Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292

Allen2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)

Allen2 was originally blocked on 3 November 2014 for competency issues (

I am presently taking no position on this request. I have restored Allen2's talk page for the sole purpose of allowing them to respond to questions on this application. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I remember this guy...it's already been 3 years, wow. This unblock request is not substantially different from the half dozen or so currently on their talk page dating back to 2015, all of which have been declined for the same reasons, most recently early this year. I'm no admin, but I don't think that any of the concerns with this user have really been dealt with. ansh666 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could someone please post any previous discussion which resulted in the OP being blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is still alot of CIR issues here and whilst I'm all for second chances I think come a few weeks or months time they'd shoot themselves in the foot and will end up reblocked again, Unrelated but I also have an issue with the quotation marks around every thing they post - It does read as they're being sarcastic and unfortunately if they do the quotation thing on talkpages they're probably going to piss off quite alot of people, Anyway as per the CIR issues the block should remain with TPA being revoked. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Partially struck as not really relevant here. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per Ansh666, can we see where the concerns leading to the block have genuinely been addressed? I don't really see that in the above statement. -- Begoon 00:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think all of the necessary reading materials are still on the user talk page. Initial discussion (
  shopping later) Most recent discussion (3). It might be worthwhile to look at the revision history too. I am leaning toward oppose unless if the user submits some kind of long-term editing plan. Alex Shih^Talk
  01:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. This editor has not changed in any substantial way that I can see (or, rather, that I can "see"). He says above that he will comply will all the rules and policies, but makes no mention of what it is he actually wants to do. He was more forthcoming in the third diff posted by Alex above, where he said "The good reason I want to be unblocked is: I "want" to modify my own pages (and contribute occasionally with a substantial edit to the encyclopedic article or page I want to edit)" There's no reason to unblock them so they can fiddle with their user pages and now and then make an article edit. We're here to build an encyclopedia, I have no idea what this person is here for. Keep them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I may change my mind (doubtful though) if they provide an actual editing plan they would follow if the user was unblocked. One of the most important questions someone needs to answer when they go for a SO is: what can you contribute to the encyclopedia? If you want to just fiddle around with a userpage, perhaps you can make a blog or a Facebook account. Wikipedia is for building content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was the most recent declining admin and the same thing applies - I just don't think the competence is there. Any good content he might occasionally contribute will be far outweighed by the time we spend cleaning up after him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Registering my opposition properly after looking through the history for some signs that there might be some "net positive" contributions which this block prevents, and failing to find any. -- Begoon 10:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. The thing about using quotation marks in that strange way was discussed back in February on Allen2's talk page. It seems clear to me that he was not being sarcastic and was doing it as an unusual method of emphasis. He stopped doing it at the point of that discussion and appears not to be doing it in the latest appeal presented above by Just Chilling - so I really don't think that should be considered an important issue now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Allen2 just does not have the proficiency in English to be a net positive here. Even their statements from earlier this year, after 3 years of being blocked, shows little improvement and smacks of less than adequate reading comprehension in English to the point that they're just not hearing what people are saying (not quite
  WP:IDHT, but close). Blackmane (talk
  ) 02:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--In absence of any mentoring and/or long-term-editing-plans, I remain unconvinced to allow the user to avail the standard offer.I had strolled through his t/p some months ago and despite the time-gap, I had no difficulties in remembering the one hell of a journey.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Professor Zadeh has died, confirmed by UC Berkeley

Harkening back to this, there's another report that Lotfi A. Zadeh has died, but, like the last time (which turned out not to be true), there's as yet no confirmation from a reliable source, just a user comment in a discussion group [4] and a report from Azerbaijan supposedly based on information from the same person [5], who is said to be a "friend of the family". (The Azerbaijan news outlet is one of the ones which reported him as being dead last time, so it can hardly be called "reliable" in any way that we'd accept.)

