Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300

An unregistered user's close of a discussion has been contested. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Non-registered user closing RfC about whether unregistered users' closes of RfCs is permissible. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

According to

WP:NACIP, IPs may not close a formal discussion, so I have undone the close. An univolved registered user can restore the IPs close if they agree with it, indicating that they are doing so with a signed note, and by doing so taking responsibility for the close. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 02:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Then, would an admin please check the close ([last amended], after discussion) and rule if it was improper? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean check it to see if the reasoning of the close was appropriate or not, because policy clearly says that the close was not "proper", being forbidden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clearer, the close wasn't "improper", it was a straight-forward violation of black-letter policy, which is why I simply reverted it instead of using the normal processes for challenging an improper close. In fact, had the same close been made by a registered user, I wouldn't have touched it, as I have no opinion on the subject, not having examined the dispute and the arguments involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Two things: 1. I wasn't aware of that "rule", 2.

WP:IAR. 198.84.253.202 (talk

) 13:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

IAR is only good as long as people agree with it. I can't call you rude names and cite IAR to get around a block. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do any of those. Logically, the edit should be judged on it's merits alone, not on some so-called "rule", because, since

WP isn't a bureaucracy, the rules are only principles. 198.84.253.202 (talk

) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Shashi4747
• User:Education4444
• User:Jaiho55
• User:Jaiho5555
• User:Mihir4747
• User:Jss4444
• User:Rahulsingh54545454
• User:Jss2552
• User:Jaiho5588

There's this guy running some sort of university admission hustle in India (apparently this) whose sole interest in WP for the last 18 months has been spamming their cell phone numbers in university articles (rapidly changing numbers, more's the pity). At first it was all IPs and MelanieN in particular did a sterling job of semi-protecting as needed [2], but as of a month ago they have graduated to supplementing with throw-away accounts - current batch listed above.

MelanieN did a range block check a year ago and decided it wasn't feasible at that time. I'm wondering if maybe these recent accounts may allow a second go at it? Could someone run a check? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are using several of the largest and busiest networks on the planet, so whatever MelanieN said last year probably still stands. If you can collect a list of numbers, this looks like a job for Special:AbuseFilter/793. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I'll scrape some numbers together and see whether there's any repeats at all. Had the impression that they used a new one almost every time, but needs checking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The nuclear option is a few months of extended confirmed protection on the articles he's targeting, but there's a lot of universities in India, so a lot of articles. Fish+Karate 13:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, what do you know - the majority of these actually used the same phone number. Count across the names listed above is 9871364815 six times, 9910418001 once, 9135340070 once, 7079252525 once. Any chance of incorporating at least the first one into the filter? Then see if they start concentrating on another number... how many occurrences are needed to make it one good filter candidate? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added the first number to the filter (with no objection if someone else wants to add the others). My personal threshold in a case like this would probably be more than one example. Further additions can be made at

WP:EFR, or drop me a ping. Spammers like this do tend to change numbers a bit, but we can usually frustrate them enough for them to get the message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the filter is working. I've now had the justification to add four more numbers including those above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Elmidae, long time no see! So they're back, are they? Admission Bazaar was the same outfit I identified last year; it now has a new website. The name and the website don't help because that's not what they spam. Last year the key to identifying them, the one constant in the spamming, was the phone number. Here’s an interesting observation: all of the spamming I whacked last year occurred from May through July; did it then stop? Maybe it has to do with the academic year. That would suggest that at their first appearance at any article we should protect it for two months. I'll take this on again if you like; I've got my whack-a-mole paddle handy. BTW it isn't just Wikipedia they hit; if you take one of the phone numbers and Google it, you'll find it tucked into many websites. Luckily Wikipedia is the only one we have to worry about. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Extended confirmed wouldn't be necessary; semi-protection would probably be enough. Looks like they don't bother (or don't know how) establishing these new accounts as autoconfirmed, they just create them and start spamming.--MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Cheers - I'll be happy to start shopping those to you again :) If the filter can be implemented, it would certainly take the edge off though. - I think there has been a smattering throughout the year, but definitely a heavy uptick around May, as you say. That's a hopeful metric, at any rate... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier today i closed

