Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297

Tran9644 (talk · contribs)/EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs)/Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Wikipedia are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a setlist.fm page that was clearly vandalized by them.

Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled. Tamara787 (talk · contribs) certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything. There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock. And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked. It is literally impossible for an English Wikipedia administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that. As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR. Someone there will tell you if it's possible. If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – This is not the help desk. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Somdip Dey's primary work has been creation of several QR code encryption methods, which has been published. He also created the first prototype and led research in usage of QR code in transcripts and degree certificates, which are now slowly getting popular around the world. His work has popularised the data security in the field of QR code. Is it worth creating a stub on Somdip Dey, so that people know his contribution to this field?

Some of his noteworthy work: 1) Confidential Encrypted Data Hiding and Retrieval Using QR Authentication System 2) New generation of digital academic-transcripts using encrypted QR code™: Use of encrypted QR code™ in mark-sheets (academic transcripts) 3) Advanced Steganography Algorithm Using Randomized Intermediate QR Host Embedded With Any Encrypted Secret Message: ASA_QR Algorithm 4) SD-EQR: A New Technique To Use QR CodesTM in Cryptography: Use of QR CodesTM In Data Hiding and Securing

Somdip Dey's Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=KaCa2MgAAAAJ&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.15.48.211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). Here in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion:
"Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"
As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion: Jwy, Boleyn, Ubcule and Swpb (Midas02 is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Roman Spinner: how would you disambiguate Abraham Lincoln if he appeared in a disambiguation page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board. Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add. As is JFK (disambiguation). Fish+Karate 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:

1. A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
2. An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
3. An explanation of what consensus means on Wikipedia, and what led him to believe he could ignore it

Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk? There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance. Fish+Karate 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the understanding that @Roman Spinner: should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-

• The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
• @Ivanvector:- "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
• Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
• Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. [..] Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
• The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
• If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy. Miniapolis 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It sounds like he's willing to follow consensus, even if maybe he doesn't agree with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. (piping in only because I was pinged above) - As I mentioned at some point, I don't DAB as much as I used to. The "Qualified Support" comment above probably comes closest to my opinion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Wikipedia. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiVirusC I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.

Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers.  samee  ^talk 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert].  samee  ^talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think MelanieN was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Samee: You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll. Thanks!  samee  ^talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein (talk · contribs) has blocked MapSGV (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a normal admin action for personal attacks after acting on a spurious report filed by a suspected wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor[12][13] that is quacking loud, but still causing much disruption by taking wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and trying to get rid of the user he wikihounds as soon as its possible.

Reportedly, as per the SPI, reporting editor was disruptively wikihounding MapSGV[14] because MapSGV was working on an article that has been considerably disrupted by the sockmaster of this suspected sock.[15]

Under such evidenced harassment, what really made Sandstein act on a such a deceptive and one-sided report?

I had already described the fallacy of this report on ARE. A good judgement would be if Sandstein had treated the deceptive report as spurious and/or blocked the filer as a WP:DUCK sock. While the block is not ARE related, his comments on ARE are problematic,[16] where he is claiming that those who have low edit count(223) but if they are aware of Wikipedia policies then it is alright to falsely accuse them of being a sock, despite the user in question was editing and was notified of all policies since 2014. Bringing up edit count is also doesn't matter per WP:COUNTITIS.

Why Sandstein didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence, personal attacks[17][18][19][20] and article disruption but singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as Sandstein claims. Sandstein went a step ahead with his misjudgment when he said that MapSGV should be topic banned if unblocked, but we really don't sanction competent editors for safeguarding disruptive incompetent editors.

It seems that civil POV pushing is indeed crossing the heights that you would get blocked even if you are criticizing misrepresentation of sources, disruptive POV pushing, having false allegations of socking and other facing other sorts of disruption from others including socks. Are we actually encouraging such deceptive civil POV pushing and that competent editors should be blocked only because they have been falsely accused of incivility, while they are responding to false accusations by incompetent editors and socks?