It could be true, Dr. Zadeh is, after all, 96, but these two sources (one source, really) are not sufficiently reliable to put a man's death in a Wikipedia article.

I've posted a suggestion on Primefac's talk page -- he's the admin who protected the article during the last incident -- but I don't think he's due online for a while. Could we have full protection of Lotfi A. Zadeh -- without the supposed date of death -- while we wait for confirmation from an impeccably acceptable source that the man is actually deceased?

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The latest person to post it cited Zadeh's Facebook page, but to me it looks as if that could have been posted by anyone - perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not strong on Facebook. In any case, it cites the Azerbaijan story linked above, and there are still no other sources reporting it (i.e. no hits on Google or Google News, and my Googe Alert hasn't alerted me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Hopefully that will (again) allow the issue to be cleared up. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I found a blogger on Medium (an alternative to Wordpress and Blogspot) who claims to be a feminist who wants the notability policy to be abolished. I think this is the work of a troll group. KMF (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is a troll because, well, it's pretty obvious. Using "it's racist" or "it's sexist" as an excuse and trying to get rid of a major Wikipedia content policy are both pretty suspicious. First they're trying to abolish notability; next thing you know, they'll be trying to abolish NPOV or NOR. KMF (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Full protection is currently active at

So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.

Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ownership

- oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".

More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a

WP:SPA

IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).

In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP [6]). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them [7] [8].

A similar situation arose earlier on a different article [9], where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.

Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?

I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.

I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek  13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek  14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The page should probably be tagged for

I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level.

@

Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk

) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone.

talk

) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Samsura should review the
  WP:Close
  policy:
  • The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 was closed -- the consensus was clearly against the proposal and it was closed by an archive bot. A formal close is not necessary: Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.
  • An editorial discussion such as this decidedly does not require an admin close Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.
• I'm not endorsing VM's approach to this, I'm just not addressing it because such a discussion would be unlikely to be productive.

So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on

• Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current
  WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent
  20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Really? What's wrong with "undocumented alien" or "undocumented immigrant"? What's POV about those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There might be some contexts where "illegal alien" is the appropriate term (like referring to a specific law which uses that term). But the whole point - and this IS the point, which the IP, Samsara and GoldenRing just

refuse to hear - is that for sure on this particular article "illegal alien" is NOT appropriate. The people in question, under DACA are NOT here "illegally". They entered "illegally" (more precisely they were brought in illegally by their parents). But they have - or did as of yesterday - permission to be in the country. Even work in the country. They are (were) in no sense "illegal". This is why the IPs edits were in fact disruptive. Volunteer Marek 

06:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, no one in the DACA program are "undocumented." They are by definition "documented" quite extensively as they register as illegal aliens seeking to defer deportation, attend school and work in the U.S. There is really no debate about their legal status. This is a different status and description from other immigrants that have not been adjudicated or registered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll just note here, without judgement, that an earlier version of the article used both terms, with one in parentheses. Samsara 19:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Update

I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Broadening locus

Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at

Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read

WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your judgment frankly. You have full protected an article which was being edited by registered users trying to prevent edit-warring by at best, 1 or 2 IP's from a small geographical area. You have made personal attacks against Marek and not substantiated them with anything resembling evidence - asking for an administrator who isn't enabling IP POV-warriors is perfectly reasonable when your actions are... enabling IP POV-warriors. You slapped ARBAPDS on an article which was not undergoing an edit war after Marek made a good removal of badly sourced info - in what clearly looks like a retaliatory slap for Marek daring to disagree with you. ARBAPDS has some of the most draconian editing restrictions, which you have now made a target for every IP POV-pusher who wants to edit war on it. The combination of 'consensus required' and '1rr' means functionally that random drive-by IP's can prevent improvements of the sort Marek made. Lastly you have brought attention to your inept handling of this by bringing it to one of the most watched boards. I don't know what your problem with Marek is, but you have come across here with showing no clue as to why you have managed to irritate numerous editors at the original article, and responded by attempting to shift the blame to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused about the complaints here. AFAICT, there has been no protection of the article, or any other administrative actions relating to the DREAM Act article other than placing it under DS. Samsara is surely correct that the article falls largely under ARBAPDS. So regardless of the merits of the edits, I don't see any reason to make a big deal over the reasonable placing of DS on the article. This will affect everyone who edits, both those adding the info and removing it, as it should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be placed under discretionary sanctions. That's not the issue here though. Volunteer Marek  14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You "received a complaint" from an anonymous IP POV warrior whose entire edit history consists of anti-immigrant POV-pushing. Interesting that they race to your talk page to report the serious offense of removing self-published anti-immigrant polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Wikipedia policies and being NOTHERE: [10]. At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: [11]. The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': [12]. Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.