• I think your views in general are on the far fringe of the inclusionist spectrum, and I think it’s probably a bad idea to close an MfD on an essay where you generally share the views held (basically advocating for gaming policy), but I wouldn’t call it involved, and I doubt the outcome would have changed. I don’t think it should be reopened, though. I just think it’d be roughly equivalent to me closing an MfD on an essay advocating for stronger action against commericial editing. When an admin has views that are known on a topic, it’s usually better to !vote than close.TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

DES has been busy undermining the recent RFC result on

WP:ADMINACCT Legacypac (talk

) 23:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not aware that DES has every expressed an opinion along the lines of the central thrust of the essay, which is that draftspace is one big net failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • His view here is certainly in line with the essay: encouraging new editors not to use AFC for fear of deletion. Like this essay, he’s basically encouraging gaming of the tightening up of draft space that we’ve seen recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tony linked the post I was looking for - read both parts of the post. I'm not sure Admins are supposed to be advocating ways for new users to skirt community decided procedures and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AfC has always been optional, nor has any recent RfC changed that that I know of. I don't see that accurately and honestly informing new users of the potential consequences of placing the AfC template on a draft, or of clicking submit, is in any way against policy, nor that if an inexperienced editor, seeing one of my comments, chooses not to use AfC that such action constitutes "gaming the system" in any way. Now if we made AfC required for users below some edit threshold that would be different, but I doubt that would gain consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m a huge fan of AFC being optional, but I think there’s a difference between pointing out that AFC is optional and saying you are going to actively encourage people not to use it because you disagree with a recent policy change. The later is a system gaming mentality in my view. Anyway, while I think it was dumb for you to close it, I still don’t think it was technically involved, and I think other admins may have done the same thing. The only argument I see for reopening is that now that it has more attention because of this thread, others with legitimate viewpoints in favour of deletion may want to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, editors are allowed, even encouraged, to argue openly and in good faith for changes in policy, or that particular policies are ill-advised. Legacypac surely argued many times, including at MfD discussions, that the previous version of
  WP:NMFD was poor policy, or "stupid". Was that "undermining [an] RfC result" If not, why are my comments any different? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}
  23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• As to being an "extreme inclusionist", do please note that my views on drafts are quite different from my views on articles. I do think that the
  speedy deletion criteria should be read strictly, and that if one does not clearly apply, it should not be used. But deletions by AfD are judgement calls, and so i have said on various occasions. Oddly, way back when i went through RFA, most of those who opposed did so on the ground that I was too deletionist to eb trusted with the delete button, and specifically too quick with speedy deletion. I do think that ther are few valid grounds for deleting drafts beyond celar speedy cases, and ZI can defend that view at length. But this isn't that discussion, nor is the essay that was up for MfD on that topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}
  23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}

15:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I started drafting an essay about this exact sort of behavior just the other day, just took it live at

talk

) 20:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the latest draft for speedy deletion as the links clearly demonstrate that the article is an advertisement for a self-published comic and Draft:All Star Extreme(anime) as a blatant hoax. —Farix (t | c) 01:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli

Bbb23 closed an SPI that documents evasion of siteban, topic ban, one account restriction, by stating "We are not going to evaluate alleged topic bans that occured 1-4 years ago."[8] I disagree with this rational and don't see any mention of such a regulation anywhere on

Seeking input from other users for clarification. My Lord (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your SPI was reporting three IPs who have not edited since 2017. NadirAli is currently editing, and while they have lots of blocks in the past, they have not been blocked or reported for socking in 2018. The data in your report didn't seem to show any risk of ongoing misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, CheckUsers can't draw account --> IP connections publicly; see the m:Access to nonpublic information policy on Meta. If he hadn't closed it with a stale rationale, he would have closed it with a "no comment" rationale. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

OK, we have received a request from this user at UTRS to consider unblocking them.