For all these reasons I find this block to be a bad block and support unblock. I posted this block review since I had commented on the original report and MapSGV himself requested for an ANI review. Lorstaking (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn clearly a horrible block. Lack of evidence of personal attacks, and I see nothing but only logical responses from MapSGV to those who are engaging in WP:IDHT, WP:DE and WP:NPA. The suspected sock (Elektricity) had also wikihounded my contributions and then filed a malicious report ANI against me[21] which was never taken seriously by others. But I wonder now, maybe Sandstein would've indeffed me because I was being targeted by a Wikihounding disruptive editor who is trying to be a Civil POV pusher. Sandstein will you overturn the block already? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• <ec>I've just come from MapSGV's talk page, where I've asked Sandstein to reconsider the duration of the block. Indef seems too long, even if the block reasons were valid. However, I feel MapSGV was more likely the harrassee than the harrasser, and that the matter needs fuller discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But he was being wikihounding and the harasser was just engaging in disruptive editing and is likely to be blocked for socking for topic ban evasion. How could Sandstein trust on his deceptive report without looking at reply of everyone else? GoldenRing also assumed that SPI needs to be resolved first.[22] Lorstaking (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural decline unblockThis should be handled by discussion with Sandstein, and we should close this thread until he has the opportunity to discuss it with the blocked user. There is absolutely no reason for this to be brought to AN by a user other than the one who has been blocked when a standard unblock appeal is pending and Sandstein hasn't even had the opportunity to respond. Turning this into a tempest when it can be handled through the normal channels is not good for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: WP:AN was suggested by NeilN,[23] if no agreement has been reached on MapSGv's talk page then we can just reopen this thread. Do you agree? Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: to me it looks like NeilN made a procedural note. He did not suggest you bring it here. Also, I'd prefer this go through the regular unblock template process. There is nothing extraordinary about this to make it require a review at AN, and I think it is awfully unfair to Sandstein for someone who isn't even blocked to be questioning his actions without so much as talking to him. Taking a block review to AN while a unblock template is still pending is highly irregular, and we normally don't review simple admin blocks here. There is no reason to suspect that the normal unblock process will not work in this case, and I'd prefer it be handled that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

[24]. They've both breached 20RR (sic), and 4TheWynne, who knows better, has neither reported the user nor engaged in article-talk discussion (nor even remotely explained his reversions). Could someone put an end to this nonsense? Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: John Jason Barrett has been blocked by Ferret as NOTHERE. So we can all relax and enjoy the Oscars (in a few days), for some more interesting Awards. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, actually, I did – this is an obvious sock, and I've tried to explain this anywhere that I can. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion – it just took ages for someone to actually see it. As for the humour, I'm really not in the mood. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of blocked users are exemptions from 3RR, and the other user is blocked (although not for SP), so I'd say wait for the SPI to conclude and then come back to this. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I sent the AIV report to SPI. I'm not familiar with the user and it gave us nothing to go off of. SPI is better suited for reports as it will likely have admins who are familiar with the user watching the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

An appeal request copied from User talk:Twitbookspacetube's talk page:

First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This user was banned in August 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbookspacetube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) copied from usertalk by power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose You've lied repeatedly and have done nothing to show you can be trusted. A handful of edits elsewhere demonstrates nothing. Further, you have failed to speak to the many reasons you were banned initially, including this lovely message. Nihlus 07:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Additionally, I oppose any lifting of his restrictions. If he were to be unblocked, there need to be more restrictions. Nihlus 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support after discussing on IRC, I feel like he's genuinely trying to contribute, but doesn't have the slightest idea how to set up restrictions that will allow him to do so without being disruptive. I propose:
  • A ban from all pages in the Wikipedia namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
  • A topic ban from all American politics articles.
  • One account limitation.
  • These three restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
  • All other previous restrictions are lifted.