So the opportunistic

WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek 

04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the behaviour I'm referring to. Please don't accuse me of being a

WP:BOOMERANG without any evidence of my wrongdoing. Cjhard (talk

) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• APDS applies to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, whether a notice has been applied to the talk page or not. As such, any uninvolved administrator can impose any sanction authorised under standard DS (so long as awareness requirements have been met). Articles in this topic space can't be individual "placed under DS." They are automatically under DS.
• That being the case, unless someone wants to present evidence that Samsara is involved per the terms of
  ARCA is thataway
  .
• An hour spent reading the history of this gives me some concerns about VM's editing. This series of edits removed entirely the section discussing criticism of the DREAM Act, on the grounds that it was unsourced sourced to SPS. This looks like POV-pushing; it seriously unbalances the article and it defies belief that RS could not be found discussing this. Mixed up in that series of edits is this which I just can't understand; the edit summary is "Can't say that in Wikipedia voice" but the edit actually removed a statement attributed to the Centre for Immigration Studies, sourced to a statement by the Centre for Immigration Studies. It looks like any excuse to remove content he doesn't like.
• The argument over protection at Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals essentially amounts to, "Semi-protect because almost all the people we disagree with would be barred from editing." If the non-autoconfirmed/IP editors were warring against consensus then fine; when the dispute is about a term that was discussed at NPOV/N without consensus, it just looks like gaming the rules to win an editorial dispute.
• VM's criticism of Samsara doesn't really stand up to much; if this is the best you can do to allege a PA, it's time to take some time out. VM describes this as "enabling the disruptive IP" - the only way I can construe it that way is if you necessarily regard use of the term "illegal alien"/"illegal immigrant" as disruptive.
• ADMINACCT is a thing, but it's not an excuse to sling as much mud at admins as you can to see what sticks. Descriptions above of Samsara "enabling IP vandalism" can again only be understood as such if any use of the term "illegal alien" is considered vandalism - and, again, in light of the NPOV/N discussion linked above, it can't be.
• Above, VM eventually just descends to personal attacks.
• In light of the above, I'm imposing a three-month topic ban for VM from all edits and articles related to immigration in the United States, under AP2 DS. Violations should be reported to
  WP:AE. GoldenRing (talk
  ) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm halfway through reading this--if this counts as a "personal attack" we might as well all pack it in. Same here--seriously? Tom Robbins said years ago that a story that starts with a beet ends with the devil. A thread that starts with an editor who only does shit like this, an edit whose repetitions confirm that they are not here to improve our beautiful project, is likely to end with unjust censure if not nipped in the bud. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No way are those personal attacks linked to two lines above. Imho, etc. —

velut luna

09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the 'criticism' section from DREAM act was with the edit summary 'actually this whole thing is SPS - find a secondary sources which covers this stuff' not 'unsourced' as you have claimed. Given you actually posted the edit summary, I assume you just didn't look at it, rather than being unable to read. Given that the criticism section was almost entirely sourced to an advocacy website whose purpose is to spread FUD about immigration, CIS here is *not* an independent reliable source by absolutely any standard, its an entirely reasonable content removal. Lastly the sanctions placed on the DREAM act were not merely a 'notification' that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, they include the 1rr and consensus required sanctions that is massive overkill for an article that was not undergoing any sort of edit-war and seems entirely designed to enable IP POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Corrected. It doesn't materially change the point. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