They were blocked by Huon in December for sockpuppetry. The other account involved is User:Minecrafter789 and that account was blocked for creating joke pages.

They've admitted in their unblock request on UTRS that they were an idiot for doing this and they've said if unblocked they will edit List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware to make it more accurate and re-do the layout.

Ponyo has checked and from the limited information UTRS has, Ponyo cannot see any signs of recent sockpuppetry.

The user is asking for another chance under the

Their unblock request is rather extensive; it should probably be posted here or on their talk page in order to allow others to fully assess whether they meet the standard offer. (Just a thought).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The unblock request in full:

Before I begin, I am using the Standard offer as I was offered it when blocked back in December 2017. I was blocked for using other accounts in an inappropriate way (Wikipedia calls this sock puppetry). I will admit, that I was a complete idiot because Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites known and its not like a joke would've gone unnoticed. I admittedly was using another account to mess around and be funny, and I didn't think it would be so bad, but the more I've learned and have been blocked from editing lists I was interested in making better, It hurt me and made me feel bad and angry at myself, all for a stupid joke. If I do get unblocked, I will not let myself make this dumb mistake again, because it really wasn't worth it to be blocked for six months, doing what I love

If I get unblocked, I would make a huge improvement to "List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware" to make it a lot more accurate and maybe redo the layout to make it look more attractive. I also would look at more "List of tallest buildings in ..." lists to correct information, add building pictures that are not copyright, and more. And who knows, maybe I'll create my own lists on tallest buildings or something else.--5 albert square (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not yet - the user says "I would make a huge improvement to "List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware"" - OK, please post some well sourced additions that you would make if unblocked. Also, they say "I also would look at more "List of tallest buildings in ..." lists to correct information, add building pictures that are not copyright, and more." Which information is incorrect? Do you have the pictures that you would like to add on a website somewhere? What I am looking for is evidence that the user would be a net benefit to the Project if unblocked. Just Chilling (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Just Chilling This is the response they gave when I asked them what you said above:

• • "Hi. So the edits that I would make to List of Tallest Buildings in Wilmington, Delaware are that some heights of the buildings are wrong and as I have researched more, I have found accurate heights for these buildings, mainly on skyscraperpage.com/diagrams, enporis.com, and skyscraper center.com. I also may reorganize the list to make it look more clean and easier to read and I would add more facts to each building. Same would go for other Tallest Buildings lists. I would check to make sure the heights are correct with my other sources, I would add images that are not copyright to make the list look prettier and add facts and bigger descriptions to lists that have little to no information."--5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the standard offer seems sincere and I don't see why they have to state explicitly how they're going to edit. They already said they are going to take a look and edit if appropriate. There's always the block button if they do socking again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The editor appears to "get it" now, so I think it's worth taking the minimal risk of unblocking. Needless to say, the first sign of socking or screwing around should result in the door being slammed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The user seems penitent and explained clearly what they did wrong. They should be given another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the above and
  WP:ROPE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}
  07:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support It sounds—hypothetically atm maybe—that we have a potential
  FL on our hands here  :) also, certainly, per WP:ROPE. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}
  15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above and ROPE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I am going to give the benefit of the doubt in the light of the user's response to my question. However, if there is any future disruption then I would be prepared to immediately reblock. Just Chilling (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support mainly per Lugnuts--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Copied on

• I'm posting on my talkpage to request a Standard Offer. I was blocked from Wikipedia on November 2017, and have not edited English Wikipedia ever since. I emailed User:Berean Hunter a few days ago asking to move this discussion to a noticeboard for the community to weigh in on a decision. When I was initially blocked, I contributed briefly to Commons and tried to get into photography, but I quickly noticed that it wasn't my passion so I stopped altogether.

Over the past few months, I reflected a lot about the importance of building consensus (especially for topics I'm not familiar with) and keeping my cool when discussions don't go my way. In addition, I will keep all Wikipedia edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account.