This may let him engage in productive anti-vandalism activities without causing drama. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments last time. Barts1a isn't some good-faith editor who just needs the chance to prove himself, he's a long-term troll whose various accounts wasted huge amounts of other peoples' time owing to his hobby of loitering on talkpages trying to provoke fights, and then lashing out when challenged. If we do unblock him, I'd strongly oppose lifting any of the restrictions, which were there for the express purpose of preventing him from dragging other people into timesink debates and from abusing the undo function to rack up his edit count blindly reverting edits at high speed regardless of their validity. At minimum I'd expect a total ban from AN and ANI and from all pages relating to dispute resolution, strictly-applied 1RR everywhere else, and a no-exceptions restriction to a single account; I'd be inclined to retain is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages at minumum from his existing restrictions as well (the restriction on Huggle is moot, as that requires rollback and no admin is ever going to grant that). User:Worm That Turned, you were his mentor way-back-when, do you have any thoughts on this? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – (1) Sporadic editing of simple wiki is an understatement. 10 edits in just over 6 months is under 2 edits per month. This doesn't show me any sort of commitment to improving the encyclopaedia. The risk vs potential reward is heavily skewed towards risk with no reward. (2) The upshot, however, is that TBST has written an appreciable appeal, and responded to my query in quick time. Extending a fair amount of good faith and assuming sincerity on their part, there isn't a reason for me to assume that they will be looking for trouble. Note: I've interacted with TBST, but not any of their other accounts. (3) Power~enwiki's suggested restrictions are severe, but reasonable. Possibly with the exception of the AP2 TBAN as I'm not sure what prompted it, but I'll support it anyway as I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists is seemingly mutually exclusive with American politics articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Question What were his previous restrictions? !dave 13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is not allowed to use Huggle, is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute, is topic banned from all noticeboards, including ArbCom case requests and cases, is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages. They're listed at WP:RESTRICT under the main account's name, Barts1a. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The combination of socking and a threat against admins per Nihlus above is a bit much for me. Add on that the unban request is only a half year from the ban, the bare minimum, and I see a another colossal editor time-sink if this problem editor is unbanned. Their request should be rejected with with prejudice- in my view it must be years, not months, before this banned editor should be even discussed in the context of an unban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the fact that he is already under so many restrictions, and, like Nihlus, I would not support a lifting of the current restrictions in place. You have only made 22 edits in simplewiki, and not a single one in more than fifteen days. You should make more than just token edits: show us you can properly contribute somewhere else in the confederation. !dave 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support User:Power~enwiki. This project has a history of second chances and we have processes to deal with problems. We issue blocks to prevent damage, not to punish. In the spirit of our ability to forgive, I support unblock with Power~enwiki's conditions.--v/r - TP 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unbanning at all, but deeply oppose unbanning with any fewer restrictions than they had when they were banned. Long term disruption, dishonesty and socking, and inability to follow clear and simple and necessary restrictions; why in the world would we think it a benefit to try yet again? And why oh why oh why would we think that reducing the restrictions further would result in less disruption? If this is actually accepted, he needs to be kept away from all sources of drama, not just specific sources, and if anything we need to carefully think of more strict restrictions. But after all this history, it makes much more sense to say "no thank you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unbanning and Oppose restrictions - This editor has had multiple accounts and seems to have fucked up his chances on every single one, I'm all for second chances but I feel with this editor he will blow his chance and as such I oppose any unbanning or restrictions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I feel there's no point in unbanning with a 1RR restriction; if something like that is felt to be necessary I think 0RR will be more effective. As far as "all contentious articles", I think that's too vague to be useful. I do agree this appeal would have been more convincing if he had more than 8 edits on simplewiki to show constructive contributions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Stated on IRC that if we don't unban them they are just going to start socking. I don't take too kindly to threats and neither should the rest of the community. Incredible "woe is me" attitude. Blaming everyone else for their problems. We don't need that. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see absolutely no advantage to the community in lifting this ban. Barts1a was a pain, no matter what ID he used, and earned the ban honestly. If Majora's report that they have said that they will sock if the ban is not lifted is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, that just puts the icing on the cake. Giving editors a "second chance" is all very nice, but it's more important to protect the encyclopedia and its editing community from disruptive editors than it is to give proven disruptors another opportunity. There are numerous things he can choose to do with his spare time in place of editing Wikipedia, let Barts1a find one that suits him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding their edits to Simple English Wikipedia, between August 24, 2017 and today, they made exactly 10 edits to articles there. [25]. One was an article creation, the majority of the rest were obvious reversions. The rest of their edits were notifications of reversion on editors' talk pages, and "Welcome" messages to new editors, and such. [26] In short, their editing to SEW is of no use at all in evaluating their request - it appears to me to be totally pro forma. They didn't even bother to put in the energy necessary to make a case for their ability to edit non-disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The history presented is filled with dishonesty and deception by Twitbookspacetube et.al. There is no reason to trust that they have sincerely changed. If they had spent the last six months making significant contributions on another site and demonstrated they could resits the urge to contribute to chaos and drams then, maybe, there would be enough to confidently believe they had changed. As it is... nope. Jbh ^Talk 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unban: I also talked to Twitbookspacetube on IRC, and the statements they made there completely invalidated the apologies they made to start this discussion. Claiming that everyone down to Jimbo himself is corrupt and trying to preserve their own power is not the way to request an unban. The threats of socking also don't help. They clearly can't work collaboratively (at least in the English Wikipedia community). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