velut luna

11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not actually saying that the remarks are in themselves accurate, merely that they do not qualify as personal atttacks. I will say that Samsara has always been nothing but straight up with me. It's bloody painful sitting on this fence  :) —

velut luna

11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sanction placed by GoldenRing. There seems to be very little and seriously debatable evidence to base this sanction on. Criticism of an admin and their actions is hardly a reason to place AP2 sanctions (and as said above, forcefully stated criticism hardly rises to the personal attack level that warrants sanctions). The removal of the section is certainly defendable, and the one "problematic" edit in that series seems to me that we can hardly claim "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" when the 1986 amnesty article doesn't even indicate such massive fraud. Without a clear pattern of unambigiously problematic edits in the AP2 area, a topic ban is not warranted.

@

Fram: Could you please cite the exact line under which you believe you have authority to remove the sanction? I do not see any text in the policy section you cited when posting on VM's talk page, so I am wondering what you believe grants you that authority. --Izno (talk

) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of

Fram (talk

) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf.'s interpretation here, though one might reasonably in good faith misinterpret that the section about placing restrictions might have some content about removing them, given the not-great wording of that line. (Reference OID's link below.) Fram, you might consider reviewing

WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and withdrawing your attempt at removing the restriction. --Izno (talk

) 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the words of the relevant policies say, but if a discussion/consensus is required then I support Fram's removal of what I see as an unjustified sanction (for the reasons Fram gives). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately it's a colon not a comma. —

velut luna

12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks Only. I guess it's down to consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely support Fram's actions.
  WP:IAR applies.GR alone knows what led him to the topic, place a completely bogus sanction and stand out as the most incompetent editor in the entire thread.And, of course, the skins need to be thickened a bit.Winged Blades ^Godric
  12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the admins commenting, GoldenRing's analysis convinces me as having a fairly complete understanding of the situation. His having spent an hour looking into the case strikes me as likely true. Samsara 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it is rather strange that his "fairly complet understanding" has led to a fairly wrong result. I have not commented on how long he has spent studying the situation, nor do I see its relevance (it clearly wasn't a 30-second look into it, beyond that a commpetition of who looked at this the longest seems not very fruitful). Anyway, I'll rephrase; "seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple uninvolved editors now...". Better?

Fram (talk

) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: - I'm sorry but questioning an administrator's competence - and I am NOT the only person to have done this (User:Chris Howard raised a similar point and User:Only in death was the first one to do so) is NOT a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than Samsara basely accusing me of article "ownership" simply because I reverted an IP. It is no more of a personal attack, less even, then an admin (Samsara) being rude and obnoxious to another editor (not me, another one) simply because they questioned their judgement [13] regarding full protection. Yes, Samsara is within their rights to impose full protection on a page. They are NOT within their rights to demand that someone be blocked simply because they question that decision. Volunteer Marek  13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The desire for ownership imo is evident in your characterising your opposition as a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses, which is the diff I provided (repeated here for convenience). And I have no problem with you criticising me. I do have a problem with you attacking newcomers in a scathing manner that can in no way be justified by having a different opinion, and have told you so before. So you do know what my objection is, you just apparently do not like it and will not take a helpful suggestion on board. Samsara 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not "ownership" not even close. When you have a

WP:SPA IP editor who only repeatedly makes the same revert over and over and over and over again, and provokes pointless edit wars, that's exactly what they are (I assume you're not actually objecting to me characterising IP addresses as "IP addresses", since that would be, you know, silly on your part). This happens all the time. Editors using IP addresses or newly created accounts start edit wars on controversial articles. They revert as much as they want, because if they get blocked, it's no skin off their back. Just get another account. But established, long time users can't do that. So basically named and respected users are sort of screwed when dealing with these kinds of "IP addresses". The only thing we can do pretty much is ask for semi-protection (of course this whole stupid problem wouldn't even exist if we had flagged revisions/pending changes but that's a rant for another time and place). Which we did. But you decided to fully protect the IPs edits, and then came running here when that action was challenged by several editors. Thus, yes, you were enabling these IP editors. Volunteer Marek 