Most of my work on Wikipedia was related to Mexico; since 2011, I completed 12 GAs, 38 GARs, and 58 DYKs (no FAs, as my English is nowhere near perfect, but I was thinking of working with other editors to get one in the near future). I want to continue helping build this encyclopedia, and will gladly accept any measures deemed appropriate by the community in my possible reinstatement. diff

There is no apparent socking activity currently seen. Please indicate your support or opposition to unblocking MX per the

• Support. Not a fan of saying "time served", but I think it's fitting for this case. The contributions from the Austin-geo account certainly has the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing, so I wish MX could have elaborated more about that incident in their request, but I'd like to assume good faith on MX's previous explanation ([10]) even though I think it's rather inadequate. Alex Shih (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the incident.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• No support without the blocking admins agreement. User:Berean Hunter - he blocked him without any community support so he should unblock him also without discussion if he thinks it's ok - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: I might be thinking along the same lines as G. here; but what say ye, as B.A.? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the discussion at the time of the block. Socking for COI purposes by an established editor who should have known better is in my mind something that leads to a block that doesn’t get lifted. Your actions actively undermined the credibility of the encyclopedia. That’s worse than most LTAs in my view. No amount of good content changes that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support six months for one incident is enough, no other problems at all Atlantic306 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock. User evaded
  building the encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk
  ) 16:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:ROPE is generally a myth. It is REALLY HARD to reblock after a SO unblock. In most cases it makes the situation worse. No, a user who actively tries to harm the encyclopedia has no place here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Uhm. There comes a time when every watchful Wikipedian knows the system is at best a sieve (no need to go further into that) thus re-blocks are often cheaper because, known-quantity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - but mostly thinking out loud at the moment, subject to change and I don't claim to have thoroughly thought this through. Support with an absolute topic ban on Austin TX, and a topic ban on residential developments broadly construed., and a one-way interaction ban with Smallbones. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC) modified per comment below. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember this very well and have been somewhat surprised by looking through his record of contributions. What I do remember is that I felt thoroughly insulted by what looked like a very straightforward case of paid editing, with a complete lack of recognition that he had done anything wrong. I felt that he was insulting my intelligence by just saying "that's my story and I'm sticking to it." 1st I'd like to ask him to make a complete statement of his paid editing (if any), including his employers and clients and all other relevant parties. 2nd I think he needs to stay away from any commercial type article. His other work, just judging from article titles looks very interesting. I don't think a one-way interaction ban would be useful. If I see him do anything that looks like upe I'd like to tell him about it very directly, and I'd like him to be able to respond very directly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Smallbones, I'm also asking for a specific statement from MX about their paid editing before I !vote on their request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Covert advertising and sockpuppetry are both fundamentally dishonest behaviors that, when combined, are incompatible with building the encyclopedia and being a Wikipedian. MER-C 12:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that they're topicbanned from Austin TX and residential areas - They screwed up sure but doesn't everyone?, Give 'em a second chance and if they fack that up then indef. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Question - I didn't follow the original, but have seen MX around over the years so this thread caught my eye. Looking at his talk page threads around the time of the block, am I missing where it was determined paid editing was involved? Or that it was not a legit sock? (He said it was for privacy reasons, which means linking would defeat the point, so if he wasn't votestacking or otherwise using them in an inappropriate way, that would be legit in my book... if it was used for undisclosed paid editing then that, of course, is just as problematic as if he did it with his main account). I see that there were a lot of issues while editing those pages under that account, and that they were the only edits by his alternate account made a bad situation worse, but with such a long history of positive contributions I'm not seeing anything that would justify blocking forever. As such, unless I'm radically misunderstanding the situation, Support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: There's erosion of trust here which is almost impossible to be regained and I basically agree with TonyBallioni and MER-C. However, I believe, giving them a second chance with one account and other restrictions deemed necessary may be better than de facto banning them owing to their positive contributions before they engaged in this sort of thing and the fact that they followed the SO procedure with no trace of infraction. To paraphrase Davey, give them the last chance; when they screwed up again, give them the last block. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I've been undecided here for a couple of days, but I've come down on the support side. On the one hand, I seriously dislike the abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. But MX, while admitting to COI violations and socking, maintains that it wasn't paid, and I can't really see any convincing evidence to make that claim implausible. I'm also seeing a long career of apparently valuable contributions, which suggests there's potentially a lot more of the same to come, and I really think that long-standing record of work here here should lend significance to this appeal. I would also almost never subscribe to a "banned/blocked for ever with no chance of reprieve" approach. In this case, I think offering a second chance is reasonable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(Copied from MX's talk page to reply to concerns here)

