires the same level of disclosure as the activity undertaken by spammers and abusive paid editors is likely to damage the project. If I go through with this now, even unpaid, paid editors could still point to this discussion to show that an administrator is willing to accept pay for contributions, which is not what I was actually doing in the first place. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

      • • • I urge you to not play around with what an "edit" is; an edit is any saved change to WP, anywhere. I am sorry you feel it is dirty. If "feeling dirty" prevents disclosure, that is shooting oneself in the foot, since most scandal arises when people feel something is being hidden. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Better nomenclature? Perhaps we need to come up with better terminology for the type of research participation being discussed here. While I do think such paid participation needs disclosure, Rob et al are right that just calling it "paid editing" without trying to differentiate it from activities of (typically) COI/promotional editors is misleading and unhelpful. With a bit of brainstorming it should be possible to come up with something akin to "Wikipedians in residence", which afaik, is not treated as a scarlet letter. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I endorse that idea. It seems a shame that we could be missing out on helpful research and tools because of the paid editing problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• In my comments above I noted that we should treat this like GLAM. WP:COI says There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable.... I oppose obscuring things. Clarity is good and disclosure is good. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think participating in research (or, for that matter, acting as a liaison for a gallery, library, archive, museum, or educational institution) should be a mark of shame, but I don't think it should be a free pass, either. As I alluded to above, I think disclosing the associated research is desirable so that the context of the research, including its funding source, can be known. isaacl (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding nomenclature, I think the most straightforward description is research participant. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat this as usual paid editing, since you are not paid to edit any content or change any editorial behavior. So it does not make sense to add yourself to talk pages with Template:Connected contributor (paid). Obviously other paid editing provisions such as requesting edits in talk pages do not apply either. However, I think you should disclose it in your user page or talk page that you are being compensated for this and a link to a page where full details of the research and payer can be read, and a brief comment in edit summaries would help too. --MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material

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

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking_of_talkpage_or_deletion_debates

This AfD discussion contains libelous assertions by User:M. A. Bruhn. That user says that certain professors, at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere, are

"co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

and that

"The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure. No publications in journals outside their own", no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations."

Johns Hopkins University's Medical School is not a place where a physician becomes a professor without publishing a lot in respected scholarly journals.

The Ancestral Health Society's on their history says the founding members are Brent Pottenger, Aaron Blaisdell, and Chris Owens.

• Here is Brent Pottenger's web page identifying him as a physician at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and as a winner of the Samuel Novey Prize in Psychological Medicine conferred at the Convocation Ceremony for JSU's School of Medicine, and listing some of his works including publications in scientific journals, poster sessions, and other articles. Are we to think that this publication or this one are (quoting from the Misplaced Pages page whose courtesy blanking I am requesting) "entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure" and that their author has done "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations" and that he has published in "no  journals outside their own (i.e. that of the Ancestral Health Society)? This and other lists of his publications show his collaborations with other professionals, yet User:M. A. Bruhn asserts that there are none.

All this information is so easy to find instantly by googling that one must conclude that User:M. A. Bruhn did not attempt that simple task before making these false allegations.

• Here is the university web page of Prof. Aaron Blaisdell of UCLA's Department of Psychology, about whom User:M. A. Bruhn makes the same allegations.

These and other professors who publish in respected journals and have co-authors who are similarly situated professionals are those of whom User:M. A. Bruhn says they are "co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

I suspect that the doctors who were libeled will find that the page does no harm to their reputation, but if they did sue, I suspect their suit would fail because a Misplaced Pages AfD page is such a contemptible source that it could not harm their reputation, i.e. it's libel but not efficacious libel. However, the cleanliness of Misplaced Pages's soul makes it in Misplaced Pages's interest not to engage in libel. (oh .... Except that at least one of the doctors is in England, where the libel laws are stricter than in the U.S.)