14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, where are we with this? In the meantime I have blocked the IP whose ridiculous POV-pushing edits, complete with edit warring and making bad-faith reports, started all this. I agree that the sanction was hasty, that the criticism by Marek at the admin's address were not personal insults, that this is overblown and should be corrected. I appreciate Fram's intervention: we need to get this right. Seriously, you don't need to have heard half the shit I've been told by established editors in order to see that a. Marek's comments were serious charges but not personal attacks; b. this started with a BS report acted on improperly and too quickly; c. we need to do much, much better in staving off disruption from many, many sides--including POV warring IPs, sock accounts, and others. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  What he said. This is one of the worst cases of over-reaction I've seen for a while (this board is supposed to be for defusing conflict, not escalating it, people), and possibly the worst admin misjudgment I've seen recently - admins should be employing mops, sympathetic ears and soothing words - not boots and clubs. I see a strongly-emerging consensus among uninvolved parties that the sanction was wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support overturning VM's sanction. NE Ent
• @Drmies: I've just read through a longish stretch of that IP's contributions and I'm wondering for which of them you have blocked? Their TP contributions look civil and well-reasoned. Their reversion of vandalism is rarish but well-founded. They exceeded 3RR once but it was over a month ago and well stale for action now. They have edit-warred without breaking 3RR several times, always over the "undocumented" vs "illegal" question. But if that is the grounds for the sanction, then it begs the question: why is not a similar sanction on those with whom he edit-warred appropriate? As far as I can tell, VM is doing so claiming consensus against "illegal" when it's been repeatedly pointed out to him that no such consensus exists, while the IP is correctly describing consensus (or lack of it). The only other difference is that the IP is an IP; last I checked, that wasn't a blockable offence. GoldenRing (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• GoldenRing, this IP has been at this since November of last year; besides this article improvement and this one, that's all they have been doing here. There is no single opponent of theirs in that edit history with that history of reverting, so that's easy. Such a focus is an obsession, and if you look at their talk page posts (5 until recently, against dozens of article reverts), it's obvious that they're not arguing anything about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. Here is another example of forumposting on a talk page, with that lame argument that popped up in their edit summaries: it's "like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt." No, the shoplifter stole something--but either way, they should be talking about sources. Then there's the "PC trolls" warning in the edit summaries, and finally that nice piece of red meat they threw out here, which got VM topic-banned, which I hope you will reconsider. No, this is the kind of troll that should have been blocked long before we got here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks. The substance of this dispute is that some editors object to the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant." VM labels everyone who uses it a vandaldisruptive (eg in this discussion among many other places), despite the fact that a recent discussion at NPOV/N on whether the term is usable on wikipedia reached no consensus; there was a majority in favour of its use, with support split fairly evenly between those who thought it should be the default term for those unlawfully in a country and those who think it is appropriate sometimes. So when you read "disruptive IP vandal" in this (and related) discussions, you need to bear in mind that it is code for "non-autoconfirmed or IP editor who dared to use 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant', apparently in line with consensus, and who objected to VM reverting them."

Mix this in with the attempts to game protection levels to win a dispute and outright falsehoods in edit summaries (both evidenced in my statement above) I think this topic would benefit from VM's absence for three months. If VM wants to appeal this, he can do so at AE, AN or ARCA.