• In response to this discussion, I want to clarify again that I was never involved in paid editing. I wrote about Austin-related articles on my own interest. Any efforts that were promotional in nature were a result of my close connection with the topic (the neighborhood I live in). I understand I should have disclosed this publicly, or refrained from editing about the neighborhood altogether per
  WP:COI
  , so I take full responsibility for this. The reason why I created a separate account was to protect my real-life identity from being narrowed down to a neighborhood. Most of my new content on Wikipedia is about organized crime, so I figured it was better to be extra-extra careful on this. I emailed CheckUser Alison to let her know it was me using Austin-geo, though looking back I should have been clearer to her and myself about my COI.
• Please do not take this response as an "extraordinary" reason to object a return. I made several mistakes before my block and want to come clean on every one of them. But paid editing was never something I was involved in. If this helps, I do have an email chain with the neighborhood association where I emailed them inquiring about the neighborhood boundaries. I introduced myself as a volunteer editor. I can provide this offline if need be. Thank you.
  MX diff

• Editors are encouraged to ask questions on MX's talk page. Govindaharihari and Serial Number 54129, I was hoping to use the community response as a gauge and didn't want to influence the outcome. Many of the issues on both sides of the scales have been brought up here. Please don't take my neutrality as a withholding of support.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock I see no evidence of paid editing, and the alternate account was apparently created without bad intent. The COI/promotional editing was wrong, of course, but It seems unlikely to be repeated, and blocks are suppossed nto be preventive, njot punitive. Those above suggesting that this indef block be treated as duration forever are, it seems to me, advocating a punitive block. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and a comment re the comment on the talk page that the COI is that he lives in the neighborhood. Does that really make a COI?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: extrapolating from what I think is your point, in my opinion it'd be absurd to declare editing on local topics, without clear evidence of promotion or puffery, to be COI editing. So many strong editors here edit on topics close to them in various ways: city or neighborhood landmarks, geographical features, topics within their academic discipline, etc. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Though to be fair, I found the case that got MX blocked, and in that context the block does appear justified (at that time). -Darouet (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, no further restriction at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not quite sure what's holding me back from supporting this. Maybe it's the deceptive way MX tried to excuse their use of a sock, maybe it just feels too soon. I can't point to anything concrete, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this at this time. It probably doesn't matter, as it appears that MX is heading for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support mainly per ROPE, of which I have not yet been convinced of the unefficaciousness :p :) but with the sensible caveat that there is some form of restriction on the areas of previous concern; a kind of probation, perhaps. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have a moment to swing by and handle some requests? Numerous pending. Thanks in advance. Home Lander (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• All caught up. Thanks for letting us know! Swarm ♠ 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please erase all older blocks (ie. more than a year old) from my block log. This record is abused too often to justify long blocks. Even blocks from over 10 years ago are used to justify an increase in blocking time. People should be forgiven after some time. I don't see how publishing this log forever and without any erasure after a certain amount of time could possibly be justified. Even the criminal record is more forgiving than that. Also, this inclines users to create "fresh" accounts after some time that don't have any blocks in the list. That certainly can't be the desired state of affairs. --rtc (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand it correctly you were just blocked for a week for edit warring, while your CU-confirmed sock was blocked indefinitely. It seems to me you have bigger fish to fry than worry about your old block log, which isn't all that long anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • See that's entirely the point. false accusations pile up. fishy blocks lead to more fishy blocks and ultimately infinite blocks. I have never used any sock. You're simply making this up. based on false accusations. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I am not making this up, I am trying to figure out what I can glean from your talk page, that's all. So I don't understand it correctly? Thank you for correcting me. But you were blocked for edit warring. Was that fishy? Weren't you edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit-conflict) Be aware, JzG stated, "See above: and as it happens this time it's the 1%." It's unclear from context whether he's saying this is legitimately a case where the checkuser-confirmed sock was a joe-job, or if he's using sarcasm. My point is there may not be sockpuppetry issues at play regarding Rtc, here. Regardless, of course, there's nothing for us to do here. Block logs aren't purged. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How is this gross violation of the GDPR justified? It is my right to have my block log entries erased after some time. The status quo is more draconian than the criminal record. Why are log entries not erased after some time? Why is my block length increased partially because of edits I did 10 years ago? --rtc (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is not allowed under the revision deletion policy. Hut 8.5 17:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It is my right to have my block erased after some time, as per the GDPR. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A) block logs cannot be erased and b) it is not a good idea to reopen a closed thread. See