I am requesting suppression or courtesy blanking of the page with the libelous assertions. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's normal to discuss the reliability of sources and how mainstream their authors/publishers are in a deletion debate. That's all I see M. A. Bruhn doing there. Note that the AfD in question is two years old and was part of the dispute that led to Michael Hardy being reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussing reliability of sources does not mean lying about them, saying they've never published in respected journals when they have, saying they have not collaborated with others in research and publication when they have, saying they are "co-opting" the standard terminology of the fields in which they are professors at prestigious universities in order to create a false appearance of respectability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And observe that legitimacy of an organization, not just the reliability of sources, and the honesty of individual professors, not just the reliability of sources, was not merely questioned but denied. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any significant behavioral issues here, or anything "libelous" either, so I would oppose blanking the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: : So there is nothing libelous in saying that a professor who publishes in respected journals has never done so, that a professor who jointly authors papers with others in his field has not done so, that a respected professor is trying to "embroider" his "efforts with an appearance of legitimacy" simply because he uses the standard terminology of his field?
Where I use quotation marks, I am quoting someone. Why do you use them with the word libelous? Indeed, do M. A. Bruhn's remarks not clearly imply that such a professor's efforts are not legitimate? Do you condone the statement that they are not legitimate? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose blanking. There is no libelous material in that discussion; there are only the standard strongly worded opinions and debates and assertions made at any number of WP:AfDs. The place to counter anyone's opinions or assertions would have been the AfD, which has been closed now for over two years. In my opinion Michael Hardy is massively wasting the community's time here, and considering his former related reprimand by the Arbitration Committee may warrant a WP:BOOMERANG for this time-sink, or even a WP:CIR block/ban for just not getting it. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • An addendum here: This is not his first stop. He also raised this at WP:VPP prior to coming here, so WP:FORUMSHOPPING also seems to apply. John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @John from Idegon: I inquired on that page, asking what is the appropriate forum for this issue. I did NOT post anything there similar to what I posted on this page. This is indeed my "first stop"; i.e. it's the ONLY place where I've posted this. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any serious issues that will warrant blanking much less suppression here, although M. A. Bruhn may have expressed himself using softer approach. Also seeing that this AfD is over two years old and ensuing ArbCase, it seems Michael Hardy still has unsettled issue with M. A. Bruhn even though they're no longer editing. I hope MH will understand how resuscitating this resolved, two-year old issue will not be of benefit to either him or the community, so it is better to forget this and move forward. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only is M. A. Bruhn (talk · contribs) "no longer editing", it's fairly clear that the whole Michael Hardy bullying affair is what drove him off of Misplaced Pages at the end of the ArbCom case in late September 2016. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ammarpad: I don't have an issue with M. A. Bruhn and I can't see why it's not obvious to you that I have an issue with blatantly false material being kept on display. It says that respectable professors do not publish in respectable journals when in fact they do; it says that they don't collaborate in research with other professors when in fact they do; it says they are falsely trying to create an appearance of legitimacy. It is absurd to say that that is not libelous. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My sentiments exactly. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: You endorsement of abusive ad hominem is noted. And your disregard of facts concerning my history of Misplaced Pages editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: I am one of Misplaced Pages's most respected editors, and have been so for years. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Michael Hardy: You seem oddly passionate about getting a two-year old AfD blanked. Do you have a CoI to disclose? Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Simonm223: I have no connection with this organization. I am the original creator of an article, not about the organization, but about what they work on. It was deleted for lack of sufficient tertiary sources. Some have remarked on the fact that I've been "oddly passionate" about a variety of things at times. I explain it by saying it's because I'm a normal human. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: Since the time of Aristotle, ad hominem has been understood to be logically fallacious. And there's nothing but ad hominem in your comment, and in this instance it ignores my very extensive record. It is dishonest. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to note that whatever merits of the request filed by Michael Hardy are (I am not commenting on them) he is still a respected member of the community, and did not deserve neither casting aspersions, nor guessing about their motivation. May I please request the commenters to keep to the point (of the request). Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @John from Idegon: @Ammarpad: @Beyond My Ken: What would you consider libel? (1) An assertion that professors do not publish in respected journals is not libel when in fact they do, (2) an assertion that they do not collaborate with others when in fact they do is not libel, and (3) an assertion that they are creating a false impression of legitimacy is not libel, so what would be libel? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Warning on throwing around "libel", etc.': I doubt you'll find an admin to blank the entire discussion. It's delicate because what you appear to be alleging is a kind of "group libel" , where you have to factor out expressions of opinion, even "insults" or "epithets". Perhaps there is some uninvolved admin, or even editor, who would refer the matter to WMF legal (for targeted refactoring) but the admin or editor should be very circumspect in any expression on wiki that someone has committed a crime or civil tort. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alanscottwalker: Indeed. I have not done anything like this before. It's not something I "throw around". Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose blanking - I'm not seeing anything libelous either, Why are we caring about a 2 year old AFD ? ... Does this ex-admin have nothing better to do with their time?...... Would suggest closing this pointless thread. –Davey2010 13:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: I am a current administrator. What is the nature of your competence in legal matters? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Not sure why I thought you were an ex admin however the point still stands, I'm not a know it all when it comes to legal stuff however I know libelous when I see it and in this case I'm not seeing it and neither is anyone else above me. –Davey2010 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Given the personal nature of the comments from everyone who has said there is no libel here, one can only have suspicions of strange political motives. Discussion should be of the issues rather than the sort of personal ad hominem stuff. I guess some people are conservative in supporting the in-group Misplaced Pages-Establishment. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Really?? I haven't commented on any of this, but your obsession with this remarkably obscure issue smacks of WP:COI and your amazing lack of good faith (paranoia even) casts doubt on your judgment as an administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Really. I must be paranoid when I see personal attacks instead of people addressing the issue, including "Softlavender"'s statement that I am generally incompetent as a Misplaced Pages editor, although I am one of Misplaced Pages's most respected editors. That is not proper behavior. Lack of good faith? There's plenty of that in this present thread. But it's not mine. Defending myself against personal attacks is not lack of good faith. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

An admin in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory is now floating conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, for those who disagree with them. This is most troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Off-topic personal attacks are evidence. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not of a conspiracy they aren't. MarnetteD|Talk 14:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I never said, nor thought, that there's a conspiracy. Read more carefully. 2601:445:437F:FE66:F5E8:18C7:9032:F66D (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If this post is from MH is there a reason that you are not editing from your account? The statement "one can only have suspicions of strange political motives" reads as a "conspiracy theory" as far as I'm concerned. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Much like Toddst1 I suspected a CoI because of the peculiarity of the timing of the blanking request. Waiting two years seems awfully odd for a good-faith concern over risk of libel. I have literally no vested interest in the original dispute though and am willing to take you at your word that you don't have a CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who repeatedly refers to themself as "one of Misplaced Pages's most respected editors," clearly has lost the argument. In fact they should be looked at with the greatest of scrutiny. See WP:NVC, I am now thinking WP:CIR is an issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the personal nature of the comments from everyone who has said there is no libel here, one can only have suspicions of strange political motives.

Huh. I've been told that since the time of Aristotle, ad hominem has been understood to be logically fallacious. --Calton | Talk 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bugger Aristotle. Dunning–Kruger effect FTW. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: ok, By what theory do you explain my record of contributions to Misplaced Pages? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: @Roxy the dog: @Softlavender: @John from Idegon: @Ammarpad: @Beyond My Ken: Why do you not at least attempt to present any arguments?

• I said that a statement is libelous if it says that particular professors at respected universities are using the standard jargon of their fields only to create a false impression of legitimacy.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says that those professors do not publish in respected scientific journals when in fact they do.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says those professors do not collaborate with colleagues not belonging to a particular organization when in fact they do.

All of you have said I am wrong about those three points. Will you use only attempts at intimidation to silence me or can you present any arguments? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. Can we just 1) agree that we have consensus that there is nothing libelous at this AfD or any action needed there, 2) stop speculating on why Michael Hardy is so unaccountably passionate about it, and 3) close this ongoing waste of time? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

TBAN request: User:Kbog and Machine Intelligence Research Institute

• Kbog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We've experienced aggressive advocacy from Kbog on this page. In general I have found Kbog to edit this way on things related to Exciting Possibilities About the Future (transhumanist, effective altruism stuff) but this has gone over the top. There is a combination of a) not understanding the mission of WP and the basic P&G through which we realize it; and b) aggressive editing and responses, instead of learning what we do, and how we do it.