I'm a bit surprised by the focus in comments above on VM's statements about Samsara's adminship; in the same diff, he also questioned his competence as an editor. In the second PA diff, he called another editor an "opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior with a grudge" with nothing whatsoever to support it, because that editor dared to comment on this thread. VM complaining about weak claims of PAs rings pretty hollow when he himself accused Samsara of a PA because he asked someone, "Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?" If that's his standard of personal attack, it's a line he himself has stepped a long way over. GoldenRing (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor in question has now been blocked for repeated disruptive editing — precisely what VolunteerMarek said it was doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I consider it likely that the IP reciprocally had the same opinion of VM, given that they edit-warred directly with each other at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Samsara 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What 'outright falsehood in edit summaries'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are growing problems with POV-pushing IP editors on a number of politically-related articles, as more and more people discover that in the name of

assuming good faith, we put up with far more disruption from anonymous IPs than we ever would from registered users, which is precisely backward. It is not "gaming protection levels" to argue that more and more of these articles should be under long-term semi-protection or pending changes. It is common sense that will only become more common. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! This is getting ridiculous.

" VM labels everyone who uses it a vandal" - completely and utterly false. Show some diffs or strike the accusation GoldenRing. Here, here is the talk page. Do a ctrl-F search for "vandal". It occurs ONCE. And that is not by me. It is a statement - "We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals" - by User:Muboshgu. So that's YET ANOTHER user who thinks that full protection of that article is ridiculous and that Samsara dropped the ball big time. Regardless, I am not calling ANYONE "vandal". Here is the article history with my edit summaries. Do a ctril-F search for "vandal". You'll find some. BY OTHER EDITORS - not me - REVERTING IPs and red-linked accounts. So stop making shit up GoldenRing. Or maybe you want to go and block User:El C, User:Serols, User:Dan Koehl, User:Muboshgu or even the good ol' ClueBot, since they actually DID call IPs "vandals". I didn't. Stop making shit up to excuse your own mess. Take some personal responsibility, admit you screwed this up and rescind the sanctions as numerous users and admins have advised you.

Oh, and guess what? The only person who used the term "IP vandal" in this discussion is... YOU.

But let me keep going.

Your characterization of the discussion at NPOV/N is also false, as I've pointed out repeatedly on talk to the IP. That discussion was regarding whether the term "illegal alien" should be BANNED from Wikipedia. And yeah, it shouldn't. But that "not banned" is not the same as "should always be used". That in fact is what the dispute is about - which terms is appropriate for THAT ONE article. It's a legitimate content dispute. Whatever "code" you're seeing is in your own head. But I shouldn't be sanctioned for the stuff that goes on your head.

Re: last paragraph. YOU. JUST. SAID that "The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks". And in fact there were no personal attacks. Yes, I questioned Samsara's competency. So did NUMEROUS other users. Because they acted incompetently. Seriously, does anyone think that fully protecting that article ESPECIALLY NOW was a good idea? All over some edit warring by an IP against multiple users? What the hell? Where are you getting this stuff from?

"Outright falsehoods in edit summaries" - put up or shut up. Show me the diffs. As an admin you should know better than to make

WP:ASPERSIONS

without providing evidence. Which edit summary had an "outright falsehood" in it? Remember, "outright" means that it's not a matter of interpretation, it's not a mistake, it's me supposedly and purposefully lying. So... show me the diffs buddy or strike the attack.

And "gaming protection levels"??? Buddy, at least four other users SAID THE SAME DAMN THING as I did. Are we all "gaming protection levels"? Are you going to ban them from the topic? What the hell are you doing?

 Volunteer Marek  21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise. I've struck 'vandal' since the term you used was indeed 'disruptive'. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.

The falsehood in an edit summary was evidenced above but I'll give it again; in this edit you claimed you were removing content because "can't say that in wikipedia voice" when in fact you were removing a statement clearly in the voice of another organisation.

AFAICT, your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

" your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute." - Arrghghg! FOUR other users said the exact same damn thing! Since then additional users have chimed in to point out that fully protecting the article was dumb! Stop making excuses for your own mistake.