After his latest talk page post, I think an admin can close this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "IRC" being used as a reason for decisions made on-wiki. MPS1992 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What do I do if I'm in an IBAN with someone, and I accidentally used the thanks option on one of their edits instead of another editors edit? I came here directly, as I realized my mistake as soon as I did it. -- Alex^TW 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can't unsend it (I just checked that), so coming here is the right thing to do. Naturally, don't interact further. (Non-administrator comment) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 05:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Start by hoping they don't notice, or are kind enough or busy enough not to care. Continue by apologizing (here) without mentioning to whom you are apologizing. Continue further by hoping no busybody here were sad enough to go through all your thanking entries to work out who the accidental target was. MPS1992 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, as did I, that's why I wanted to come here as soon as I realized and just make sure - even if it wasn't anything major, I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry. MPS1992, thanks for your help. In that case, I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor. -- Alex^TW 05:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Going forward, it would be helpful to provide specifics, so that we don't have to do all the legwork to try to figure out what you did, where, and which ban you're referring to. Having done that work, am I correct that you're referring to accidentally thanking Jack Sebastian a little while ago, a user with whom you have an interaction ban?

While the log doesn't (as far as I know—I don't play with the Thanks Log very often) show the diffs for which an editor was thanked, I note that there is an intersection between your editing in the last 24 hours or so and Jack Sebastian's at The Flash (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Your edit and Jack's are both minor edits related to the character Izzy Bowen, which may raise concerns with respect to your IBAN. (AlexTheWhovian's edit came first; Jack's first edit came about for hours later; there were no intervening edits.) Jack's edit was subsequently reverted by another editor Joeyconnick. Both Jack and Joey ultimately reverted each other twice.

Now, would I be incorrect to guess that your "thank" was intended to be directed at Joeyconnick, expressing appreciation and support for his edit war with Jack? If so, giving out pats on the back to other editors who revert your nemesis most certainly is a violation of the spirit of your IBAN, and might plausibly be interpreted as a violation of the letter (see WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to...make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." My emphasis added.) In other words, even if you had thanked the editor you intended to – instead of the editor immediately before or after, with whom you have an IBAN – you were still skating on very thin ice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The thanks was most certainly not in the spirit that you portray, but to prevent further drama, I will nod, give my thanks to your view on the topic, and be on my way. -- Alex[[User talk:#top|^TW]] 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I notice that immediately after posting to this board, you went ahead and thanked Joeyconnick twice—I'm assuming that's one thanks for each revert of Jack Sebastian. It's not a good look. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I stated in my second reply that I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor, in relation to their intended edits. Thank you for your reply to my general question. -- Alex^TW 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean? So, User:AlexTheWhovian, I strongly suggest that you should be (1) trouting yourself for behaving in such a silly fashion and thus finding yourself in such a silly situation, and (2) learning not to be even watching or editing articles that are of interest to someone with whom you have an interaction ban. MPS1992 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I do see what you mean now, editors do indeed go in to look for the specifics for a general question. I follow the article as I'm an avid watcher of the series, but I'm remove it from my watchlist so issues don't this don't arise. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, those 3 edits today by Jack are his only edits to the page. Ever. Instead, Alex has been editing the page since August 2017, so if anybody is the issue in that regard it is Jack. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should all run away as quickly as possible before anyone thinks we might care about who is editing or watching articles about television programs about comic characters. MPS1992 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I did note that Alex's edits preceded Jack's, and I agree that neither editor comes off looking good here. Had Alex come here to report a concern that Jack was violating the IBAN – instead twice thanking another editor who reverted Jack – this discussion might have a very different flavor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The relevant AN/I thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Jack Sebastian's edit-warring, personal attacks and hounding/stalking - not too hard to dig out when it's the only IBAN to which Alex has been subject. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the interaction between the two editors, it looks like they have largely overlapping areas of interest. Since January 1 (i.e. under the ban), there's been some editing of the same articles, but largely not. For example, [27] is a directly subsequent edit, but not a reversion. Note that Alex edited the page on 19th December, whearas Feb 3 was Jack's first edit. We also have [28] followed by [29], but again, not a reversion, and again, Alex was a well established editor on the page by that point. And finally, [30] followed by [31] - again, Jack edits for the first time, again, not a reversion. Whether this is WP:HOUNDing in an ingeniously subtle form or just a style of editing? Well, by WP:AGF (and a bit of WP:FRINGE), we have to take the latter option. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 06:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So yeah, I am pretty amazingly ingenious (and humble, too) but editing where AlextheWhovan also happens to edit is not part of a plan. I understand and observe the spirit and letter of the IBAN. I'll continue to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The other day User:RoySmith blocked User:Sandals1. The logged reason for the block was Abusing multiple accounts: Based purely on contribution history, must be a sock. True new users don't find their way to AfD first thing. I questioned this rationale at User talk:RoySmith#block of User:Sandals1. They both defended their action and said to reverse it if I disagreed. I’m pretty sure being an undisclosed alternate account is not in and of itself a instantly-blockable-with-no-discussion violation of WP:SOCK, and it is entirely possible that this is a WP:CLEANSTART account, or the account of someone who used to edit as an IP, but Roy seems to feel that this comment, which admittedly may contain a lie or at least a half-truth, makes all those considerations null and void.