This is not helped by

• Kbog's overall fierce inclusionism and sense of WP:OWN with respect to their own edits, as they state by the words and images on their userpage. The machine gun imagery disturbs me every time I look at it; they view this as "satire".
• their view of what we do here as something like what goes on in social media like vbulletin boards, on Reddit boards, on Facebook, and so on, as they wrote here.

Anyway, to the MIRI page.

It has been fancruft since the day it was created in 2004. User:Zubin12 came along in July and started cleaning it up and got it to this point, and clearly pointed out the PROMO aspects of the page on the talk page.

This opened some fierce engagement to clean it up further. Kbog and I overlapped, and I yielded to them; they brought it to this state, and came to the talk page and wrote: I finished the article to my current satisfaction. That is quite a strong statement, on a page that is being contested. It invites scrutiny of their work, and that scrutiny finds their work deficient in the basics of scholarship as well as our policies and guidelines.

In response, for starters I pointed out the overwhelming reliance on primary or SPS sources when they were done. In response they trimmed some, and made a dog's breakfast of a response on Talk, completely confusing the concepts of "independent source" and "primary sources" and "SPS" and failing to understand that having big swaths of content driven by SPS or primary sources is not good. Indeed they wrote: If an article can be made longer with appropriate use of primary sources, without being too long, then it's an improvement. Because more, accurate, information is simply a good thing.

This basic orientation that "more is better", even if it is driven by shitty sources that don't actually support the content, is just not what we do here. The combative attitude along with misunderstanding the mission and basic P&G makes it almost impossible to help them think clearly about sourcing and content, much less reach consensus.

I went on to look at just a couple of passages, and you can see the pile of errors in this section on Talk. They then replied, interspersing their comments with mine, which i fixed; you can see that discussion here. Their response to problems with the page as they left it - with unverified content, etc -- the content that was, again in their own words, to my current satisfaction -- was to blame other people, say "I didn't have the source", and just more or less knee-jerk rejection. (diff).

Something to point out in that small example paragraph was this sentence they had left in the content: "In early 2015, MIRI's research was cited in a research priorities document accompanying an open letter on AI that called for "expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial"(source)."

That passage typifies their editing -- MIRI is not mentioned in that important document. Some of their researchers are cited - maybe five citations out of the 70 or so references there. The content is pure commentary/OR. They actually believe that this is just fine - No, that is a straightforward statement of fact, which is different from commentary. (same diff as above) and not at all OR/commentary on a source that is not about MIRI, where the content gives outsize importance to MIRI's role in the document. Pretty typical advocacy-driven editing.

Elsewhere on the talk page and in the article, others have been addressing OFFTOPIC and SYN content added by Kbog. Kbog has responded by edit warring ( just yesterday, 1) two reverts in one diff series; 2) again; 3) again, and later 4) reverting the "primary" tag, and 5) again). They responded to my edit war warning with this: silly, removing it from their page.

On talk they have been writing things like:

• this favorite of machine-gun toting OWNers Anyway, you cannot remove material without building a talk page consensus first. Merely saying "let's take this to the talk page" doesn't give you a right to continue edit warring. The material stands until there is a decision to change it. and
• this What bizarre theatrics are these, where the very defenses that exist to ward off deletionist gadflies are used as a pretext for their further persistence. It seems that literally everything, to you, is a reason to be combative, and
• misrepresenting my stance as being somehow OK with the page three times, (diff, especially egregious diff, diff (bottommost)), even though as I noted above, I stopped working on the page and yielded to them. They have no idea what the page would like if I were to take my run through it.
• this - Sure, there are three editors who have axes to grind here, with thoroughly unconvincing objections. I haven't seen any level-headed, independent person to side against me.. The key words there are I haven't seen, and the sense is wrong -- this is really about not hearing.

The fan-driven, bad-quality editing related to MIRI extends to other pages and edits like this, removing content sourced from the New York Times about Vernor Vinge coining the phrase the "singularity" about AI catastrophe, with an edit note not really x-risk as part of this sweep through a section about AI, and leaving a description of the views of MIRI person Eliezer Yudkowsky very prominently displayed in its own paragraph, sourced only to a primary source by Yudkowsky. Classic advocacy editing, promoting MIRI or its people, using weak/primary sources.

This person is very clearly a committed advocate, both to MIRI and to their vision of Misplaced Pages as some sort of blog where the goal is to build as much content as possible, based more or less loosely (sometimes not at all) on seemingly any old source, with no discernment between high quality independent sources and a press release or blog, and no distinction between summarizing what a source says and commenting on that source, no sense of edits that are strongly grounded in P&G or extremely weak. What matters to them, apparently, is making the article longer.

Before filing this, I tried to reach out to them on their talk page, and we had the exchange that you can see here. I have tried as much as I am willing, but my patience is exhausted.

The strife on this page will be endless as long as they remain involved, since they are not aiming at the mission, don't follow basics of scholarship, ignore P&G except as it suits them, and are unteachable due to their aggressive hold on content they add. Again -- Keep your dirty liberal hands off of my content!

Please topic ban this person from editing about MIRI. Perhaps AI more broadly. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a hefty dose of material that most editors won't want to read above. Fortunately, I do have time. A brief summary:

• Kbog has editing in this content area (roughly, topics related to Eliezer Yudkowsky, including MIRI, Effective altruism, and LessWrong) since 2015.
• Most recently, he was edit-warring with Jytdog (the filer) at Machine Intelligence Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about whether to include the {{primary}} maintenance tag. Neither looks good in that.
• There has been extensive discussion at the talk page since mid-July. It seems unlikely that all editors will ever agree on the content of the article. There are extensive discussions of what references can be used. Kbog opened an RFC yesterday, it appears that David Gerard, Jytdog, Gbear605 and Zubin12 (the other editors active on the talk page since July) all disagree with him.