WP:BATTLEGROUND. MarnetteD|Talk

17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So you mean its technically impossible to erase a block log? How can that possibly be true? You can erase articles so you can certainly also erase block log entries. The GDPR says I have a right to have my data deleted when there's no strong justification for keeping it. I don't see taht justification for short blocks from years ago. Do I have to open a new account to get a clean block log? Is that the solution you would suggest? --rtc (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

They can certainly be hidden from non-admins but as I've noted we won't do that aside from exceptional cases. If you want to file a GDPR request then contact the Foundation instead of trolling on admin noticeboards. You are of course assuming that (a) your block log constitutes personal data, (b) the Foundation won't choose to interpret your request as a request for the erasure of an account, and (c) the Foundation is subject to GDPR. Frankly someone who is prepared to use legal tools to conceal their editing history should not be here. Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is all an utter time sink. Is it not time to consider an indef block for
  talk
  ) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please discuss my request instead of accusing me again and again of being a timesink? Propose any reasonable solution for my concern. All I get from you and your fellow editors is threats I will be blocked and should leave wikipedia, and only because I insist that a source says "not important" and not "not useful". You go at great lengths to get me banned just because I am a defender of the WP:V policy here. I am a good faith editor and certainly here to build an encyclopedia. The hostility I am seeing from you and others because I disagree with you is not making that a pleasant experience. You always have the right to ignore me, so it's unfair to say I am a timesink. A lengthy discussion requires more than one person. --rtc (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that block logs can't be erased permanently; but they can be hidden from non-admin eyes, and I've sometimes wondered why that kind of option isn't taken more often. I'm just musing though; it would probably count as a serious favour rather than a right, and almost certainly not one to be demanded at AN on a whim and/or a burst of aggression...such as is appears to be the case here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also been curious why blocks aren't hidden when someone blocks the wrong person. It specifically says on that page that it isn't done. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please hide this edit and the edit summary. There is another one before this as well. Thanks.Gharouni ^Talk 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

While the reliably sourced sporting news world is discussing

NE Ent: Your timeline is misleading in that protection was done a full 20 hours earlier, and it’s a stretch to frame a mere opinion on a talk page as “OR”. You have been invited multiple times

WP:VAGUEWAVEs of INVOLVED and now posting on a noticeboard. What do you really want?—Bagumba (talk

) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Er anyone can check the article history and see you have made a number of edits on article content regarding his employment - prior to you full protecting the article, which you then (after protecting it citing an edit war) reverted back to the version which included the content you had previously edited. Looks pretty standard by the definition of involved editing. Do not use your admin tools in a content dispute in which you are already engaged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe those prior edits are unrelated to this current dispute. Please provide diffs of earlier edits if you believe they show that I would be biased in this instance per INVOLVED. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We should unprotect immediately. Regardless of the involvement issue, the current state of the article is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There’s probably weak consensus to add in prose only that there is an agreement in principle, something like at Talk:LeBron_James#Lakers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, this diff [29] clearly indicates that you are involved (and INVOLVED) in the discussion over the matter. Use of your admin tools in that instance was inappropriate, and if you do not shortly reverse it, I intend to. Out of courtesy I'll give you the chance to do so yourself first, but this is very clearly inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The comment was 20 hours after I took admin action to protect the page. It was a good faith attempt at moderating discussion after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I see that you anyways went and downgraded protection at 3:32 4 July. I would still appreciate a response further explaining your INVOLVED concern. For your convenience, please also refer to the timeline I presented below (at 05:27, 4 July 2018). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there was similar long periods of full protection for James in July 2010 during James’ famed

Not having any prior involvement with this issue, it does seem utterly absurd that two full days after LeBron's agent announced the intent to sign with the Lakers, the word "Lakers" does not appear anywhere in his entire biography, let alone the lede. We should not let technicalities of free agency regulations get in the way of informing our readers. There is no shortage of reliable sources to be found, and if we have to nuance the wording slightly, that's better than pretending this hasn't even happened at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotect immediately- this is absurd. The article should at least mention the Lakers. I get the point that Bagumba is making that the deal is not official yet. But we can easily reflect this, its just in the way to word it, maybe something like "James has agreed to accept a deal with the Lakers which he is expected to sign on July 6". It really shouldn't be that controversial. I'm not sure if this raises to the level of INVOLVED, but it still was a poor decision by Bagumba to lock the page.--
  Rusf10 (talk
  ) 03:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• 16:10, 29 June 2018‎ I revert that he is not a free agent. Edit summary: "unsourced that it’s official"
• 1 July: NBA free agency period begins[30]
• 08:14, 1 July 2018‎ I make minor edit that he is not a "potential" free agent anymore
• 00:51, 2 July 2018‎ I apply full protection
• 01:00, 2 July 2018 I revert to last stable version. Edit summary: "
  WP:PREFER
  : last stable version before dispute"
• 21:19, 2 July 2018‎ I make a talk page comment to provide understanding and facilitate consensus
• 6 July "Free-agent moratorium ends, allowing players to officially sign contracts and trades to be completed"[31]

Also given the precedent of previous full protections in July 2010 and July 2014 (by other admins) during similar James' free agent announcements, it's disappointing this is not seen as good faith. Such is life.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The broader point here is that the apparently-accepted practice by some NBA-focused editors of removing well-sourced information about players' free-agency decisions on the flimsy grounds that there is a .000001% chance that the decision changes, is absurd, hostile to readers and fails to serve our purpose. When Britannica beats us to have a more-updated biography of LeBron than we do, merely because some Wikipedian thinks it's not "official" yet, it's time to take a step back and rethink what we're doing. Sometimes a flood of outside editors and IPs is right and we're wrong. This is one of those cases. There are no reasonable grounds for excluding this well-sourced information from James' biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem with the community having that conversation, but AN is not the best forum for content discussion. Talk pages are. I commend you for having just started that at Talk:LeBron James. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversions resume In the 2+ hours since protection was downgraded, reversions have resumed (and this is with most of North America already asleep). While, the good intentions above was that mention of an agreement (not signing) is suitable, disagreements continue on whether James should be shown as actually being a member of the Lakers or as a free agent. The most recent reversions are here:

• 04:11, 4 July 2018‎
• 04:17, 4 July 2018
• 05:55, 4 July 2018‎
• 06:10, 4 July 2018‎

At a minimum,

I recommend that Bagumba apologize and step aside from this BLP for several weeks. Pedantic arguments to avoid any mention of this development in the LeBron James article border on the disruptive. Bagumba could have helped craft accurate language but instead chose to obstruct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(

WP:PREFER. By this, are we to assume that you saw mention mention of the subject's free-agency (or otherwise) as either "defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people"? Because nothing else in that piece of policy supports your protection; and the fact that it does so so weakly makes relying on it potentially questionable judgement. As, in fact, does calling your actions "all good". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

07:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)