I have already unblocked the user as I do not believe the block was valid. If you can’t identify who is doing the socking and their edits are otherwise ok, I do not see how Wikipedia benefits from this block. Since it seems clear that one or the other of us is wrong here, I would like the community and our fellow admins to review this series of events and provide feedback. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If another admin says you're free to reverse the block, and you do it, you're on safe ground. On the handful of occasions another admin has disagreed with a block (and I can count them on the fingers of one hand), I have said I am fine for them to just undo it and discuss. It seems to work well. As for what action to take next, I think Roy should file an SPI if they haven't already done so, and let the results of that play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I can’t see what SPI could do without having some idea what previous identity this person have edited under, I would fully expect that the reply would be  CheckUser is not for fishing. This is rather the crux here. It seems likely to me that yes, this person has editied Wikipedia under some identity before, but is that a block-on-sight offense or isnt’ it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Spending all your time at AfD to the exclusion of everything else is a little odd, but I don't think it's blockable without a consensus on ANI first. I simply mentioned SPI as an avenue that could have been tried instead of a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit I probably over-reacted with my block. I still can't think of any possible scenario for a new account working immediately and almost exclusively at AfD other than being a sock. Beeblebrox was right when he said on my talk page, perfectly normal particpation in AFD discussions, but in some ways that makes me more convinced this must be a sock. People learn to make sophisticated arguments through experience. If somebody came up to me here in New York, claiming to have just moved to the US from China earlier that day, but speaking in perfectly fluent, unaccented, and idiomatic English, displaying a detailed knowledge of the subway system, and offering cogent opinions on the relative merits of currently trendy bars, I would suspect they'd been here longer than a day. Was I being WP:ROGUE? Perhaps. But, also consider WP:PACT. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not just talking about suspicion they'd been around before. Unless either the new account is engaging in disruptive behavior, or you have good reason to believe they're evading a block or ban, there's no prohibition against simply using an alternate account. And realistically, I probably sounded more "sophisticated" than your average new user when I started editing, because I had edited before—as an IP. I don't see that alone as meriting a block, though of course it would be reason for heightened scrutiny if they do start to behave disruptively. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

But, did you start out with your very first edit, like this one, where the new user stated, This is my first edit? If you're going to go to the trouble to mention that, I would think you would say, This is my first edit as a named account; I used to edit anonymously. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they said it was their first edit... because it was their first edit? A lot of my first edits were to AfD too, it's just an interesting behind the scenes area. You don't have to edit to read the guidelines. – Joe (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I got started on Wikipedia when I noticed an AfD template on an article that I was reading. The AFD template says specifically, "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." and so it is quite plausible that a reader will follow this invitation. The surprising thing is that it doesn't happen more often and this mainly shows how awful our interface is. Kudos to User:Sandals1 for having the gumption to get started and for improving an article with their second edit. And kudos to Beeblebrox for assuming good faith. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand trouted. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We need someone or a Administrator to come in and resolve this issue, We are having a current discussion about Gino Gambino and it’s going no where we keep providing reliable sources and this IP/Account User NotmemberofBC keeps removing it and saying BLP we need help and closure for this cause all were getting is no where I’d like some help for all of us and to get this done as quickly as possible, this IP Used has not provided any source claiming Gambino isn’t a member the user has broken 3RR multiple times