Overall, I think a TBAN would be pre-mature; if the RFC confirms that there is a consensus against Kbog's views of what the content on the page should be and he continues to disagree voluminously, a TBAN might be called for then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Power, when you say "That's a hefty dose of WP:IDHT", do you mean the acronym to be "I don't have time" (to read everything presented above), or do you mean (per the link) that I am guilty of "failure or refusal to 'get the point'"? In the context of your sentence, it's not clear. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant that most of the people reading this noticeboard will not have time to read Jytdog's entire post (and look at the relevant diffs/talk pages). I've removed the link as I thought it pointed elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think your summary is accurate, except I believe Gbear is neutral (we haven't substantially disagreed, just a bit about template etiquette). K.Bog 06:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki Thanks for the summary. My OP was too long. However the first three diffs of edit warring are not with me, but with Zubin12 related to the NPOV/SYN/OR issues. The last two are indeed me. Would you please correct your description above? Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your edits at 03:56, 26 August 2018 and 04:01, 26 August 2018. Kbog may have been engaged in multiple edit wars on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that I did those two. Your summary skews the facts. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've certainly made some errors and oversights about content: human errors, which I did not press after being shown them. In addition, I reacted aggressively in some of the arguments about this page. I also edit warred once, one fourth-revert which I didn't realize was past the limit. This is because I was frustrated by Jytdog and others' behavior towards me. Things that I have written or kept in the article have been repeatedly characterized by Jytdog as "fan-driven", "bad quality", "fancruft with shitty, bloggy sources", and so on; whenever I attempt to dispute such labelings with reference to WikiPolicy, I am rebuffed with wholly authoritative assertions that I don't understand what we do here, that I never learn, that it's simply "too much" primary sourcing, that the sources are simply "bad"; reasons for these assertions are lacking, and they are supported not with specific Wiki Policies, but with the insistence that I'm not listening and therefore really am proving his point, with the insistence that I'm fan editing and therefore aiming at the wrong thing, and similar non-answers. I meet every proposed change with valid arguments, but I get evasion and stonewalling in response. Jytdog is right that he hasn't convinced me of many things regarding about how to write a Misplaced Pages article. But this isn't a matter of my willingness to learn, it's a consequence of the fact that I haven't been given good reasons or references to WikiPolicy. I can't be reasonably expected to learn from someone who doesn't do an adequate job of teaching. Therefore, to the extent that I'm wrong about anything, presumably the right thing to do here is for someone else to explain things in a more compelling fashion, instead of assuming that we have to TBAN me just because Jytdog here has failed to change my mind. Please don't accept Jytdog's spin that I am refusing to listen: if you look through the specific arguments, you'll see that I'm fundamentally, honestly disagreeing on the basis of regular reasons, and I don't believe that Jytdog's views are representative of the broader Misplaced Pages community. In some cases, you will also find, I have been okay with other people's changes.

Beyond adhering to what I believe to be WikiPolicy, my own idea of what a Misplaced Pages article should look like is driven by what I have seen counted as good examples of Misplaced Pages work, such as (I have used this example before, and not received any response) the "good article" Kantian ethics page, which has extensive detail from published primary sources (I'm not fighting for blogs, press releases and so on; I used to, but I think Jytdog will have to admit that I did learn better than that). In academic articles more broadly, you can find similar examples. I do not mean this as an "otherstuff" assertion, I am impressed by such articles and I mean to show how it is that I have arrived at this perception about how Misplaced Pages articles ought to be written, contra the insistence by Jytdog that it is fan editing and advocacy, and how it is that I am skeptical about Jytdog's assertions about how things are typically run around here.

I have focused on these topics, AI and EA (though not exclusively). They are of interest to me, and I care about having good articles for them. I am also focusing on them in reaction to the phenomenon displayed here, where I find that a select small group of editors is unfortunately prone to attempting to cut them apart. I think that they are more in need of being watched than many other articles, because I have not encountered this sort of behavior in other topics that I have worked on, and it seems to me that Jytdog is on a bit of a crusade against advocacy, which he is overly prone to suspecting. That is why I've been rather stubborn: I think that he's being overzealous, and that warrants some pushback. I would not be so stubborn if I were working with editors who I trusted to have no preexisting biases about me or the subject at hand. That's why I opened the rfc.

If you look through my edits on other articles you will find that I have also made reductions of unpublished primary sourcing, reduction in weight given to groups like MIRI, adding opposing viewpoints and secondary sources, as well as very ordinary improvements (style etc). Please judge on the basis of looking seriously through edits, rather than making up your mind on the basis of cherrypicked examples. I believe that Jytdog's assumption about the appropriateness of talking about the singularity in an AI catastrophe article constitutes WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I think most people here would rather not see us bicker about such examples, so just look through my history and judge for yourself. I certainly have left up a lot of problematic content, but I don't have time to fix everything, and I believe that it's better to leave up over-weighted or imperfectly-sourced content until I or someone else adjusts it further, rather than taking a hatchet to it.

By the way, that is not a machine gun. It is an AR-15, a civilian semiauto rifle. From my background, I see it as a regular rifle that can be used for many things. This is just a convenient representation of the kind of problem here: Jytdog insists that his perspective is right, and he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that I may have an honestly different view, which is the primary cause of my stubbornness. Is this the right place to judge Jytdog? No, it's not. My point is simply that my behavior has not been demonstrated to be a sufficiently severe problem here to warrant a TBAN. K.Bog 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, answering a very long complaint with a very long response is not a terribly effective strategy. At least Jytdog gave us bullet points to latch onto.On the issue of the photo and "Keep your liberal hands off my content" caption, I think that clearly violates WP:POLEMIC,

• Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
• Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors

so I'd ask you to remove it before I nominate it for deletion at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise into bullet points, and remove the picture. K.Bog 05:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

hanks for removing the AR-15 image & caption from your user page. I appreciate your doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing my long statement into bullet point form:

• I have made oversights and errors, but when I see these, I do not fight over keeping them in the article. I will try to make higher quality edits in the future.
• I have been too aggressive in the arguments about this page, but only as a reaction to the hostile way that these particular people have been consistently behaving on these articles; I don't treat true third parties (like people from rfc) the same way, and will generally try to do better in the future.
• Jytdog is misrepresenting me as refusing to listen, when in reality I fundamentally disagree with his interpretation of WikiPolicy and he is failing to make serious arguments about it.
• Jytdog is generally misrepresenting my edits and behavior as being worse than they are, largely on the basis of his overzealous suspicion that I'm an "advocate", when in reality I simply care and know more about a particular topic than I do about others. K.Bog 05:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• The issue -- as I have demonstrated with diffs - is that you do not understand our mission to provide readers with accepted knowledge or the essence of the P&G through which we (a community of no-name people) realize the mission; the way you use sources is driven by some misguided notion that articles that are longer are "better"; you have no understanding of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV - you give excessive WEIGHT to content based on weak sources and give content expressing your observations as much WEIGHT (or more) as content summarizing high quality sources. The result is badly sourced (often unsourced OR) excessively detailed fancruft; not Misplaced Pages articles solidly grounded on P&G. You resist learning with machine-gun-toting vehemence. What led me to ask for the TBAN is that trying to reach consensus with someone who operates this way is impossible at worst and a time suck at best. There is little to no common foundation upon which to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am aware of your views on how to interpret WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PRIMARY, and it is a valid viewpoint: the main point of dispute here (we really haven't had intractable arguments about any other decisions regarding the content of the article) is that you believe that externally published primary sources can only be used for a very small amount of an article's content, whereas I believe they can be used for perhaps half or less if the topic calls for it. I support those policies too, I just find that you have not made an honest attempt to reach a consensus about how to apply them: "we will never settle the MIRI page", "You are unteachable", "insisting on things that are dead wrong in policy ... Your response is breath-taking in how adamantly wrong it is," "your missing the mark on the mission, your editing and arguments that are pursuing the wrong mission and ignoring key P&G in your pursuit of the wrong mission, and your aggression and unteachability each of which mean that there will be no forseeable end to this", "You have been unteachable, with all this aggression. How can we teach you?", "please focus on the problem with your behavior", "someone who barely understands what we do here and how we do it", "You aren't listening", "Refusing. Fighting like hell every step of the way", "your complete refusal to engage with the mission and what the P&G call for", "It is just selfish", "more unrestrained, off-mission behavior from you... unrestrained advocacy, ignoring basic norms of communication and editing", "It is impossible to reach consensus when you are aiming at the wrong thing", "It is a blatant advertisement, full of sources by the organization and quotes that are not encyclopedic. This is not an encyclopedia article", "It is disgusting to see fancruft with shitty, bloggy sources on science topics. Video games, I understand more This is just gross", "This is editing driven by something other than the basic methods of scholarship we use here", and more of the same constitute perpetual insistence that I am wrong and you are right, not an attempt to persuade or reach consensus. I know that we're both stubborn, but you've been inadvertently hindering your own ability to build a consensus, and I think that you ought to try a more modest approach before calling it a lost cause. K.Bog 17:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I won't reply here further, but will wait for others to review this. I will say that yes, I have tried to explain that as long as you are aiming for the wrong thing, consensus is indeed impossible. Thank you for showing that. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Block review

Just blocked User:Evansjack1, who appears to have been a problematic editor more or less since the start. He hasn't edited in a while, but has gone right back to the behavior that led to two other blocks before. It appears he's only here to edit the article about himself to remove controversial information (despite having been advised to only edit the talk page due to COI). As you can see on User talk:Evansjack1 he seems to lack the basic competency to interact productively with the editing community, and he seems to be here mostly to scrub his Misplaced Pages article. Bringing this for review because of the potentially high-profile subject (although I'm not sure his identity was ever actually confirmed). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I remember this editor well. This is long term (even if sporadic) disruptive editing, and I endorse your block. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to help this user a few days ago and opened a discussion on the talk page about a reasonable complaint they had regarding inappropriate text in their article. And there was clear agreement from the local editors with his viewpoint that the text in question was inappropriate and should be trimmed (save for the user who wrote the content). Jack then immediately proceeded to derail the discussion with a laundry list of edits he wanted made to the article. The local editors, without blinking, began discussing his issues point-by-point and at length, as you can see on the talk page. So, while I sympathize with someone having an article and feeling that they're treated unfairly in it, Jack was receiving a high degree of hands-on assistance from people who were genuinely trying to help improve the quality of his article while listening to his input and attempting to address his concerns, in spite of the fact that he was obviously attempting to be way too controlling over his own article. Given that, there's really no excuse for him snapping like that and edit warring over the removal of content. I very recently told him not to edit the article, and he should be well aware of the COI standards we have by now. It's a reasonable block, and he will definitely need to accept a topic ban from editing his article as part of any unblock. Swarm ♠ 07:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This block has now been written about by DCist: <http://dcist.com/2018/08/jack_evans_maybe_got_blocked_from_w.php>. Someone should perhaps e-mail ComCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of Comcom. If anyone there is reading this, FYI, I just responded to a query at OTRS, from what appears to be a member of the press. ticket:2018082710010828--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

New js/css admin restrictions are now in force

Hello Admins, new protections for javascript and css pages have been enabled. See Misplaced Pages:Interface administrators and its talk page for the progress on this change here. If you need a page updated, the edit-request process is the best way to get your requested edit completed. The same goes for if you need one of these pages speedy deleted. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Interface administrators for more information. Best regards, — xaosflux 11:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

viewdelete and jss/css

What I'm assuming is a bug regarding access to viewing deleted versions of js/css pages appears to be going on. See phab:T202989 for status updates. — xaosflux 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is being discussed with the dev team to determine if it should be restored, if you would like to comment please do so on the phab ticket. — xaosflux 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete userjs/usercss pages coming back

A change (phab:T200176 to restore your ability to delete (but not undelete) these pages is scheduled to be back this week. If you need any of these pages speedy deleted in the meantime, feel free to leave an edit request on their associated talk pages. — xaosflux 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

REVDEL on 1967 USS Forrestal fire

Following this discussion, I'm looking for a second opinion on whether RD2 applies for BLP offenses such as this. My assessment is that they're not worthy of RD2 (not severe enough). Thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• No: I don’t think that’s a gross BLP violation, but a simple vandalism/BDP issue. Also, AN should generally not be used for this purpose, as it defeats the point of revdel, but I’m responding since I don’t think it qualifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks; appreciate it. Maybe it's time I get on IRC. Airplaneman ✈ 20:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Block review of user Gunnermanz