And this: [14]? AS ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OTHERS yes it sure as hell says "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" in Wikipedia voice. Even if not, that is not an edit you sanction somebody for ffs. And that is categorically NOT a "falsehood". You can disagree whether or not that text should be in there, that's fine. But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that. And the more you do it, the worse and worse you make yourself look.

Stop making excuses for your own mistake. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Are we looking at the same diff? The diff I'm looking at removes part of a sentence that runs, "The nativist-leaning Center for Immigration Studies has raised concerns that..., that..., that it would result in massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty, that... and that..." How is that not a statement in the voice of the Center for Immigration Studies? If it's an honest mistake, fine, say so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass. I just happen to think that AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE it's not appropriate (which is perfectly valid position given discussion at NPOV/N). I'd appreciate it if people stopped telling me what I do or do not believe. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TL; DR, but I was pinged. I am not fully aware of the editing history of DACA. I just looked into the history right before the article was protected and saw IP edits being reverted, and may have assumed too much about the cause of the full protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's only a question whether it's appropriate at that one particular article, then why were you edit-warring over it on multiple articles? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption, then what makes you think you have a right to an opinion on it while the IP does not? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption but rather a question of editorial judgement of what's appropriate for the article, why is protection in response to edit-warring "enabling IP disruption" and not an entirely appropriate response? GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And just because I'm feeling defensive (being falsely called a liar tends to do that), if you want to bring up the DREAM Act article as an example where I removed "illegal" (one revert, not "edit warring") then I just got to point out that... the two articles are freakin' closely related! Jeezus pandas. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Re the sanction placed on VM - I have to join others who find it unjustified. I do think VM should tone it down a little sometimes on talk pages (although given the rampant disruption on many pages dealing with controversial topics, I understand his frustration). But the rapid hammer on him was not good, not good at all. I think it's especially weird that criticism of an admin (deemed as unjustified) was explicitly cited as justification for a topic ban (!). If that was sanctionable, there would be dozens and dozens of editors who would be sanctioned. Frankly, the best thing to do now would be for GR to withdraw the sanction, and for VM to agree to dial it back a little bit in terms of heated disputes. Then everyone can move on with grace. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with Neutrality but was pretty much about to say a similar thing; I think the bright line for topic bans in such areas needs to be (and generally is) set higher than the behaviour observed here. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Neutrality. Well said. And then I hope this topic could be closed and the admin(s) could address the issue of whether to now lower the protection level to semi (or extended confirmed) which has been raised on

This is an inappropriate topic ban. GoldenRing, if you're going to insist it's taken to AE to get lifted, so be it, but with this amount of opposition here, including so many admins, you are making yourself look bad by not simply undoing it right now and saving the red tape. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen: Recently Hidden Tempo was given an indefinite block under Discretionary Sanctions for a 3RR violation. You endorsed that block but offered to convert it into an indefinite AP2 topic ban. It is difficult to see how an indefinite and broad topic ban is appropriate in one case but a narrow and finite topic ban is out of bounds in the other. Both editors were accused of tendentious editing and battleground behavior and disruption in both cases is confined to politics. Is the 3RR violation the difference? Neutrality (also objecting here) found the indefinite block "within discretion." This seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior", and the immediate occasion for the block was this ANI discussion. I understand you're making a comparison (a misleading one IMO), but I don't think this thread is the best place for going into detail about Hidden Tempo's block. (There's already a lot of discussion on HT's talkpage.) I'll just answer your question the way you put it: no, the 3RR violation isn't the difference. Bishonen | talk

10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

(and I would still like an explanation for this edit. Especially given the big hullaboo that Samsara is making about me reverting an IP. If it was a mistake, then that's fine, but then one should think about stones and glass houses.)  Volunteer Marek  14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I can diffuse that for you. Look at the time stamp of the next edit and ask yourself how likely it is that I could have made the correction myself before the other party got to it. If you want to make the case that the banners were helpful, I'm interested to hear how many will agree with you. Samsara 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

They would have been helpful if you had just changed "article" to "section". But whatever. So if I understand it correctly you restored misspellings into the article because you wanted to make other changes and didn't look at it closely. Fair enough. Volunteer Marek  14:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Review (by uninvolved editors) of the topic ban of Volunteer Marek

There appears to be

• Manny Pacquiao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is already a discussion regarding this editor, but as this was a different article I made a new report. Feel free to add this to the current report if that's better.

This editor is subject to a 1RR/72 hours on anything related to BLP. [15]

They have already been reported [16] however, it was a little stale.

However, this editor seems to have broken the 1RR/72 hours again. (hardly surprising, as they said they would break it - [17] )

Here are the two reverts within 1 hour 13 mins.

[18] [19] (this was a cheeky revert - (-7,388)‎ but marked as a minor edit?)

There is a discussion regarding this content on both the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard, this editor has not attempted to join either discussion, despite having that course of action recommended when the 1RR/72 sanction was imposed on them.

This most certainly isn't a case of removing vandalism, it's a mere content dispute - content that is correctly, reliably and verifiably sourced.

Sorry, but I can't think of a more blatant example of being here just for drama, than someone who got an editing restriction two weeks ago, stated that they would break that restriction and then broke it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Does

velut luna

14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."

The given source, kdramastars.com, is not good enough. In fact the entire section is cobbled together from primary sources of varying quality. One is a copyright-violating youtube clip. It needs to stay out until a consensus has been reached on whether to include it, and if so, how it should be worded. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard." [20]

Sorry, but not liking ONE SOURCE, out of many that include The Times, The Guardian, NBC etc is not a good enough reason to break your editing sanction.

Let me quote this one section from the sanction "except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources" which this most certainly was not.

you should have gone to either the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard and discussed this. But hey, at least you're honest, you said "I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby." and now you're doing exactly that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As this is the editor's second violation of the editing restrictions (first violation resulted in a warning rather than a block), I've blocked for one week and warned them that future violations will result in more severe sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hillbillyholiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is placed under the following editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard.
• Noticed placed 14:05, August 29, 2017‎
• First revert 04:40, August 30, 2017
• Second revert 07:48, August 30, 2017 violating restriction
• User did take the issue to the BLPN

Please enforce as a final warning. It's a little late for a block and might be too extreme, especially since they took it to the BLPN, but I did want to get it on record in case this happens again. — 

• Well, if this hillbilly claimed the BLP, Black Kite might have something to say, considering this edit. Black Kite, I'm a bit disappointed with that removal--don't you think the world would be a better place if we all kissed a bit more? Esp. if we kissed billionaires? 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

"Claiming" BLP has nothing to do with this. The user violated his restriction on reverting BLP articles. — 

talk

) 05:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be, but that edit was mainly to stop the BLP focusing on the subject's criminal past; the removal of the tabloid gossip stuff was a by-product. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at the BLPN thread I agree a 4IM-style warning should be placed on HBH's talk page leaving no room for doubt that claiming BLP without citing a specific complaint does not give them the right to violate their editing restriction. If they are going to try and push for getting an exception to their editing restriction they need to be on 100% solid policy ground and need to be able to cite the exact policy, section, and commentaries to make their case. It be better for them to appeal the case to something like the Talk page or BLPN before breaking the editing restriction as now we're considering the editing restriction (the conduct) over the content (potentially BLP violation). Hasteur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A block now for an edit that was a week ago and hasn't been repeated is simply pointless, but they really need to not do it again. If they have a serious BLP concern that isn't vandalism, after 1 revert it must go to BLPN or be pointed out to another editor. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(

talk

) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Khilus Kryik: as the person who drafted the editing restriction and the one pushing for sanctions now, I have a question: Why didn't you jump up and down on the violation quicker? Demanding anything more than the 4IM is Punitive over Preventative. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)