As I’ve taken a look at the notice board, the Administrators are taken a look at the sources further more I don’t think anyone should remove Gambino which is provided with a reliable source, if anyone would like to take a look at the notice board go search the Bullet Club TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The source is primary and the claim is controversial so it MUST have an independent reliable secondary source under WP:BLP! The reversion was right - he shouldn't be there! You didn't tell the notice board you used THAT I'll bet! (Which one? Nothing's showing up on a skim) 101.189.95.32 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thought as much. Checked your edits, and you weren't telling the truth. No notice board re the Bullet Club, and you were warned for edit warring as well. Admit you got it wrong and revert your edit. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First, the source is reliable since it's the promotion itself. Second, I gave two sources of live events where Gambino wrestles as part of Bullet Club. Another one, NJPW Australian facebok, where it includes Gambino as member of Bullet Club. So, right now we have 4 reliable sources. NJPW Facebook, MCW, the wrestling observer and PWInsider. [32] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Facebook is NOT reliable!! MCW is a primary source and can't be used when contested as is happening right now!! Wrestling Observer and PWInsider never reported his membership. Prove that he's a member with a news story, not show results!! (Thank God I can now edit the article!) NotMemberofBC (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That link given wasn't to the New Japan Facebook page anyway. It was to the tour page, which was run by MCW! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheKinkdomMan: You shouldn't be reverting! That's edit warring! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources are fine. One is the MCW report, just includes Fale introducing him. Second, it's the NJPW Australian Facebook with the official cartel for the event. If you don't like it, here is NJPW official and verified Twitter with the same poster. [33] As the article states, NJPW has the power to include anyone into the stable. The Australian tour is organized by NJPW in association with MCW, so every decision is taken by NJPW. PWInsider, a reliable source, says "New Japan Pro Wrestling announced this morning that IWGP Heavyweight champion Kazuchika Okada and Rocky Romero vs. IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions Evil and Sanada in a non-title match will main event their 2/19 event in Perth, Australia. Also announced was The Bullet Club (Kenny Omega, Gino Gambino, Chase Owens and Bad Luck Fale) vs. The Mighty Don't Kneel (Jonah Rock, Slex, Marcus Pitt and Damian Slater.)" NJPW iself includes Gambino inside Bullet Club. Dave Meltzer reports " Bullet Club (Kenny Omega, Bad Luck Fale, Gino Gambino & Chase Owens) defeated TMDK (Marcius Pitt, Damien Slater, Jonah Rock & Slex) Good 8-man tag match. TMDK did not look out of their depth against Bullet Club. Crowd was split, mostly supporting TMDK who were formed in Perth, but cheering for Kenny when he was in." Also including Gambino in the stable. Since then, this is your personal crusade against Gambino, but the sources are reliable and reports Gambino as member of BC. Even if this is a promotional move to gain Australian fans, stills oficial by NJPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is several websites calling him member of BC. "At this weekend's November Rain event, fans experienced an emotional moment as Bad Luck Fale inducted Victorian wrestler Gino “Juicy” Gambino into the famed and exclusive Bullet Club faction." "They consequently discovered Mr Juicy (Gino Gambino) who made his debut as the first Australian member of Bullet Club at Wrestle Kingdom, during the New Japan Rumble, and the UnderBoss and Gambino alliance has Australasian fans thrilled for future potential." Cagematch profile "Gino Gambino Becomes The 13th Member Of The Bullet Club" I can gave more, but sadly, aren no reliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all we have all provided more than one source which vacaits the BLP and there is no edit warning if it’s your first revert TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Second I never said I went to the notice bored I said there was a discussion going on with the Bullet Club on the notice Bored, and thirdly when provided with more than one source makes it reliable and lastly all the reverts you have done have breached 3RR your lucky none of us have reported you if we did you would be blocked permanently so I’d take into consideration that your on thin ice TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You're on thin ice! Publicity stunt! You feel for it! Both of you, and PWInsider and Observer! Facebook isn't reliable and it's not the NJPW official page! It's a tour page run by MCW! Primary source! BLP says get a proper independent source and you haven't yet! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with the sources. That's your blindness and your personal crusade against Gambino. The tour is promoted by NJPW. The Twitter is verified, the poster is official. PWInsider and WON are independent reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. While I'm not convinced he should be listed as a full-time member unless he continues to appear more regularly, he was definitely advertised as a mwmeber by the promoters themselves. The PWI and WON sources are actually less definitive, however, as they're WP:ROUTINE card announcements and results, which only really establish that he wrestled alongside BC members, not that he was a member himself. That's why the NJPW sources are needed; they are not invalid sources as first-party sources are legit for establishing basic facts without interpretation. oknazevad (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See @HHH Pedrigree:? I don't have a personal crusade against Mr Juicy. I have a personal crusade for the truth, and the truth is it's a publicity stunt. The promoters that Oknazevad mentioned were NOT New Japan! They were MCW who co-promoted the tour with one NJPW person - Fale. Juicy's worked ONE NJPW show outside of Australia and that's it! No way that's the conduct of a full blown member! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)