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

I yesterday blocked this user. I have never heard of them until several days ago, when they added a wall of text on Talk:RT (TV network) (which is on my watchlist). After they were reminded (by another user) of WP:NOTFORUM they posted another wall of text equally violating NOTFORUM . Then I hatted the topic. They were unhappy and responded with further walls of text (see and the messages above that one) at which point I gave them a warning. Then I went to their talk page to log the warning and saw that earlier that year they were blocked for exactly the same behavior for 72h by NeilN but their only reaction was to remove the warning . They have in total slightly over 200 contributions, and since 2016 I only see contributions on talk pages (last page of their contribution log), so that I decided to block them indef per WP:NOTTHERE. They are unhappy with that, but, rather than posting an unblock request they are posting further walls of text on their talk page. Since people in the past had issues with my admin conduct, and the user is complaining exactly about the admin conduct, I am bringing it here and would appreciate a second pair of eyes - may be I was too harsh with them? They seem to have made some useful contributions in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Good block but support lifting block anytime soon or whenever Gunnermanz writes a convincing unblock request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Good block; might be time to revoke talkpage access though.They also appear to have removed the block notice. Curdle (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the block, but I also concur with Curdle about revoking talk page access, especially considering this. Erpert 14:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• User talk privileges revoked. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• That looks fair enough, at least unless the user promises to stop using article talk pages as forums to post walls of text. I did especially like this 14k wall of text which starts with "I am extremely busy at the moment and this response is therefore written in some haste". Hut 8.5 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Involvement review

I have fully protected University of Chicago Law School due to a report at AN3 where, while the report was being discussed, multiple previously uninvolved editors appeared at the article to join the edit war. One of the users involved in the report, Lorstaking, has accused me of involvement with respect to their editing in a separate discussion (see User talk:Abecedare. To the best of my knowledge Lorstaking and I have never interacted outside of administrative discussions and user talk pages, and I have taken no action against them directly, though it should be said I find myself frequently disagreeing with them in those discussions. At any rate per the "any admin would do the same" provision, and the facts that the page was already protected recently and that I have never edited the page, I believe my action does not violate WP:INVOLVED. If other admins reach a different consensus then please feel free to undo my page protection, but then please consider watching the page. Thanks. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked at the linked discussion, just general thoughts. WP:INVOLVED is interpreted by different people very broadly. For example, I have seen an interpretation that an admin, coming to protect a page and seeing it for the first time, can not remove obviously inappropriate edits first because they thereby become involved and can not protect the page. For me, this is way off mark, but it was a respected user (I do not remember who, it was quite some time ago), and they were quite serious about it. People argued that the same admin can not protect the page twice because the first protection makes them involved. I would not agree with that either (and I have proteced some pages multiple times, just because there are not infinitely many admins working on RFPP) but I am sure there are users which could interpret this as INVOLVED. I would personally say that if an admin had an exchange with a user on an unrelated topic without severe consequences (like blocks), or if this exchange was purely administrative, protecting a page where this user is edit-warring is not INVOLVED (assuming the admin has no relation to this page). Interpreting this broadly, a user can discuss with all active admins and then claim that all of them are INVOLVED. (I am not claiming that Lorstaking was aiming at this, most likely they did not). Other people could disagree with me, but I guess most would be on my side. Having said this, if a user in good standing complains about INVOLVED, it is always good for an admin to ask for a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Involved or not, you have protected what shows a promotional version and is also against clear consensus on the talk page. I believe the report had to be left opened. Either the reported edit warring editor had to be blocked or page had to be put under extended confirmed protection per original request. If an editor is still reverting even after getting reported on WP:AN3 then there are obvious chances that the involved offender needs to be blocked and that was the case here. Excelse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the input but I see the situation differently. I think that most admins would agree that when many users are edit-warring, it is not constructive nor fair to block just one of those users just because of who got to the noticeboards first - page protection is a better response. And I only protected the extant version at the time I decided to protect (see WP:WRONGVERSION) - if I had chosen a different revision to revert to, then I would be participating in the edit war. The editors can now discuss what material should be restored or removed. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A general rule is that an editor who is still reverting even after being reported to AN3 for the same offense is qualified for a block or should be asked to self-revert. Page protection can be seen as endorsement to edit warring until page protection. Excelse (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If what you said were true then any edit-warring editor could game the system by reporting editorial opponents to AN3, but fortunately for Misplaced Pages your "general rule" is not how it works at all. When a report is received, administrators review the situation and decide what is the appropriate preventive course of action. If an edit war is being perpetuated by one editor, often that editor is blocked, and it's just as often the filer of AN3 reports who gets blocked. A page where many editors are edit warring is more often protected, because blocking one editor would not prevent the edit war from continuing. Protection is not an endorsement of edit-warring, it's literally the opposite. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• From the material linked I do not see any INVOLVED issue and the page protection was a reasonable action. There is no indication of editorial involvement or disputes between Ivanvector and Lorstaking nor disagreements between the two so bitter where I would suspect Ivanvector of even the appearance of bias re Lorstalking. I would suggest that the editors involved in the dispute be cautioned to address disputed edits in manageable chunks rather than en masse. From what I can see in the page history the original edits were made incrementally so it should not be difficult to address on a per edit, per section or per source basis. Jbh 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ivanvector joined the ANEW report only because it involved me, similar to their involvement on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eulalefty, where Ivanvector disputed the evidence I had provided but two other SPI clerks agreed that the evidence was enough for blocks. These two incidents on two different days occurred after Ivanvector and me had heated disagreements on a discussion already pointed above. You should not be following reports made by a particular editor for disputing their legitimacy per WP:HOUNDING. In the first message on ANEW Ivanvector even claimed that I reverted the editor for the first time after "three months" when I reverted him since first day. There were many other disagreements and it seemed clear that Ivanvector ignoring the problems with the SPA who has probably has COI but find the ways to dispute the legitimacy of my report. However, I agree with the above that it is not even that much of a deal whether Ivanvector was involved or not, the very issue with how he dealt with the report. An SPA who is depending on providing false edit summaries to frequently edit war for retaining his WP:BROCHURE as clearly evident by his 2 recent reverts while already going through an ANEW report. He clearly had to be blocked or warned not to make anymore reverts unless he gains consensus since present consensus is against his version or otherwise he has no consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• On the issue of the SPI, nothing Ivanvector did makes him INVOLVED with respect to you. Your filings at SPI tend to be overly aggressive, and you often take it personally when members of the SPI team question your evidence. In this instance, Ivanvector's comments were extraordinarily mild. As for your hounding accusation, it takes an awful lot to demonstrate hounding, and you haven't done it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have anymore to add there, but Ivanvector had asked sanctions for me earlier. And I never take "it personally when members of the SPI team question" the evidence. Lorstaking (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lorstaking seems to have decided that I'm following him around, though I've explained how I came across the ANEW report in the first place. That seems to be making them perceive intent in my actions which isn't there. Their SPI report on Eulalefty was declined by a checkuser for being stale, and two of the three pairs of comparative diffs that Lorstaking provided did not clearly demonstrate a pattern to me, but they had called it "obvious" so I asked them to clarify so I could understand what was so obvious. They didn't respond to my question but instead provided more evidence, which is just as good, though I still don't understand the pattern and if someone files another report on that case I'll have to ask again. Then another clerk beat me to the block, it was overnight for me. And yes, I did question Lorstaking's ANEW report. Lorstaking and the reported editor sparred three months earlier, after which the reported editor and several others worked together to build out the article with relevant historic details, some of which does appear to need copyediting for NPOV, but nobody seems to have felt during that time that any of the content was unduly promotional. Then Lorstaking reappeared on the article after three months and without discussing the matter at all nor attempting to explain what their issue was with any of the content (other than "same promotion") they removed all of the incrementally added content in a single revert - see where it says "112 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown", they're just going back to their last edit three months ago and undoing everything. I think we might be misunderstanding each other's English but this is what I mean by "after 3 months" but might also be what Lorstaking refers to as "since first day". Lorstaking vaguely hand-waved that there are issues with some of the content, and there are, nobody's saying that the content is perfect, but many other editors have been trying to help with that without resorting to rewinding the article by three months. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicomachian has made 3 reverts since he was warned for edit warring. If you don't want to block then another alternative was to put article under ECP. The page was put under WP:ECP by Kudpung in 9 May 2018, against this same SPA as " Persistent spamming". Why it couldn't be put under ECP this time too when problem is still the same? WP:ECP is made for these reasons. Lorstaking (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm saw fit to full-protect the article at the last instance of protection resulting from this same edit war, I followed suit. At the time of your report you had each reverted twice within the past 24 hours, and in my opinion this round of revert warring began with your mass revert, so it seemed unjust to block the other user. I also didn't fail to notice that a certain set of editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute, and the group of you together have reverted to your 38,492-byte version seven times since 11 August, despite the page having been protected already, and despite other uninvolved users trying to work through the situation. This isn't the one-sided edit war you perceive it to be, and at this time I believe that full protection is the way to deal with the disruptive behaviour on both sides. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes we have already tried that formula before and Nicomachian is still not getting consensus for his edits. There was no reason to repeat what has already failed. If you wanted to follow the same suit then you could do that early or Swarm would've done that when the initial report was made. It would be making sense but you are protecting the article when Nicomachian was already deserving a block for edit warring or a warning to stop reverting. The "mass revert" was justified because we don't retain WP:BROCHURE on main pages and Nicomachian is focused into edit warring to retain it. Like Lyndaship added that "what has been added is an absolute load of filler and guff. Most of the paras can be reduced to a sentence", but to you these are "editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute" which is not only an unfounded accusation but exactly speaks of your bias. There is no consensus to favor the WP:BROCHURE. You are also told here that Nicomachian already deserved the block when he reverted two times after the ANEW, you have made no warning to him "despite" he is repeating this pattern of edit warring and avoiding discussion since last 2/2 protections for the sake of his WP:PROMO, which again shows that you are not neutral in this case. Lorstaking (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, if you have any actual interest in improving the article, you could be participating in the discussion on the talk page right now instead of still trying to get your opponent blocked. Nicomachian is "not getting consensus" because every time they try, you wave them off as a spammer and refuse to engage. The only objection you've specified with the content up to this point is the use of the university press as a source, but you're not listening when several uninvolved editors point out that it's fine in this context, and overall you're not listening to many editors now who have asked you to stop reverting because the content is not unduly promotional. You have a valid point about Books LLC, but this one thing does not justify throwing out all of the content. You've alleged misleading edit summaries and sources not supporting content but you have yet to specify any particular instances, and Lyndaship's drive-by comment about "filler and guff" is singularly unhelpful. I haven't "warned" Nicomachian because they were already reported (by you) and because in my view you're the belligerent here.

At any rate, all this nitpicking about who reverted who and which version should be reverted to is pointless bikeshedding. The article is protected so that nobody will revert anybody until the issue is settled. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"and refuse to engage"? That's completely an unfounded accusation. I am always participating in the discussion, problem is with Nicomachian who almost never participates. No one has pointed until now that the content is "it's fine in the context". No one has asked me to stop reverting and my reverts are not an issue here because I had already stopped reverting. One editor had misunderstanding about the history of this article, just like you who believed that Nicomachian was writing for 3 months when he was simply edit warring without gaining consensus. Now the way you are presenting the only one side of this issue while ignoring the blatant WP:PROMO by an SPA. How it is "belligerent" when I am only adhering the consensus to remove the WP:BROCHURE? Lorstaking (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no such consensus; you seem to have completely made it up. As for Nicomachian "simply edit warring without gaining consensus" that's just simply not true at all, and I can only assume by this point that either there's an error in your browser that makes the article history not show up for you, or you're deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the truth. Nicomachian and several other editors incrementally built the article, over the course of three months and more than 100 edits, without any evidence at all of edit warring or even any single reverts that I can see. Then you came along, declared all of the edits spam, and rolled back three months worth of work, then edit warred to maintain your version citing a consensus that does not appear to exist at all. That's belligerent. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few thoughts: WP:INVOLVED reads "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." No evidence has been provided whatsoever showing that Ivanvector has acted in anything other than an administrative capacity in this situation or with respect to the involved users. To the best of my knowledge such evidence doesn't exist. Furthermore, neither version of the article is particularly good; they both contain reams of unsourced info. Ivanvector is quite justified in not reverting after protecting; if the promotionalism is so blatant, it is the users adding who should be sanctioned first (as they are all registered users). It is bothersome, but not surprising, to see a bunch of editors whose usual areas of interest are far removed from the University of Chicago line up on the same side of a dispute there. Finally, this edit-war is serious enough that Ivanvector would have been justified in protecting the page even if involved, per WP:IAR (and he isn't involved). Vanamonde (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED: "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". The above diff here by Lorstaking shows that Ivanvector requested sanctions against Lorstaking, however uninvolved admins didn't sanctioned him or found him qualified for that. That certainly does speaks of "bias". Rest of the incidents have been also mentioned here that does show that Ivanvector could be well watching over the reports made by Lorstaking, though there was no mischief in Lorstaking's part nor the intervention of Ivanvector was really helpful. This incident reminds me of Mike V and The Rambling Man. Mike V had acted in administrative capacity but was biased towards The Rambling Man. I would also conclude that anyone edit warring after warning on their talk page should be blocked right way as that is clear disregard to WP:DR. Page protection was not an ideal choice here. Razer(talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is a cherrypicked diff from a discussion on topic bans for widespread disruptive behaviour under the ARBIPA topic area, on which I was commenting as a neutral administrator. Razer2115 is also misrepresenting the result: eleven editors drew sanctions from that discussion, and GoldenRing's close noted "I am not going to take any action against Lorstaking at this time, though they should note that some have found their participation on noticeboards, and in particular as it relates to , to be disruptive and I advise them to go careful in the future." I don't see an assessment of my competence in that statement. For anyone who wants to review from a neutral perspective, my full statement is in the archive, and you'll note that I either endorsed or proposed sanctions for 12 editors throughout the course of the discussion, which does not demonstrate a bias regarding any one individual. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am talking only about Lorstaking, not "eleven editors". It is contrary to WP:INVOLVED to first attempt to seek sanctions and then start watching over the reports concerning the same editor/s to find out if they can be sanctioned or otherwise get the negative outcome for their reports. Razer(talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with your comment: I was talking about eleven editors. Twelve, actually. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Razer2115: an uninvolved administrator opining at AE that sanctions are warranted against an editor does not render them "involved" with that editor. If you had read the full quote, which is helpfully provided by Vanamode immediately above you, you would see that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor ... purely in an administrative role ... is not involved". Given that the interaction you cite obviously falls into that category, which you left out of your quote, you're either intentionally casting aspersions or simply not understanding WP:INVOLVED here. Would you care to explain how this mistake happened? Swarm ♠ 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically that wasn't "purely in an administrative role", because Ivanvector had commented above the section of uninvolved admins on WP:ARE and proposed the sanctions against a number of editors including me but uninvolved admins (commenting under the section of uninvolved admins) didn't sanctioned me and Lorstaking. This is why I had also mentioned the example of V and The Rambling Man, where Mike V had interacted purely in administrative role but was deemed to be biased by the community. Ivanvector recently had negative interactions with Lorstaking as original post mentions, right before he joined the reports that involved him. It does indicate that there are more chances that Lorstaking would see negative results if Ivanvector is going to take any action given the history itself. Razer(talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Evidence suggests otherwise. I noted in the ARE thread that I was commenting outside the "uninvolved administrators" section because I had interacted with so many of the editors being discussed through clerking at SPI. I have clerked 4 SPI reports filed or commented on by Lorstaking: , , , . Three of those resulted in the reported users being blocked, and in the fourth I endorsed CheckUser based on Lorstaking's report, though it turned up inconclusive. I'm failing to see how I'm biased against Lorstaking based on the "history", but please do go on. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Even though he made a statement in the "Discussion" section, as opposed to the "Result" section, he was obviously commenting as an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of sharing his observations and recommendations. You're grasping at straws. Swarm ♠ 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• The accusation of involvement at User talk:Abecedare appears to be a frivolous, unsubstantiated aspersion. This is concerning, because the context of the dispute at hand is Lorstaking repeatedly rolling back major changes to an article on the basis that the user they're reverting is obviously a spammer. Myself, Ivan, and at least one other administrator, EdJohnston, as well as users Robminchin and Simonm223, have looked at the situation and don't think it's at all clear that Lorstaking's basis for reverting is in fact true. The accused "spammer" has come across as perfectly willing to engage in discussion to improve their edits, yet Lorstaking seems unable or unwilling to AGF and even try to handle the issue responsibly. Had I actioned this, I probably would have blocked both sides for edit warring, so Ivan's "involved" protection comes across to me as pretty reasonable for a user with an alleged grudge. Swarm ♠ 17:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have been always willing to AGF as evidently I had accepted 10k bytes of the content even though the information was entirely unsourced but not really a violation of core policies. I haven't seen him until now that he is engaging in the discussion unless when he finds his preferred version to have been reverted. He has not addressed any problems yet either. Therefore there has been no violation of a policy by me. @Ivanvector and Swarm: I don't think we need any more opinions now, do you mutually agree with closing the thread? I am inclined to let this go and work to build the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, you only "accepted" their content after I suggested you do so. I appreciate you making an effort to work this out, I just wish it had come sooner. Swarm ♠ 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have a strange definition of assuming good faith, seeing how you assumed that all of Nicomachian's edits are spam, and that I was deliberately harassing you. At any rate, I'm satisfied that protecting the page was not a violation of WP:INVOLVED, which was really all I was asking about. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI

There is an apparent attempt to re-litigate the consensus achieved above on WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material now to be found at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The underlying question. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good grief let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately several editors in that discussion have decided to ignore the consensus here and blank it anyway. – Joe (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think Michael Hardy should be community banned, and I'm one of those "re-litigating". This notice is decidedly non-neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Certainly, running off crying to Daddy when Mommy says "No" is not the kind of behavior that we expect from an admin and "one of the most respected editors on Misplaced Pages". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally think Micheal Hardy should be site banned. Afootpluto (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog