This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with{{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases,it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well.Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formalrequest for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has beenarchived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the{{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Ahelper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Anyuninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so ifthe area is contentious. You should be familiar with allpolicies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at thediscussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Please append{{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with{{Close}} or{{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a{{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with{{Not done}}.After addressing a request, please mark the{{Initiated}} template with|done=yes. To revert a closure, please remove|done=yes and wrap your{{Done}} with strike through andTemplate:tlxClueBot III willautomatically archive requests marked with{{Already done}},{{Close}},{{Done}}{{Not done}},{{Resolved}}, and{{Tick}}.
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice atWP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
(Initiated 82 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySdkb (talk •contribs)05:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: There are six participants, a majority of whom agree on a set of changes. What additional participation are you seeking before implementing the prevailing agreement?Sdkbtalk16:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, of the six participants, three were in favour with reasoning, two were against with reasoning, and one seems to be in favour without reasoning. That is not consensus to change.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)19:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 63 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you!Ed[talk][OMT]03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 49 days ago on 27 May 2025) RfC regarding whether or not the tournament should be referred to as the first edition of a new tournament or the 21st edition of the same tournament. Discussion largely stopped a few weeks ago, and the tournament is finished and unlikely to gain a significant amount of coverage relating to this issue in the near future.Jay eyem (talk)03:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 48 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with.Sohom (talk)18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 13 June 2025) Requesting closure from an experienced editor since last comment was more than a week back and a general consensus seems to have been established.Murkut23 (talk)16:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 29 days ago on 17 June 2025) No comments or votes in the past 5 days, sufficient discussion, and the 30 day counter is less than two days away.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)14:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although rough consensus seems to have emerged here, after taking a good look at this(and previous discussions), I would prefer closure by an admin/more experienced closer (though I am still willing to close if absolutely necessary). Best,GoldRomean (talk)16:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring / content dispute - I honestly don't know what it's going to take to get it through to some of you not to edit war, especially when there's already a discussion ongoing
Please note that receiving one of these notifications does not mean your account was actually compromised or hacked. You may want to reviewWP:STRONGPASS andWP:SECURITY to ensure you are doing all you can to protect your account, but you do not necessarily need to reset your password.Beeblebrox (talk)20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This just happened to me, too. It's not unusual, I get one or two a month, and about once a year, someone makes a whole lot of login attempts. Make sure you have a unique password for Wikipedia. Use apassword manager if you don't already. Usemulti-factor authentication. Consider changing your password if you are worried (or especially if it wasn't unique). I already have these set up on my account so I just ignore the warnings when they come in. You asked to find out who tried to break into your account. That information is not generally available, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk)17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had this today as well, but I have break-in attempts on a regular basis, with a record of several hundreds per day (not today though).--Ymblanter (talk)19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Question I should probably know the answer to: can a functionary look up the IP addresses behind these bogus login attempts and implement a technical restriction?Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's a way to determine that an IP is being used for abusive login attempts, autoblocking that IP for 24 hours is probably a good security practice. Wouldn't stop them hacking an account probably but then at least they wouldn't be able to edit. If our policies don't support that then we should change our policies.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably the only editor right now that hasn't had attempted account hacks ...... Not sure if that's a good sign or a bad one lol. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Inevitable happened. –Davey2010Talk22:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I readily admit I am not the most experienced CU, but I am unaware of how we could look up who attempted and failed at logging in. I’ll ask for further input though in case it’s just something I don’t know about.Beeblebrox (talk)19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would take far more access (database?) to determine where this is coming from. If that information is even stored. If this isn't a bot driven thing (which it probably is), then a limiter on logins per IP would be nice as well.Arkon (talk)20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve gotten some response form the other functionaries about this, here’s what we’ve got:
Currently, CU cannot do this
There is aphabricator thread about notifying the user of the ip of whoever tried to log into their account. It is approved and being worked on but not functional yet
There is some indication that this is a specifc banned user already familiar to some of the functionaries so it is possible some action will be forthcoming but I’m not sure wat it will be.
Apparently there have been tens of thousands of failed login attempts over the past few hours. Checkthis out for some idea of the scope. The back office is aware of this and we cn expect a statement from them in the near future.Beeblebrox (talk)20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I got one of those failed login attempt messages too. I changed my password to something stronger and thought nothing else of it until now. – Muboshgu (talk)20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, andUser:SPECIFICO. We were also both targeted at Wikipedia yesterday by the same editor, but no idea if there's any connection. That editor also knows my anon Facebook and Twitter accounts. Strange. --BullRangifer (talk)PingMe20:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may add me to the list of failed hack targets. I have 2FA enabled so I am not overly concerned about my account security. But I am very concerned about what looks like an orchestrated attack on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk)22:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to me 7 hours ago. Silly culprit; if he was targetting editors with any care, Davey2010 and other big-name users here should have been higher on his priority list than me. No one's ever bothered to try to hack my account before.Sideways713 (talk)22:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read up above - I heavily doubt it, since the perpetrator is apparently known to the WMF. As an aside, they tried me as well, but my password's only been strengthened since I was an admin, so they didn't get far. —Jeremyv^_^vBori!23:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time ever, I received notification that someone had tried to log into my account today. I am not an admin. This needs to be investigated.Smeat75 (talk)00:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According tothis graph of the Wikimedia User Login Attempts, this account hacking attempt has resumed today and is still continuing, as of this writing. There are a lot more "Throttled logins" today than in yesterday's attacks, which now appears to comprise the vast majority of the latest attack wave. (And yes, this LTA/hacker took a swipe at my account yesterday and a couple more times today.) This is getting ridiculous.LightandDark2000 (talk)23:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this attack may have something to do with the recent Twitter password leak[1]. Is it possible that someone has got a copy of this "internal log" and has now got abotnet trying to find Wikipedia accounts that match the Twitter ones? (Yes, I got an attempt against my account too, and no, theother QuietOwl on Twitter isnot me, I don't use this username anywhere else, or any social networking site, for that matter.)QuietOwl (talk)02:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A graph depicting the duration and scale of the mass account-breaking attempts in May 2018.
I've added a picture of the graph depicting the mass-cyberattack attempts. I estimate that at least 400,000 accounts may have experienced some attempt to break in. It should be noted that this is the largest account-hacking attempt that Wikimedia has experienced at least in the last 5 years (possibly the largest such attack ever). I also noticed today that the attacks seemed to have stopped. I wonder what happened to the hacker. What's keeping him? ;)LightandDark2000 (talk)06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today, only 30 minutes ago, someone (probably the same hacker) tried to break into my account 3 more times. I guess it must have something with me uploading the picture. Though I already hardened my password 2 more times, so it won't really help them at all. What in the hell is wrong with this person? The WMF seriously needs to block the access for the IP network responsible; at least Globally Rangeblock the IP if it will help.LightandDark2000 (talk)19:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, God, they're doing it again! This time the attacks are almost entirely "login throttles". Seriously? Someone needs to block off the IP network hosting the attacks, or at least add in some new firewall rules to Wikimedia Foundation computers if this is some kind of offline attack.LightandDark2000 (talk)10:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion (i am not an admin but thought i'd comment). My account hasn't been targeted (yet), but if it ever does, they won't get very far, my password is not even a word or phrase maybe others should follow suit with their password being a "random" combination of letters and numbers.Lavalizard101 (talk)11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PSA: Admins should enable two-factor authentication
(edit conflict)I would gladly use 2FA (and I was also the subject of a hack attempt) if the code was emailed, in addition to (or instead of) being sent to a mobile number. We have a cell phone but it's usually off, but my email is generally available. I may not be the only admin in a similar situation.Miniapolis22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The code is not send to the mobile phone, it's locally generated (based on time and a secret key) by an app on the phone. I don't know if it works for your use case, but you don't need to have the phone on (except for the very moment of login) or even online. --Stephan Schulz (talk)18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really really do not agree,Sandstein. We've had several cases of admins, including technically savvy admins, who have been in despair because they lost their whatsits — I don't remember what they're called — some magic formulas that you need for your account when you have two-factor authentication — and apparently the magic gets lost every time you get a new phone. Ouch. Eventually, after much stress, these people have been rescued through being able to e-mail people who can vouch for them because they recognize the way they talk. (Hello,Jehochman, hope your account is OK these days.) People who habitually edit from internet cafes or library computers, or who have a mischievous twelve-year-old or a hard-drinking sister-in-law around the house, may possibly need the system, but everybody else had much better insteadget a really strong password andnot use that password anywhere else. In my opinion.Bishonen |talk 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC). (PS: And yes, I've had the attempts today and so has Bishzilla. Considering the numbers of people who have, I find it hard to believe WWII editors have been singled out.)Bishonen |talk23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
You're both right, to some degree. Bish, the magic you're thinking of is a scratch code (I'm not sure if that's what our implementation calls it) and it is just a plain text code that you're supposed to keep somewhere safe, so that if youdo lose your authentication device (i.e. get a new phone) then you can use that code to reset your 2FA and re-implement it on your new device. If you lose your password AND your device AND those codes AND nobody can vouch for you, then yeah, you're fucked, but that's a lot of concurrent failures. If I remember right, when you enable 2FA here the codes you need are all displayed on the screen (you scan a QR code and the scratch codes are plain text), not sent by text or emailed or whatever. Maybe that depends on what authenticator you use.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)23:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<<ec>>What Bishonen said. Every time I read the instructions my blood runs cold. With the two factor authentication I have w/ my bank and emails, there is a backup and authentication involves sending a request to my phone. The process here sounds dangerously complicated, and the grater risk is that I lose my whatsit.--Dlohcierekim (talk)23:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that once you do this there's no going back? I don't want to do something irrevocable. And I have a strong password.--Dlohcierekim (talk)
No, not at all, you can turn it off any time as long as you have access to your account. I get that we're still calling it "beta", but I turned it on the day my RfA closed, and I've never had a problem.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blood-chillingly complicated is right,Dlohcierekim. And it sounds to me like the whole log-in operation, otherwise so smooth, gets much more fiddly with 2FA, every time you do it. That's quite a problem for people with a lot of socks![2]Bishonen |talk23:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I useAuthy(authy dot com) for my 2FA here. It allows one to use multiple devices as well as back up the seed. There is a slight security hit since more than one device can be used but for me it is worth it to remove the single point of failure.Jbh Talk23:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I was intimidated by it at first as I am not super technically minded but once it is set up it is remarkably easy to use, and I made sure I have those scratch codes in a safe place in case I ever need them.Beeblebrox (talk)00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am a techie person, but I do agree that the instructions and setup appear intimidating. But once it is set up, 2FA really is easy to use. Enter your password as usual, then it asks for a number. Open the app on your phone/tablet/whatever, and it displays a number. Type in that number. And as long as you do remember to record the original scratch codes somewhere, the whole thing can always be reset in the event of a disaster. As for login attempts, I've had one rather than the multiple attempts that many are getting - presumably it stopped at the first 2FA challenge.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)08:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I use 2FA, but as someone who seems to drop or otherwise break their phone at least once per year, I agree with others that the way 2FA works is a royal pain in the neck. If I'm unable to access my old device, I have to (a) find where I wrote down the scratch codes (b) use one to login & disable 2FA (c) re-enable 2FA with the new device and (d - and this is the worst bit) write down a whole new set of scratch codes. If you've lost your scratch codes, you are basically screwed and are looking at registering a new account and convincing anyone who will listen that the two are connected. Committed identity helps with this - but of course you have to be able to find the file you used to create it. Things that would help with this situation are (a) only generate a new set of scratch codes when a user requests it or when the last one is used, not every time 2FA is enabled, so that at least you don't have to write down a whole new set every time you use one and (b) have some back up way of resetting authentication on the account. The latter would involve the WMF holding some way of getting in touch with you or proving your identity. I guess for people who have identified to the WMF this is already possible; otherwise, of all the websites I use, enwiki is the one where it is hardest to recover your account - and it seems it is often impossible. I thought there was a phab ticket to improve this situation, but I can't find it just now (fun diversion: try searching '2FA' on phab and you'll see how many people have difficulties with it - it seems that at least sometimes it is possible to convince the devs to twiddle bits).GoldenRing (talk)11:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder, users with advanced permissions are required byWP:STRONGPASS to have a strong password anyway. 2FA is just another option to strengthen account security.Beeblebrox (talk)20:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Personally, I don't understand why the (not particularly strict, IMHO)requirements for privileged users don't apply to all users. Nearly every insignificant forum on the web has stricter password requirements than Wikipedia, for heaven's sake!Gestumblindi (talk)14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I remember, but consensus might change. Maybe it's now the time for proposing slightly stricter requirements more similar to those customary anywhere else on the web? I don't get the "it might discourage new users" reasoning - after all, people should be well accustomed to having to use reasonably strong passwords by now. As it is, the password requirements for regular users are extremely and most unusually low, and the requirements for admins are still rather below standard.Gestumblindi (talk)18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20 characters is almost certainly enough. A password that meets the requirements set forth in STRONGPASS (8 characters) will be broken by an offline password-guessing program in under a minute.[3][4][5][6][7] --Guy Macon (talk)01:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the Mediawiki software doesn't throttle login attempts (I'm pretty sure it does, given the "throttled logins" category in the charts above) or the attacker has access to the raw password hashes and the salts (and the passwords are stored using a low number of hash iterations). Even at 1000 guesses per second, 8-characters with one uppercase letter and one digit would take 7000 years to crack. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)16:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that most of those articles are about 2FA using SMS codes, or using such SMS codes as backups for the type of 2FA we have. Neither of which we do for that exact reason. Which is also the reason you are so screwed on this site if you loose your scratch codes AND your phone. However I agree that having a 20 character password that you only use on en.wp is probably more important than having 2FA. But I use 2FA on ALL my accounts wherever I can, and because i use it for so many services, it has stopped being bothersome. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Make sure it passes the dictionary attack though. rhin0cer0usstransgal4cticdifferential is easier to remember and just as good as 25 characters of random gibberish.cinco deL3X1◊distænt write◊13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The passphrase Rhinoceros transgalactic differential. (with the initial capitalization and the ending period) is stronger still. Even better would be "My rhinoceros has a transgalactic differential." -- harder for a computer to crack and easier for a human to remember; just remember that it is a valid sentence using standard English spelling and grammar. Replacing o with 0, a with 4, etc. just makes it harder to remember without adding much in the way of difficulty for a password guessing program. --Guy Macon (talk)20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source on that. The few times I've had to turn my previous laptop into a wireless router (long story), the password was something like "screwoffyoucommiespybastardsthisismygoddamnwifi" or similar full sentences.
User:Guy Macon: ReA password that meets the requirements set forth in STRONGPASS (8 characters) will be broken by an offline password-guessing program in under a minute. - Does WikiMedia not have, or could they not develop, a system where three (or so) failed attempts to log in to an account, lock the account? For a comparable example, if someone tries to use an ATM card and puts in an incorrect code three times, on the third try the ATM will eat the card. Couldn't WikiMedia have some way of locking an account after three (orX number to be decided) failed attempts at entering the password? --MelanieN (talk)01:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you first lock all the admin accounts, then you go vandalize at will. This would work well. Remember, everything can be gamed, and this plan is game-able in two seconds flat. The reason teh ATM example works is because someone already has your card.Courcelles (talk)01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am pretty sure the number of attempts per minute is limited (and not to 10^10), but I do not remember where I have seen this and what the number actually is.--Ymblanter (talk)07:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some form of rate limiting although I don't know the details. I'd note a system which completely locks an account after 3 tries requiring some sort of reset is open to abuse since it means people who want to annoy an editor can keep locking their account.Nil Einne (talk)16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I have looked into the nuts and bolts of how the WMF does security, it has always, without fail, turned out that they do it right, so I am not even going to bother finding out how they stop an attacker from either making millions of guesses per second or being able to lock out an admin by trying to make millions of guesses per second. Clearly the WMF developers read the same research papers that I do.
That being said, as explained atKerckhoffs's principle#Modern-day twist, while doing things like rate limiting are Very Good Things, we are not to rely on them. We are to assume that the attacker knows every byte of information on the WMF servers (and in fact the attacker may actuallybe someone who has knows every byte of information on the WMF servers -- If a nation-state offered a key WMF employee millions of dollars if he complied and made a credible threat to torture and kill his family if he didn't, there is a 99%+ chance that they would end up knowing every byte of information on the WMF servers.)
The WMF does not store your passphrase anywhere. When you enter it it acryptographic hash is performed and the result compared with a stored hash. This means that an attacker who knows every byte of information on the WMF serverscan perform a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing attack, butcannot simply look up your passphrase and use it to log on. So according to Kerckhoffs's principle, you should choose a passphrase that is easy to remember and hard for a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing program to guess. I will call that that "Macon's principle" so that I don't have to type "choose a passphrase that is easy to remember and hard for a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing program to guess" again and again.
Bad ways to follow Macon's principle
Passwords instead of passphrases (single words instead of strings of words with spaces between them).
Random gibberish.
Short passwords or passphrases. 8 is awful, 16 is marginal, 24 is pretty good, 32 is so good that there is no real point going longer.
Character substitutions (Example: ch4r4ct3r sub5t|tut10ns)
Good ways to follow Macon's principle
Use a standard English sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Make it longer than 32 characters and have it contain at least three (four is better) longish words plus whatever short words are needed to make it grammatically correct.
Make sure that sentence has never been entered anywhere on your hard drive (including deleted files) or on the internet. "My Hovercraft Is Full of Eels" is bad because a dictionary that contains every phase used inMonty Python's Flying Circus would find it.[8]
Make it meaningful, easy to remember, and something that generates a strong mental image.
Make it meaningful to you, but unguessable by others (don't use your favorite team, first kiss, mother's maiden name, etc.)
An example of a good passphrase that follow Macon's principle would be:
Sherwood painted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with his flamingos.
(This assumes that you actually know someone named Sherwood and that he owns a non-pink Subaru. Replace with a name/car from among your acquaintances)
That's 78 characters that nobody in the history of the earth has ever put together in that order until I just wrote it. Typos really stand out (Sherwood paibted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with the Flamingos) and are easy to correct. The sun will burn out long before the fastest possible passphrase-guessing program completes 0.01% of its search. And yet it would befar easier to remember than the far easier (for a computer) to guess BgJ#XSzk=?sbF@ZT would be. --Guy Macon (talk)18:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there is some confusion in this thread around password security I'd like to clear up:
reMelanieN: Guy Macon is referring to an "offline" attack, which is a fancy way of saying how long it would take if the attackers found a way to bypass all rate limiting and had a copy of the password file from WMF's servers. In an "online" attack (When somebody tries to login viaSpecial:userlogin many time), rate limiting does come into play. Currently the rate limit is set to at most50 in five minutes (Which honestly, is a little on the high side for a short term limit) [Edit: I was reading the wrong page, its actually 5 tries in 5 minutes], and no more than 150 tries in a 2 day period. Long before the hard limit comes into play, there is a soft limit where people need to enter a captcha in order to continue logging in. Of course we also record whenever their is a failed login and may take manual action if it appears an attack is happening.
reWP:STRONGPASS - the requirement for admin passwords enforced by the system is a minimum requirement, largely aimed (at least in my opinion) to prevent an online attack. People are of course encouraged to use even stronger passwords. The passphrase method Guy Macon mentions is one good way of generating strong passwords. Another popular method is to use a password manager to manage your random passwords for you. In addition to using a strong password, it is vitally important to use a unique password. It is much more common for attackers to get your password from other websites than it is for them to brute-force it.
re 8 character random password cracked in minutes. I don't think that calculation is correct. If we assume a random 8 character password (And I mean truly random, e.g. generated via dice or a password manager, not randomly chosen by a human as humans are terrible at randomly choosing a password), that's about4048 bits ofentropy. Based on[9] we have about 2301200000 hashes/sec and we're using 128000 rounds PBKDF-sha256. 2(6*8)*128000/23012100000 ≈ 1565645769 seconds = 49 years. That said, longer passwords are much better, and most people are very bad at picking random passwords. Of course, if your 8 character password is '12345678' it will be cracked in milliseconds. In any case, I'd still highly highly recommend a password longer than 8 characters.BWolff (WMF) (talk)21:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My first password was the name of a fictional place. The, a number, then a combination. Now its a 15+ keystroke monster that requires hints. So far, I've stayed ahead in this Red-Queen's race.--Dlohcierekim (talk)22:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I don't care what anybody else thinks. "Use a standard English sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation." assumes there is a "standard English". English spelling, phrases and punctuation tends to vary by country, and often by personal background. Also, not everybody participating on English Wikipedia has English as a first-language. And God forbid anybody's account gets compromised, and they have to not panic long enough to type out the sentence. Not everybody has the same abilities, either technological or mental. I personally have encountered users (plural) who have motor skill limitations, and/or physical limitations, that would make this difficult on them. Not all users have the same level skill or abilities at anything. Please do not make it worse for people struggling already.— Maile (talk)21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you missed the point. Use whatyou consider to be a standard English sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. If, you, overuse, commas, and, kant, spel, that's fine as long as you do it the same way every time. And if you are better at Spanish, use what you consider to be a standard Spanish sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. If you are handicapped in such a way that you cannot type the same thing every time, sorry, but you are hosed on any system that requires a username or password. My advice also doesn't work if you are in a coma or are Amish and not allowed to use a computer. None of this applies to the discussion at hand, which is advising administrators on the English Wikipedia regarding passphrases. None of them are unable to type a standard English sentence the same way every time. --Guy Macon (talk)07:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The advice to use standard English is usually meant asDon't use abbreviations or misspellings in your password because that doesn't make your password any harder to break. If you are using the, "use a long sentence as a passphrase method", you should spell out your long sentence in whatever way you normally write. The downside to the long sentence method is that it can be difficult to enter such a long thing into a password box (even if you don't have motor skill/physical limitations, but obviously its much harder for people who do have such limitations). For people who have difficulty entering long passwords, probably the best approach is to use a password manager program, which means you don't have to enter the password at all as the program takes care of it for you. Password managers are an approach that I personally would recommend in general as being the easiest way to have a secure password.BWolff (WMF) (talk)21:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I use a password manager, but I still need to remember the passphrase to get at all the other passwords in the password manager. --Guy Macon (talk)22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that even PBKDF2-SHA256 with 100,000 hash iterations is insufficient to protect a majority a user passwords [from an offline attack]"
"Bonneau and Schechter observed that in 2013, Bitcoin miners were able to perform approximately 2^75 SHA-256 hashes in exchange for bitcoin rewards worth about $257M. Correspondingly, one can estimate the cost of evaluating a SHA-256 hash to be approximately $7 x 10^-15."
Or, we can just skip the math and see what happens when we try "Sherwood painted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with his flamingos." on the GRC calculator. The time to crack goes from 27.57 seconds to 10.05 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries. --Guy Macon (talk)22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's only if the attacker is really unlucky. On the average, he will be able to crack your account in a mere 50 trillion years, while I will be sitting back with my 64-character passphrase and 12 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries cracking time. Or until someone decides to beat it out of me...[10] --Guy Macon (talk)08:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Thanks for the link to that paper - I hadn't read it before, and their password cracking economic model is quite interesting. However, I'm unsure about the assumption that password crackers have access to ASICs similar to bitcoin miners - ASICs are very costly to develop (hundreds of millions of dollars up front cost). As far as I am aware, nobody has publicly made (let alone publicly sells) such machines, so the adversary would have to be very well funded in order to develop them. ASICs are way out of my knowledge area - but some googling also suggests that password cracking with ASICs might be difficult for a dictionary attack due to bandwidth limitations on transferring candidate passwords to the ASIC (That of course would not apply to a brute force attack), so even if an ASIC was developed its unclear it would be as useful as they are in the bitcoin case. As for the GRC calculator - its very hard to give accurate estimates of password strength as there are many factors and assumptions you have to make. First of all, since it is a generic calculator, it wouldn't take the key stretching we use at wikimedia into account. On the other hand, it was published in 2012 and password crackers have gotten faster since then (e.g. The 8x Nvidia is what I would describe as an "Offline Fast Attack Scenario", and is 10x faster than what the GRC page describes for that strategy). More importantly, that page only describes a brute force attack, where most adversaries would probably try a dictionary attack. For example, the password "dolphin" (Which by some measure is the 347'th most popular password[11]) according to GRC would take 3 months in an online attack scenario, where in reality it would fall in less than a second since its the 347th most popular. Similarly, the GRC page lists 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' as being a good password, which I would disagree with. All this however is kind of getting far afield, and I do agree with your advice that longer passwords are better and having a longer password is more important than having a complex password (unless your password is super obvious as that's not good either).BWolff (WMF) (talk)00:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree with pretty much everything everything above. The GRC website also agrees (see the "IMPORTANT!!! What this calculator is NOT..." section.) I probably should have talked more about dictionary attacks. My collection of cracking dictionaries is getting big enough that I will likely have to buy a bigger drive to hold them soon. (No, I am not a malicious hacker. Some companies hire me to evaluate their security. Or at least that's the story I am telling now... :) )
Any decent dictionary attack will try "a" "aa", "aaa" up to at least 64 repetitions, and will als try "b", "bb", "bbb", etc. The good news is that if you use two words in that big cracking dictionary separated by a space, the time for an exhaustive search is squared, and with three it is cubed. The example I made up above "Sherwood painted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with his flamingos." has 14 dictionary words. Even if the dictionary was really tiny (say, 1000 words), that's 10^42 guesses. And such a dictionary is unlikely to contain "Sherwood" (with the capitalization) "Subaru", or "flamingos." (with the trailing period).
Regarding ASICS, the zipfs paper correctly concludes "an attacker who is not willing to pay to fabricate an ASIC could obtain similar performance gains using a field programmable gate array (FPGA)". The really interesting question that the zipfs paper cannot answer is this; how much is it worth to get every password for every Wikipedia user and not have the WMF detect this for a couple of years? Is it worth more or less than the Yahoo or AshleyMadison breaches? Is it worth ordering custom ASICS? Hard to tell.
BWolff (WMF), I have a couple of interesting questions for the WMF.
[1] The zipfs paper says "Many breaches (e.g., Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Dropbox) remained undetected for several years." What would happen if we suddenly found out that a couple of years back someone had cracked every Wikipedia password, from Jimbo down to the huge number of accounts that registered years ago and haven't logged on since? Obviously we tell everyone to pick a new password, but how do we know that the person doing the picking isn't an attacker? I assume that we have a plan in place for this and other unlikely disasters.
[2] Has anyone at the WMF evaluated the zipfs paper's advice about either memory hard algorithms or distributed authentication servers? --Guy Macon (talk)08:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that an attacker as stubborn as this has a lot of resources. Perhaps as much as a nation state or intelligence agency. Don't know motive, but we live in interesting ties.The bottom line is, are there additional steps I/any user can take (20 byte password) to protect my account?--Dlohcierekim (talk)16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a goal of this particular attacker (who also might be the same person who tried to subscribe en masse to various mailing lists) was not to break in any of the account, but more to create the state of uncertainty so that people start getting worried about the security of their accounts.--Ymblanter (talk)16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re Guy Macon: In the event of a disaster of that type (which I hope never happens) - the most fundamental step would be marking everyone's password "expired" which forces the user to change their pass next login, and notifying everyone to change their password asap. Beyond that would depend on the details of the situation, but if we believed the passwords were floating out there we might for example require people to submit a code emailed to them to prove that the person also controls the email. In regards to memory hard hash functions - last time we evaluated hash functions (and chose pbkdf) was quite a long time ago when the ecosystem of memory hard hash funcs were much newer and less mature than it is now. Its always good to reevaluate choices at regular intervals, perhaps we will consider other hash functions in the future. As for distributed auth servers - it doesnt make sense in our current architecture and would be difficult to implement as things currently stand. There are probably other projects that have a better effort vs value proposisition. As far as the idea goes in general - if you have multiple identical distributed auth servers im not sure how much of an improvement that is since if someone can compromise one they can probably compromise the others (as they are identical).BWolff (WMF) (talk)22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account hacking of World War II editors?
Hello all, something is definitely afoot at the Circle K. I am seeing some reports about people who edit World War II articles having attempts made by someone to access their accounts.User:LargelyRecyclable alerted two other World War II editors of this problem[12] and just this afternoon the Wikipedia system alerted me that someone had tried to log into my account multiple times from a new location. On top of it all, there was a strange occurrence a few weeks ago, where someone impersonating an administrator called my job and asked I be "investigated" for my World War II related work on Wikipedia.User:Kierzek and I are both well known WWII editors and I wonder if others are having these experiences too. I changed my password this afternoon, I would encourage others to do the same if they are being affected by this. The most troublesome thing is that the group making mention of this are all World War II history editors, which is why I brought it up here. If for no other reason, then just to alert the powers-that-be that something is going on. -O.R.Comms21:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm an attempt was made on mine. As mentioned on the linked discussion above, I suspect thatPrüm was successfully compromised. I'm not sure when exactly it happened but some of the implications of thecomments the account left at ArbCom are very worrisome. That someone called your work is also a very serious issue. This seems to be targeted and possibly related to the ArbCom case.LargelyRecyclable (talk)21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably unrelated, as it has been almost five years since I edited anything related to WW II, but I received notice of someone trying to log into my account from another computer today, and someone left a comment on my user talk page in the Arabic Wikipedia, which I have never touched.Donald Albury21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's a thread about these hijacking attempts about two sections up. It's been going on all over, all day. It doesn't appear to be targeted at any one group or subgroup that anyone can tell so far. ♠PMC♠(talk)22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It may be a site-wide attempt and not targeted, I've seen similar concerns above. The additional facets of O.R. having his worked called specifically about WWII editing and comments made with the Prum account at ArbCom may be unrelated but I'd still advise additional caution for any editors who've done work in that area.LargelyRecyclable (talk)22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a failed attempt, as did another member ofWP:Indigenous. Other user is not an admin, both attempts failed. Checking with other admins who did not have attempts made. There may be a pattern with targeting wikiprojects and those who edit in controversial areas. Or it could be random. I lean slightly to the former, but no hard evidence yet. -CorbieV☊☼22:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all buy quiescent these days in terms of editing and I got an alert as well. Obviously someone working through a list, though whether it's admins or something else...Tabercil (talk)23:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, everyone, there were over 70,000 attempted loginsper hour for several hours. Basically, they tried to reset the password of everyone.Beeblebrox (talk)00:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This also came up at the help desk (where I mentioned that an attempt had been made on my account too), although that discussion has apparently been closed to try to centralize discussion here. The attacks are on far more than just World War II editors. I don't know where Beeblebrox's 70,000 figure is coming from, but I wouldn't doubt it.Master of Time(talk)00:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of you may have been receiving emails in the last 24 hours warning youof "Multiple failed attempts to log in" with your account. I wanted to letyou know that the Wikimedia Foundation's Security team is aware of thesituation, and working with others in the organization on steps to decreasethe success of attacks like these.
The exact source is not yet known, but it is not originating from oursystems. That means it is an external effort to gain unauthorized access torandom accounts. These types of efforts are increasingly common forwebsites of our reach. A vast majority of these attempts have beenunsuccessful, and we are reaching out personally to the small number ofaccounts which we believe have been compromised.
While we are constantly looking at improvements to our security systems andprocesses to offset the impact of malicious efforts such as these, the bestmethod of prevention continues to be the steps each of you take tosafeguard your accounts. Because of this, we have taken steps in the pastto support things like stronger password requirements,[1] and we continueto encourage everyone to take some routine steps to maintain a securecomputer and account. That includes regularly changing your passwords,[2]actively running antivirus software on your systems, and keeping yoursystem software up to date.
My team will continue to investigate this incident, and report back if wenotice any concerning changes. If you have any questions, please contactthe Support and Safety team (susawikimedia.org).
John BennettDirector of Security, Wikimedia Foundation
General Advice from a Non-Admin
My advice, both to non-admins who can't use two-factor authentication, and to admins, who can use it, is simply to check your User Contributions regularly and make sure that they are all your own. If so, your account has not been compromised, and if your password is strong, it is not likely to be compromised.Robert McClenon (talk)01:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This really seems more like a really elaborate troll than a genuine attempt at compromising tens of thousands of accounts. Just look at how much discussion, verging on panic, it has generated. I’m sure whoever made the bot tht did this is very pleased with themselves right now.Beeblebrox (talk)01:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the attempt is likely a serious attempt at gaining credentials. If a hacker logs intoUser:Example's account, and User:Example reuses their username somewhere else (example@hotmail.com) with the same password, they can be royally screwed. The usurpation of Wikipedia identify is most likely not what they are after and the leaset of your worries if that happens. E.g. if it's a dummy email, no really consequence comes of it. But if you use that email to conduct every day business, your banking, have sensitive information, etc... well the people involved would now have access to that, and use that new information to further acquire other information and credentials.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}04:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SQL is correct, an editor who is an admin onany wiki can enable/disable 2FA on their account. I've been experiencing attempts to access my account for over a week now and I have enabled 2FA through being an admin at test wiki. --Danetalk05:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A strong password is the solution. If you are mostly editing from one place (say home) just write on a piece of paper a random combination of characters, 25 characters long (make sure you are not able to memorize it - otherwise make it longer) which contains small and large case letters, numbers and special characters - and possibly even letters of other alphabets if you can reproduce them with your keyboard. This will be your Wikimedia password. Have it written on the paper in a secure place (no chance to lose) and never use it elsewhere, on any other websites.--Ymblanter (talk)05:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that whoever is doing this is using a list of passwords leaked from other sites, rather than trying to brute force their way into each account. I doubt they're even trying variations on the password that's on that list. That's why most of us are only getting one failed login attempt and that's it. While it's good to have a strong password anyway, if what I think they're doing is what they're doing, changing the password is the kicker.Ian.thomson (talk)14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks indeed like yesterday they did not really attempt to break down any accounts, just let know that they exist to the largest possible amount of active user. However, this is not an isolated incident. We had recently two admin accounts broken, apparently because they re-used the passwords from other sites which were in the yahoo leak, or some other massive leak. I mentioned above that I regularly get attempts to break in to my account, sometimes up to several hundreds per day. It is obviously not possible to break a strong password which is not used on any other sites, however, it should be possible to break a weak password or to steal the existing password from elsewhere. 25 characters may be an overkill, but gives pretty much the guarantee - assuming they do not break in physically to one's house and there is no fire.--Ymblanter (talk)15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if anyone mentioned yesterday's twitter breach, but if you used the same password there as here, you should change both quickly.--Dlohcierekim (talk)15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone is giving advice I may as well chime in. The main reason people don't use strong passwords unique to each account is that it's practically impossible to remember all those passwords. But you can use apassword manager to keep track of them and to at least partially automate the process of entering passwords. I use something called KeePass but there are lots of alternatives -- see ourList of password managers.Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)03:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It happened again, two more attempts. If you can find out who, please ban him. Do I have any reason to be nervous, if my password is safe?Alex of Canada (talk)17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alex of Canada - I agree withUser:Primefac. If your password was and is strong and it hasn't been compromised, you are all right. Just check your User Contributions from time to time. I will comment that the hacker or bot may be hoping to get people to panic and to change their strong passwords to new weaker passwords, but that is only my guess.Robert McClenon (talk)13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will also comment that password regimes that require frequent changes of passwords, and that prohibit the use of a previously used password, are well-meaning but actually make things worse, because they increase the likelihood that the user will need to write down the password. This comment applies both to Wikipedia and to employer or government systems.Robert McClenon (talk)13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got a failed-login warning a couple of days ago, but thought nothing of it at the time: I'm surprised there aren't more brute-force attacks. Perhaps this is where some sort of anti-bot measures might help? --The Anome (talk)09:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're at it again today (I just got an alert that multiple failed attempts had been made to log into my account...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just got notifications for it today again. Got some before this conversation on AN started on the 3rd and some today. Thanks for jinxing it, Dlohcierekim. :) —MoeEpsilon13:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a notice that there have been multiple failed attempts to log into my account from a new device. The other day it was just one attempt. This is getting worse and I don't like it. Someone may be trying to steal my bank account or credit card information this way. Something had better be done to stop this or WP will lose editors including me. I feel like deleting my account and all my information right now. It isn't worth taking the risk.Smeat75 (talk)15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smeat75: Which would make your account more susceptible to hijack. Change your password here to something stronger. If it is the same as your password anywhere else, change your elsewhere password at once to something different. Get a committed identity hash. If you have not done so already, enable email. --Dlohcierekim (talk)16:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Password reuse. Banks should be much more secure, but theoretically the attack vector first tries to find a working username/password combination on one site. If they get that, they then use it on a more interesting site (bank, turbotax, whatever). Again, there's no evidence that any of this has been the least bit successful, and this is all just speculation at this point. ~Amory(u •t •c)17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for alleviating panic
I'm in for the firs time in almost a week and was surprised to see that someone had made an attempt on my account. It was a few moments before I found this thread, and in light of that I'd like to suggest running a message through the message delivery system to all accounts on Wikipedia advising them of the situation so that our editor base gets caught up on this as soon as possible. Those who have email enabled (like me) should see the email alert in the inbox along with the section header, while those like me coming in late to the party will have the talk page message notice here and will (hopefully) check there first to get caught up. In this way we can get out ahead of this andcircle the wagons, such as it were, before editors panic and act before thinking.TomStar81 (Talk)14:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest everyone get acommitted identity hash string (readthis first, and then get the stringhere), to be able to get their account back in case someone manages to take over the account (just to clarify things: getting a committed identity here doesnot require revealing your real life identity to anyone, you're as anonymous after getting the hash string as you were before getting it...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On or about May 4th, 2018, the Wikimedia foundation noted a massive cyberattack against the English Wikipedia with the apparent goal of locating users utializing weak passwords in order to compromise the accounts. Steps are currently being taken to track down the origin of the attack, but as a precaution all Wikipedia users with a registered account are being asked to review their accounts and passwords in order to ensure that your account does not end up compromised. Measures editors are advised to take include the following:
Choose a strong password
Ideally, a strong password is a password that uses a combination of symbols, numbers, and capital and lower case letters. Users are required to provided a minimum 8-letter password, but a longer password is viewed as more secure and passwords with letters, symbol, and number combinations are shown to stronger than simple words or phrases. Additionally, users should refrain from picking out simple passwords easily guessed (such as abcd1234 or password).
Obtain a Committed Identity Hashstring
A Committed Identity Hashstring is a security measure that allows users to type words, phrases, and other information which when put through a hash are scrambled, resulting in an unreadable line of random letters and numbers. The only person who would know what the unscrambled letters and numbers translate to would be you, thus ensuring that you could reclaim you account if it is compromised. More information about this measure can be foundhere, and users wishing to implement this security option may do sohere.
Enable Two-Factor Authentication
Two factor authentication was added as an additional security measures for certain high privileged Wikipedia accounts - most notable, those who possess admin rights. Enabling this will make it that much harder for unauthorized persons to gain access to your Wikipedia account.
Enable E-mail notifications
Users who possess registered accounts on Wikipedia have the option of enabling email notifications for talk page messages, which may be useful for helping you to spot and stop attempts on your account as well as for keeping up to date with developments as this incident progresses.
Of course, I'm open to adding or subtracting information as needed; just as long as we get the word out it should help our situation.TomStar81 (Talk)15:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Object@TomStar81: sending a mass message to "all accounts" is a huge waste of job resources, especially as most accounts are dormant. If we want this to get to a large number of editors, using the logged-in user sitenotice would be preferable IMHO. —xaosfluxTalk15:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Mass message is the only messaging system I was familiar with; if there is another or better system, then by all means use that instead. The important thing is that we get the word out. Keep in mind too that, as I noted above, I'm coming into this days after the fact - for all I know this could have long since been resolved (though judging from above I don't think that to be the case) which would mean the whole point of the message is now...useless. In any event, handle it how you judge it should be handled. As for me, I've got to be off to work here soon so I'll likely be unavailable for a few hours. I leave my suggestion in the board's capable hands, and trust that the best course of action will present itself and be implemented as consensus wills.TomStar81 (Talk)15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I take it back; I am familiar with this sort of messaging, I just didn't know what it was called - at least no properly. That would probably work best, all things considered.TomStar81 (Talk)15:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise oppose this, as well as a sitemessage or watchlist notice. A great many users appear to be targeted (I have thus far received no notifications and am starting to feel left out!) but unless I'm mistaken there has been no evidence of any success on the part of the attacker. A reminder to use strong passwords is always worthwhile, and maybe worth considering via sitemessage/watchlist once this has subsided, but I don't see the utility in alarming a great many people when by all accounts everything is working just fine. ~Amory(u •t •c)15:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only accounts that have been compromised in the last couple of years were the ones that re-used compromised passwords with other sites. There is really no need for mass messages or sitenotices here. The same best security practices apply today as they did a year ago - have a strong password, and if you're particularly concerned you can include other measures like 2FA (or committed identity, but honestly I have no idea how that works and can't find any read-able guide to it on here). --Ajraddatz (talk)16:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that page puts it very clearly. Seems like a sensible measure indeed, speaking as one of the people who coordinates the return of compromised accounts to their owners. --Ajraddatz (talk)16:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that in the discussions that led up to the current password policy, the notion that youmust use a combination of upper and lowercase, symbol, and numbers to have a strong password was strongly rejected by the community.Beeblebrox (talk)17:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. While the attacker continues to try and login at a very high rate, we are currently blocking his/her login attempts. At this time, there is no need to panic or do anything. We of course always encourage all users to use a strong password.BWolff (WMF) (talk)—Precedingundated comment added18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having finally had the chance to start logging back in, I find all this...oi vey. Anyway, relevant to the above, I'll note that "require 2FA" is an absolute non-starter for other reasons: there are those of us whodo not have smartphones and/or cell service at our computing locations at all. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I got a failed attempt 13 days ago. I just changed my password. I hashed something known only to me to SHA-256, and used the random 64 character hash as my password. I think that will stop people form getting into my account.— Precedingunsigned comment added byYoshi24517 (talk •contribs)02:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, a (belated) semi-technical qy. Why do you recommend spaces between the words of a passphrase? Most similar advice I have seen uses a string of words without spaces. And standard cryptography sued fixed length strings ignoring the word divisions, so the length of the word offers no clue. DGG ( talk)04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me work backwards on those questions.
First, neither the length of the individual words or the overall length of the passphrase offers any clue, because those are unknown to the attacker.Kerckhoffs's principle says that you never tell the attacker anything about the key. BTW, Wikipedia gets that one right. If they limited your passphrase to, say, 64 characters, that would tell the attacker something about your passphrase. I tested Wikipedia, and it has no problem with a 256 character passphrase (that's as far as I tested; the actual limit may be much higher).
The reason I recommend spaces is so that your passphrase follows a basic rule that makes it easier to remember and easier to correct typos;Use a standard English (or whatever language you are most fluent in) sentence with standard punctuation and grammar.
Consider the following passphrases:
My hovercraft is full of eels.
my hovercraft is full of eels
myhovercraftisfullofeels
myh0vercraft15fu||ofeel5
The first one is the hardest for a computer to guess (dictionary or brute-force attack), the easiest for a human to remember, and by far the easiest to find any typos in. --Guy Macon (talk)06:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that there are many standard packages for attacking passwords. They usually try a password, and then try variations on it. So, if an attacker tried the first of Guy Macon's above passphrases, the attacker would be very likely to also try the alternatives listed.Johnuniq (talk)07:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems problematic to me that we cannot find candidates to close this... I mean, i understand why people are hesitant and that many of the familiar faces are in the discussion themselves, but somehow, we have to close this right. suggestions ? —TheDJ (talk •contribs)07:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regularly patrol ANRFC, though I probably should... but don't take a lack of closure as automatic "hesitation" on anyone's part. Sometimes big discussions just are a hurdle to get stuck into.Primefac (talk)13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind taking a stab at writing a closing statement; I almost did that a few weeks ago, but decided it might not be the wise thing to do alone. As long as there are at least 2 other volunteers willing to review my statement before I add it & close the RfC, I'm fine with taking my share of the heat. (I figure after 15-16 years of watching stuff unfold at Wikipedia, I know something about the issues involved & can make a plausible closing statement. Especially about an issue I have no real interest in.) Is there someone besidesSwarm willing to help bell the cat? --llywrch (talk)20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir, is the next cryptoadvocate for your consideration.
Per their editcount they have ~8.700 edits; ~8,300 of them in the last four years, almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies. Here are their top edits:
What brings us here today isthis comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash:Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrandBitcoin Cash toBcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failedBcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely usedBitcoin Cash name. which they have restored twice, despite mywarning to them at their talk page, firsthere with the doubling-down-on-the-crazy edit noterv., this is confirmed by the cited sources and againhere.
There is of course no source on the Talk page or in the article, that says that "proponents ...are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose".
(The alt name, "BCash", for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actuallyinsulting. Vehemently so. Shiftchange for example, had!voted at the Rfc on mentioning BCash" in the lead as follows:Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for thepurpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way.)
The comment above was an addendum to Ladislav Mecir's earlier !vote,here (sorry, that is four diffs separated by some diffs from others) which is too long to copy here, but makes the same argument as Shiftchange, albeit "supported" by citations. I use the scare quotes because their summary of what those sources say is often not supported by the source cited.
tabloidy ref (Independent) with a passing, postive mention, to the first sentence, addedthis ref, linked to a section with "good news" about Bitcoin Cash, added some more unsourced content to a section that was unsourced, etc. and thenreverted to keep it when it was removed.
before then, addedthis source to the first sentence, with "bad news" about Bitcoin.
"comrade" in the sense of editing promotionally and aggressively in favor of Bitcoin Cash. This is not even a little ambiguous. Being aware that Shiftchange was worse than you is no sign that you see how badly you are editing and behaving.Jytdog (talk)04:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog wrote: "The alt name,BCash, for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actuallyinsulting."—Note that in my comment cited above I actually wrote that "Bcash is not a derogatory term."
HereJytdog wrote: "The comment you madehere ... amounted to personal attacks on other editors."—There are several reasons why this is unfounded:
Here is an edit made byJytdog claiming that there have been attempts to recruit users with specific viewpoints to edit the article.
There have been attempts by proponents of said specific viewpoints such asthis,this and many others, actually leading to page protection.
In my response toJytdog's claim at my talk page, I also wrote:
Let's consider a Wikipedian XY thatis not a proponent of rebranding of theBitcoin Cash toBcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made, speaking about "proponents of the rebranding" does not concern XY at all. Thus, logically, it could not amount to "personal attack" on her.
Now let's consider a Wikipedian XZ thatis a proponent of rebranding of theBitcoin Cash toBcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made is not a personal attack on her either, since it just claims that XZ wants to claim that theBcash name is at least as notable as theBitcoin Cash name, which is exactly what the "proponent of rebranding" implies.
Jytdog wrote: "Theircomment in another RfC on the talk page aboutabout removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes"." - note that I just made a comment not claiming that the section should bekept, but claiming that the contents of the section does not correspond to its title. If that is a reason why I am a "Shiftchange's comrade" remains to be judged by somebody else thanJytdog, as it looks.Ladislav Mecir (talk)05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for anyWP:SPA focused on cryptocurrency. It's exactly like creationism, climate change denial or homeopathy. These are quasi-religious cultists and the wider Wikipedia community lacks the time and the patience to continue to argue with them.Guy(Help!)17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lots of areas haveWP:SPA editors, that's no reason to enact a TBAN here. If you really feel that is necessary, let's invoke General Sanctions in the area first. I do agree with the comment at[15] that the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash feud has spilled onto Wikipedia, based on my own editing experience and the diffs in this thread.power~enwiki (π,ν)18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is, because the SPAs have an absolutely homogeneous agenda, promoting crypto. SPA religious editors may be from different sects, but SPA crypto editors are almost all members of the crypto cult.Guy(Help!)18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite homogeneous; the specific dispute here is that certainBitcoin Cash supporters feel that is the one true Bitcoin, and opponents feel that it's some form of scam. A lot of the other crypto-currencies have no wide-spread interest, importance, or significance, and are edited merely by people who stand to profit from promoting them. Those articles are overwhelmed with promotional material from "the trade-press" (as a charitable description of what others would simply call "unreliable sources" and "blogs", i.e[16]).power~enwiki (π,ν)19:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:power~enwiki this is not a content dispute, and no, it is a not a binary thing. Generally for each one of these currencies there are fierce advocates for it, and most everybody else (inside the crypto-communities and outside) looks at the currency/project with some interest, or perhaps some skepticism, or maybe doesn't look at all and is just bored by the whole thing. There are a few of these currencies that have been outright scams. I haven't read anything that said that Bitcoin Cash is illegit or a scam per se.
The issue here is the behavior of this advocate, as it has been for each other advocate I have brought here. The issue is the advocacy.
You know as well as I do that that Wikipedia is always vulnerable to activists, due to our open nature. This vulnerability sharpens, if there are online communities of activists. This vulnerability sharpens to the point of bloody hell, when there are online activists with financial interests in their object of advocacy. There is almost nobody involved in the online communities around these cryptocurrencies, who doesn't hold the currencyand believe that they are going tochange the world through the technology. This is like (not exactly like, but like) some kind ofprosperity religion thing, and it isall happening online.
Wikipedia is not an extension of the blogosphere -- not a place for people to come here and preach their currency-religion and state their paranoias like they are facts. LM's statement of "fact" (on which they have by now not just doubled down, but quintupled down) thatthe proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose is not a statement of fact but rather an expression of the paranoia of the Bitcoin Cash community. He has no self-insight into how unacceptable that statement is, here in WP.
This is asymptom of the underlying approach to WP. Fortmit.
I'll add that our content about each one of these currencies is going to be paltry and slim in the eyes of these people. WP is alagging indicator of notabilityby design; we are not going to have the level of detail they want for a long long time, if ever; we are not going to track the roller coaster of valuations as the coin markets gyrate. Not what we do here. Not what WP is for. These crytocurrency people do not understand this.Jytdog (talk)19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you're reading too much into the specific diff ofthe proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. I take it to simply mean that there is POV-pushing in this area (which everyone agrees is happening), and not an accusation of canvassing. There's definitely some biased editing here by Ladislav, if General Sanctions were in place and he had been warned about them, I would support sanctions. I don't currently feel they are necessary.power~enwiki (π,ν)19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a direct claim about what other people are actually doing here in WP. Reading it as anything else is reading against its very plain meaning. I get it that Bitcoin Cash advocates in their reddit forums are all paranoid. Edit warring to retain that level of paranoid attack on other editors here in WP - to revert with anedit note thatthis is confirmed by the cited sources is just... bizarre. There areno cited sources that say that people arecoming to Wikipedia to try to rebrand the currency. None. This is paranoid crap that Ladovic obviously cannot restrain himself from. So we need to restrain him.Jytdog (talk)03:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Mecir's comment about being sourced was in regard to the "Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt." rather than any other claim. -Bilby (talk)05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is obvious. And that is not why the comment was removed. Which is also obvious. The edit note was a twisting nonresponse to what was (and still is) problematic.Jytdog (talk)08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN and support general sanctions for cryptocurrency per Guy and Power. We are currently getting flooded with crap about crypto, and I think this editor is being disruptive, but I don't thinkJytdog andGuy should have to get a topic ban discussion going every time we need one. Let's streamline dealing with the stuff, please.TonyBallioni (talk)19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the topic ban, but I agree that cryptocurrencies should be under discretionary sanctions. I'll make a formal proposal below.MER-C20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a topic ban I'd want to see ongoing disruption that haven't been managed via other means. I can;t see any other means having been tried, but then I can't see evidence of long term disruption - after years of editing on these topics, no ANI threads about the editor (noting that there was one in 2014 which briefly included discussion about his editing, but that was a) 4 years ago, and b) not the focus of the discussion), a clean block log, no history of 3RR violations, and going through his talk page for the last two years I can find no formal warnings, with the occasional concerns seemingly met with discussion and at times compromise or agreement. There may be more elsewhere, but it isn't obvious, and hasn't been presented here. What has been presented here is enough to say that a warning is appropriate, but jumping to a topic ban for a few recent edits of varying quality is a big step. With all that said, if we end up with general sanctions, then all editors would be aware of the limits for their behaviour, so stepping out of line could reasonably warrant tbans for anyone, and that would be fair enough. -Bilby (talk)12:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is unanimous support for imposing indefiniteWP:ARBPIA-equivalent general sanctions on the topics of theblockchain andcryptocurrencies, broadly construed.WP:1RR will also be implemented on these pages.Logs of warnings and sanctions should be loggedhere, using the appropriate templates and notices. Appeals, amendments, and requests for clarification should be made at this noticeboard.Primefac (talk)14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the community authorize standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed?
Support as proposer. Most of the major articles in this topic area have been semi-protected (many by myself) due to the torrent of promotionalism and still it does not stop. It's like binary options and forex all over again, but with added, overt, criminality. The Bitcoin Cash/Core feud just makes things worse.MER-C20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support partially per my query below. There is a huge amount of promotion and straight-out advertising going on in cryptocurrency articles. I find it incredibly difficult to edit these articles - in many cases I know I'll be reverted by an "article owner" - so editing would only be a case of making aWP:Point. I know what you're thinking "Smallbones is afraid to edit here?" Yes, I've worked in some incredibly difficult areas, e.g. binary options and retail forex, but cryptocurrencies take the cake.
The main problems I see are:
the use of unreliable "trade press" sources as almost the whole source material. These sources are almost always cheerleaders
promotionalism and advertising
article ownership
COI editing on the article page (Note that cryptocurrency owners are specifically mentioned inWP:COI as having a COI on the ccurencies they own).
Support – as noted immediately above, this topic area was identified as a magnet for problem editing/editors about the time the binary options thing was winding down at COIN, around October[18]. Note that clouds started to appear on the horizon wrt this behavior at least as far back as 2012 atCOIN andANI. ☆Bri (talk)22:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this topic area is a perfect storm of 'true believers' and 'commercial interests'. Either can spawn editors who will tax the patience and will of those who enforce policy, both will probably start burning out administrators unless they have the flexibility and streamlining allowed by GS/DS.Jbh Talk23:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously disagree on how "quickly and easily" we can deal with the problems in these articles. But we also have to consider how bad the writing and the articles in general are - which really degrades our reputation. We need to consider how much editor time this takes up. And most importantly we need to consider how many people are getting ripped off by unethical crypto-operators while we dilly-dally.Smallbones(smalltalk)03:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i know we (the community) can govern ourselves as we wish, but is there precedent for us to place DS? The formal DS are an arbcom thing perWP:ACDS, enforceable at AE as well by passing admins, etc. I am going to support in any case :).Jytdog (talk)20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Syrian Civil War, South Asian castes, and a few others have general community authorized discretionary sanctions (and they are both general sanctions and discretionary sanctions).TonyBallioni (talk)20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally unfamiliar with community sanctions as well. Perhaps somebody more experienced with them can best describe how this works. I'll ping@DGG: - if he can't explain it, he'll know somebody who can.
I did quickly skim through one case of a community sanction. It looks like the closer decides on the final wording of the sanction. The discussion lasted 9 days at ANI, and there were 10-20 !votes. I need to know more about the mechanics than this however.
My input on the question of sanctioning here will be heavily influenced by the facts concerning bans on cryptocurrency ads on other major internet platforms. I've written this up in theInitial coin offering article about6 weeks ago. We can leave out Jimbo's opinion for the purposes of this discussion. And just because much of the rest of the internet is banning these guys, is not, in itself, a reason for banning them here. But I do think that it shows there is a huge potential problem and that folks who have noticed problems here are not making them up out of whole cloth. Everything written here about ICOs also applies to cryptocurrencies in general.
Facebook has banned ICO and cryptocurrency advertisements on its platform stating that many of them were "not currently operating in good faith."[1]Google andTwitter have also banned ICO and cryptocurrency advertisements.[2]
Snapchat,LinkedIn andMailChimp all have limited companies from marketing ICOs via their platforms.[3]Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, stated in 2017 that "there are a lot of these initial coin offerings which are in my opinion are absolute scams and people should be very wary of things that are going on in that area."[4]
Chinese internet platformsBaidu,Tencent, andWeibo have also prohibited ICO advertisements. The Japanese platformLine and the Russian platformYandex have similar prohibitions.[5]
I missed one. Just yesterdayBing (from Microsoft) imposed a ban[19]
"Because cryptocurrency and related products are not regulated, we have found them to present a possible elevated risk to our users with the potential for bad actors to participate in predatory behaviors, or otherwise scam consumers. To help protect our users from this risk, we have made the decision to disallow advertising for cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency related products, and un-regulated binary options."
FWIW, the entire sanctions "system" is in my opinion an accumulation of confusing half-thought out and erratically-enforced procedures. I have never used it as an admin, and try to avoid sanction discussions as an arb. I suggest you do here whatever seems reasonable. If I were doing it over, I might like a rarely used remedy: one comment per talk page per day per person. It could be enforced easily by just removing anything beyond that. DGG ( talk)01:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If these arecommunity authorized sanctions then the decision must be made by the community. Either move this discussion to ANI or a village pump and add a central notification advertising it (preferably both). --NeilNtalk to me18:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Let's stick with whatWP:General sanctions says, which is that we do the discussion here. We should however publicize the discussion, which has been done for the main cryptocurrency pages. Feel free to add notifications elsewhere.
I am concerned however that we need to specify the sanction somewhat better than has been done. Per WP:General sanctions "When general sanctions are employed, they arespecifically detailed instructions by which community consensus or ArbCom motion has empowered administrators to act single-handedly to sanction editors who are not complying with general behavioral or editorial guidelines and policies.(bolding added)
Smallbones, MER-C proposed standard discretionary sanctions, which is what we are discussing. I don’t see a need for anything like a CENT notice, but maybe a VPR post would work. The last proposal for this (which eventually failed) was for Catalonia separatism/independence. I don’t think that was advertised anywhere but here. As I said, this is the main community noticeboard for these type of things, so it’s already relatively well advertised just by being here.TonyBallioni (talk)18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I'm starting to get this but it would bear repeating (or correcting me if I'm wrong).
the scope of the sanctions as I understand it includes articles on bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies,initial coin offerings,blockchain and related articles broadly defined.
Yes, that would be my understanding. These operate the same as other discretionary sanctions, just authorized by the community instead of ArbCom.TonyBallioni (talk)23:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The community can also automatically apply editing restrictions instead of relying on admins.WP:GS/ISIL has an automaticWP:1RR on the topic area. The community also has to decide on a notification system. Please, by all that's wikiholy, use the notification system described byWP:GS/ISIL and not AE discretionary sanctions. --NeilNtalk to me23:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I suggest that in addition to this 1RR rule we also consider banning most of the cryptocurrency trade magazines, except for two majorsCoinDesk andBitcoin Magazine, as I think we could use a couple of respected industry rags to anchor content. I suggested these these two major trade rags as they appear to me to be reliable AND they both have posted editorial guidelines on their respective sites. I think that only allowing a couple of trade rags would allow us to preserve 90% of the content as well as cutting out 90% of the promotion (as majority promo content seems to come off the long tail of awful quasi-newsources). There is a discussion of this sourcing issue hereTalk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC to tighten sourcing on this article FYI. Thanks!Jtbobwaysf (talk)07:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any crypto trade publications can be considered to be reliable sources. CoinDesk is owned by a crypto trader.CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group ("DCG"). DCG invests in cryptocurrencies and has ownership stakes in a number of blockchain startups. While I don't question the journalists good intentions, the ownership issue and the story selection implied by their audience, must inevitably bias their stories. Bitcoin Magazine was founded by the co-founder of a major cryptocurrency and apparently sold to a firm that calls itself "BTC Inc." There's no good identification online as to who they are - and I suspect it has crypto owners still. There is a subsidiary of a local Iowa telephone company named "BTC Inc." that is identified pretty well online, but it doesn't look like the same company. There's also a company based in Ohio with he same name, but less info.
Yeah, i hear you. I was just thinking that if we were to impose this type of topic ban for ALL trade publications it might damage wikipedia. I was thinking one or two preapproved ones, deemed to be the least bad, might be good overall.Jtbobwaysf (talk)05:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This might be unorthodox but along the lines of how we treat pseudoscience, what about imposing a templated paragraph on all crypto currency pages that says roughly "Leading financial press and finance experts have described all cryptocurrenies as a fraud, worthless, and holding no inherient value. Major advertising platforms have banned all ads connected to cryptocurrency. Cryptrocurrencies are subject to aggressive promotional activities, often by people with undisclosed conlicts of interest, in a nearly unregulated environment." (Add appropriate cites)Legacypac (talk)06:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike most article tags, as they seem to stay there permanently, and most people just let them sit there without taking care of the problems. My dislike echosWP:No disclaimers in articles. In most cases where we'd add a tag or template, it would be much better simply to rewrite the article or just delete it.Smallbones(smalltalk)20:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AIV backlog
I'm heading offline, so I can't help at the moment, butWP:AIV is getting a bit out of control. If someone could pop over there and take care of some of that, it'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron3213:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recently stumbled upon the contributions ofthis vandal here [NSFW, extremely graphic], and I'm wondering if an admin could search for the string "Goatse in Wiki Table format" inall the revisions of Wikipedia and revdel that stuff. Or if there's a tool out there that facilitates deep revision history search on Wikipedia. It probably needs to be somethingWP:DUMP based.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second Casprings request. Factchecker_atyourservice has been a disputatious and disruptive editor for quite some time, and is clearly holding a serious POV which they are pushing just as hard as they can. They'veWP:BLUDGEONed the discussion to within an inch of its life and does not appear to have given any consideration whatsoever to stopping. In my opinion, at this point, a warning is the absoluteminimum that should be dealt out to Factchecker: if they don't stop their tendentious editing, they should be slapped with a short block.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll fourth this request. I believe FactChecker has violated their one-way IBan with BullRangifer in that thread near the beginning of a six month ban.[21] The editor is now attacking editors at AE[22], has just exited a sanction, and has engaged in PAs for months. The thread is a timesink and will eventually end up wasting admin time at a drama board.O3000 (talk)00:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Attacking editors at AE"? I described an incident in which Iattempted to discuss something utterly non-personal with SPECIFICO, and he refused to offer any explanation whatsoever of what he meant and instead just used each reply as a new opportunity to taunt me. "PAs for months" is an unusual claim since I didn't edit for the past year until April 2018, at which point I suggested citing high quality sources and removing low quality ones from an article and got comprehensively flamed. Pretty much everything that has happened since then has revolved around asking if we could please cite better sources, and do so more accurately, and I've just gotten flamed for it.Factchecker_atyourservice01:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casprings orBeyond My Ken I would suggest an AE filing would be more appropriate than AN if these are long term behavioral issues. I am not saying that there are issues (I am unfamiliar with the editor in question), but in this area ANI/AN is sometimes difficult to parse out trends and figure out who is doing what. A structured format often helps in these situations.TonyBallioni (talk)23:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping not to take the time to do that, given that I am not asking for a ton to be done here. I will see how it plays out and may do that in the future.Casprings (talk)23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wellll that RFC had stalled pretty fully, on top of which it bogged down on (1) various claims that the sources were old and therefore misleading becausemaybe some evidence came out since then!, despite that some were just weeks old, and (2) my paraphrasing which was allegedly a calculated lie designed to push .. whatever POV it is I am supposed to have. And virtually all of the more recent votes revolved around how allegedly misleading the paraphrasing was.
So I thought I would try a much smaller approach suggesting a single source, brand new so nobody could claim it's been rendered obsolete by evidence coming out later, from a top quality news source, and I just suggested quoting it directly.
I thought that might circumvent all those objections, but little did I know I'm still a liar for suggesting it be quoted! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gotta say though, it's really weird because the passage I am accused of "dishonestly" omitting has nothing to do with either the dossier or the evidence of claims against Trump, rather it's the NYT addressing a Democratic complaint that an October 2016 NYT article had implied Trump had been cleared by intel investigations, when really those investigations were just beginning. The two statements are related to each other in the context of the NYT article, but the second one is not really related to anything in the dossier article.
Even so, I explicitly said I had no objection to quoting that part too, but that did not satisfy those who had raised it as an objection.
Also, just to noteMuboshgu, despite your comment, Mueller is onlyreliably speculated and widely assumed to have evidence and it is entirely possible that he will close the investigation without ever announcing a clear link between Trump and the Kremlin during the campaign. So your claim thatthere's no evidence because the investigation is ongoing is crystal balling. Also, I believe the tradition with special counsel investigations is that they keep investigating until they find something to charge, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the original reason for the investigation, which is how we got that whole kerfluffle with Clinton getting BJs from young ladies in the White House.Factchecker_atyourservice00:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining why I opened a new discussion seems pretty relevant to this attempt to sanction me for opening a new discussion. Also, you haven't been involved at any of these articles, are you still mad at me about stupid content disputes from 3-4 years ago?Factchecker_atyourservice01:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, he recently served time for his behavior, and came back to edit with a good attitude, trying to do good work. It's a root canal to try to add anything to that article that isn't negative. Factchecker has tried to be collegial but it's difficult in an environment where editors have perfected the skill of annoying their opponents obliquely until they finally break. Some of the reasons given for exclusion of that material are worth framing to remind us how absurd things have gotten. I don't know the answer but I do know it's not fair to keep hammering on the same editor who is bringing really good material to the article, and inclusion is refused for no good reason. I also don't think it's fair to allow the targeting and group pile-ons of a single editor who is actually trying to improve an article for all the right reasons. Whatever is going on, be it WP:OWN behavior or WP:STONEWALLING, it's unjustified behavior when you consider we're talking about one or two sentences that Factchecker proposed for inclusion; material that is clearly DUE, updated and sourced to the NYTimes. It is nothis behavior that should be analyzed.Atsme📞📧02:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A short block is not a sufficient sanction for Factchecker's BLUDGEONing of the discussion, and now you, too, are talking about content and not behavior. Stop that, you know damn well that's not the purpose of AN, and that being "right" on a content matter is no excuse for transgressive behavior.BTW, Wikipedia is not about "fairness" to its editors, it's about building an encyclopedia using specific rules to help guarantee neutrality and accuracy. One of those rules is that we don't allow one editor to hammer on multiple others until they get their way.Beyond My Ken (talk)05:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you know damn well that's not the purpose of AN, and that being "right" on a content matter is no excuse for transgressive behavior. Actually it routinely is for established editors, although it shouldn't be, and you spend enough time around ANI to knowthat "damn well". ―Mandruss☎05:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but Factchecker was, has been, and remains a problematic and disruptive editor, so that standard would never apply to them, Such editors do not not, and should not, get the "benefit of the doubt" that "vested" editors perhaps do, at times.Beyond My Ken (talk)07:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I am a highly competent and experienced editor who contributes to the constructive development of encyclopedia articles, using neutrally worded and carefully attributed references to top fact and opinion sources.
You have had no involvement in any of these articles or discussions—you are just mad at me over some stupid content disputes from years ago and are taking this opportunity to seek sanctions against me.Factchecker_atyourservice14:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My lack of involvement makes me a neutral third-party observer. As for the dispute we had, which, as you say, was years ago, the only thing it has to do with this is that it alerted me at the time to the nature of your editing; otherwise I have not thought of it, or you, in the years between. Numerous editors can testify that I don't carry a grudge, and that I'm quite willing to bury the hatchet and re-establish friendly relations with editors I've had disputes with, so my analysis of your behavior has nothing to do with that past disagreement. I sincerely believe that it would be beneficial to the project, and allow collaboration to proceed in a normal and collegial manner, if you were banned from editing about Trump.Beyond My Ken (talk)17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found FActchecker to be highly dishonest with a tenancy to misrepresent both sources and users. Even when he agrees to comprise is in a tone that implies it is neither final, nor gracious (and by his actions shows that it is never final, he just rewords it and raises it again). He is prone to making PA's and accusations of bias. Simply (over this issue, not idea about anywhere else) he has a totally battleground mentality. His constant raising of the same issue is a time waster, made worse by his other problems.Slatersteven (talk)09:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This alleged "dishonesty" on my part is just extremely poor reading comprehension onyour part.You literally sat there and argued that newspapers couldn't be used as fact sources and when I told you you were wrong, you actually made me go dig up the policy! And even after I citedWP:NEWSORG youstill argued that a top news desk shouldn't be used as fact sourcing, just because you didn't like what the source said.
And that is an example of your dishonesty what I said was that I was[23] objecting because not all RS agree with their assessment (not that they cannot be used for "fact sources"). As I explained to you more then once.Slatersteven (talk)15:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven:You're flat-out lying in order to manufacture "evidence" to get me blocked.
So again, this is poor reading comprehension on your part, and now it's dishonesty too as you're claiming you never said newspapers couldn't be used as fact sources—and using that as a supposed example of MY dishonesty!—even though it's clearly established from the diffs that you did exactly what I said.Factchecker_atyourservice16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting closure of this discussion and move to AE
This is mostly people involved in the topic area arguing with each other. Someone please close this; this isn't going to go anywhere (or atleast easily) without the structure of AE - we have it for a reason in these topic areas.Galobtter (pingó mió)05:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of his disruptive BATTLEGROUND and IDHT behavior, BLUDGEONing, and POV-pushing atTalk:Trump-Russia dossier, Factchecker_atyourservice is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Donald Trump, broadly construed, subject to the conditions atWP:TBAN. He may appeal the TBan every 6 months.
That's correct, I have zero involvement in the article, which makes me a neutral third party observer, not a partisan of either side. Had I been on the side that opposes you, you would of course have written that I was prejudiced, which would, in your view, have invalidated the proposal. Further, I feel compelled to warn you that BLUDGEONing this discussion, on an Administrators' noticeboard, is a perilous path for you to take, given the behavior which the proposed sanction is based on.Beyond My Ken (talk)17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely procedural note, that is not the case. The community is free to make any restrictions it wants on any editor, and does not have to use the arbitration enforcement mechanism. Individual admins are also free to act unilaterally and impose discretionary sanctions without the need for AE assuming that the awareness criteria have been met and he or she believes that sanctions are warranted (that is the "discretionary" bit of discretionary sanctions: they are imposed at the discretion of individual administrators). I have no comment on this issue as a whole, but I did want to point out the procedural points here.TonyBallioni (talk)16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AE is, of course, an option, but I do not see any reason why the community cannot deal with the behavioral problems of disruptive editors on its own. If there is no community consensus on this, then, certainly, it should be brought to AE for adjudication under discretionary sanctions. This, however, is not necessarily a DS issueper se, but a garden-variety instance of editorial misbehavior.Beyond My Ken (talk)17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the mind that the "community" may not be fully aware of what editors are facing, or the circumstances surrounding the added DS restrictions, whereas admins who are familiar with/have imposed the sanctions have better insight into what these pile-ons actually represent which may be lacking at the customary noticeboards - the latter of which affords every editor who holds a grudge against or has a history with the targeted editor to pile on. Yes, I strongly believe political articles are among the most controversial articles we have to deal with...and certainly unlike anything I've ever had to deal with in the past.Atsme📞📧17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a valid concern, but my view is that Factchecker's behavior isper se unacceptable on Wikipedia, not because of the the discretionary sanctions which have been levied on this subject area. I see this as all the more reason for the community to deal with it.Beyond My Ken (talk)19:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, he only recently came off hisblock byNeilN, and has been hammered-on, goaded and baited ever since his return...for no good reason. This is clearly a railroad-style pile-on....and it appears to be based on what he has already served time for doing which is just plain wrong. He has donenothing to deserve this kind of treatment, and if he had, I would not be speaking in his behalf. The behavior of other editors at those same articles have been far worse so before we judge him after only 2 days after a block, let's see some evidence that shows behavior worthy of a TB - and I mean evidence that goes beyondIDONTLIKEIT so you can't include that material which is not only annoying to an editor who is trying to improve an article, it is downright noncompliant with NPOV. Others have demonstrated far worse behavior, believe me.Atsme📞📧19:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Your proposed topic ban says I am guilty of "POV pushing" but that is an argument usually reserved for efforts to put marginal opinion POVs into an article—is it common to topic ban an editor for arguing that a BLP article about someone accused of crimes should reflect baseline fact reporting about the accusations? No, I don't think it is.Factchecker_atyourservice19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni With conduct issues in this topic area the AN and ANI threads usually turn into a back and forth between the same editor groups as on the article talk pages. I think AE is much better suited to look at issues in AmPol. I recognize procedurally that the community at large could deal with this.Mr Ernie (talk)20:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see evidence of POV pushing in the two threads I looked at(The"Miller's questions" and"No public evidence" threads) along with the unconstructive behavior outlined above. FCAYS is, in my opinion, not the only problematic editor in the Trump topic area, which would be well served by the removal of partisans from both camps but every little bit helps.Jbh Talk16:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is clearly railroading of an editor, and it needs to stop. There is evidence of baiting and STONEWALLING so a boomerang may be in order for Slatersteven as I indicated inthis diff and evidence of CIR when he stonewalled again with an absurd questionhere, and made this absurd recommendation to filehere. There are no clean hands in these political articles, and what we're seeing here is an attempt to eliminate opposition, one by one, and that actually does hurt the project because it threatens NPOV.Atsme📞📧17:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I, a claim was made (that there is evidence that trump was set up by the Democrats) I asked for proof, I was then given a lot of stuff about some FBI agent that made little or no connection to the dossier (the subject of the article), or to the Democrats (i could not see any). I then point this out and am given more sources that discus the dossier, and references to an FBI mole (but not the democrats). It is true that I asked also for sources for the claim the FBI mole and the dossier were linked, but that is because that thread is meandering all over the place discussing about half a dozen things at one, most of which are only intangibly linked. It is getting had to tell who has said what about what, and this is one of the issues touched on above about bludgeoning users into submission.Slatersteven (talk)17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did Slatersteven, read your own contradictory statements - they're juxtaposed and easy to find - and tone down the goading and stonewalling behavior. After I demonstrated RS to you, you continued with your absurd rhetoric and goading behavior.Atsme📞📧17:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and also support a TBAN ofBullRangifer (from "Donald Trump", not from AP2 as a whole). While there are other troublesome editors, these two are the most troublesome by volume, and have amutual IBAN already.power~enwiki (π,ν)17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, power~enwiki. All BR needs is the occasional reminder by an admin to tone down his bias. Yes, he has a strong POV and yes, he needs to stop obsessing over Trump and the conspiracy theories circulating around his administration, but BR can be reasoned with in a civil fashion, and I'm saying that based on first-hand experience.Atsme📞📧17:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bludgeoning at article talk continues even as this discussion takes place, suggesting the editor has not taken any of this discussion to heart. Indeed, today the editor started yet another section now discussing the same subject, and appears to have violated an IBAN again.[24] Even during this survey, the editor attacks one editor and asks another to justify or strike their !vote.O3000 (talk)18:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"started yet another section now discussing the same subject" Is not a straightforward or honest way of describing that talk sectionabout a brand new edit totally ignoring a months old content dispute that was still ongoing. That would be like if I had just stepped in and forcibly added the quotes fromNew York Times orWashington Post orBBC even though I knew there was objection, and evenput it in the lead for good measure! This was obviously contrary to the general practice is that people stop editing the disputed subject area until the dispute is resolved.Factchecker_atyourservice19:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet anotherviolation of your iBan against discussing my edits. You comment on it and even link to it! You were the only one who later objected to it, and you even dared to delete it. Not good. It was totally new and different content only tangentially related to any previous discussion. --BullRangifer (talk)PingMe03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a vio of his iban, and because his iban involves commenting about your edits, do you really think it's acceptable or even ethical for you to goad him into commenting about you? There was a proposal above in this thread for you to receive a sanction as well ("these two are the most troublesome by volume") and now you're just proving the need for such a sanction. After seeing what you've just done, I couldn't agree more with the proposer that you also be looked at.-- ψλ ●✉✓03:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi, there was no "goading" above (or before about FCAYS). That's all in your head and an assumption of bad faith. He does not have to respond to my comment above, and in fact MUST NOT respond. That's what an Iban is about. It's not allowed. I wouldn't have written anything if he hadn't violated the iBan. I only pointed out the iBan violation. His responding would just be a repetition of the violation, which I see happened below. Just stop mentioning me, my edits, etc. That's all. It's never done is a pleasant manner. He always assumes the worst about me. That's why the iBan was put in place on FCAYS, not on me (it's a one-way iBan), although I try to avoid responding to him, and when I do, I'm very civil and stick to the subject. No commenting on him as an editor.
BTW, my essay was inspired by totally different events and it started before and apart from anything FCAYS did or said. Contrary to what he writes below, it was not written "about" FCAYS. It was never specifically about him or mentioned him. It mostly describes the tendentious editing of a number of his fellow travelers, those who actually did, and occasionally do, post unreliable sources at Wikipedia, such as Daily Caller, Townhall, Breitbart, etc. Yes, they actually try to use them in discussions.One just did it again today. I never said that FCAYS did it, but they assumed I was writing about them personally and then started attacking me, or as put below, "got mad". Hey, that can happen, just don't keep doing it. Once again, my essay is not an "attack essay" and never was, and is not, "about" FCAYS personally. It's advice about editors who use very unreliable sources at Wikipedia. That's all. To continue to personalize it is bad faith. --BullRangifer (talk)PingMe06:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The iban itself was the result of goading--because he wrote an attack essay about me after I first posted on the dossier page, insulted me with it dishonestly at Jimbo's talk page, and I got mad.Factchecker_atyourservice04:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bull, your claims that the essay wasn't directed at me are transparently false. When I posted a talk page section titled"Sourcing and POV issues" at the dossier page complaining about the source and POV skew, just 4 days later you wrote up thisblistering essay declaring"If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for fringe editors who push pro-Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories." Almost literally saying, you read fringe sources if you disagree with the current tone of this article. Then, when Ipostedabout the same issue on Jimbo Wales talk page, youfirst responded that"Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful. Wikipedia does not cater to whatJimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allowadvocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage,then, and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention". Clearly and obviously claiming that I read those sources and I'm being influenced them, although you of course did not include the whole extended listfrom your essay, "OAN, Drudge Report, Breitbart News, Newsmax, RedState, InfoWars, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, TheBlaze, WorldNetDaily (birther central), The Gateway Pundit, LifeZette, The American Spectator, Real News Update (Trump TV), RT, Sputnik, Zero Hedge."
You then launched into an evenlengthier diatribe against me, again on Jimbo's talk page, burying my completely legitimate complaint having zero to do with fringe sources:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts.
They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.
These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with anad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any otherpublic figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.
It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy.
So like I said, the intent of writing that essay and referring to it in order to shut down my question to Jimbo was unmistakeably to make a personal attack against me and discredit my question.Factchecker_atyourservice06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per the bludgeoning and vitriolic comments at at least two articles I'm involved with, as well as in this very discussion. -MrX 🖋18:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST FOR CLOSE - what I'm seeing is the railroading of an editor who just served a 32 hour block starting the 15th and has not repeated that behavior, has stayed on topic with his comments at the article TPs, and yet he being accused now of misbehavior without a single diff that supports such a claim. The diff provided above by Objective3000 does not provide one iota of evidence of any disruption. I respectfully request that the admins reviewing this discussion notice the lack of diffs which makes the claimsaspersions, and to take this information into consideration. Please readFCAYS response toNeilN on May 18th, and I will add that Neil has done a darn good job of keeping things under control at the Trump articles, and is well aware of the rampant misbehavior by several editors. Please consider that there must be a reason no diffs are being provided, and from where I sit as an editor who has tried to defuse situations, the lack of diffs is dubious.Atsme📞📧20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the !vote at this moment stands at 7 supports and 3 opposes, there does not seem to be any reasonable standard under which a close is appropriate. The community is considering the matter, and a consensus will either develop, one way or the other, or it won't. Closing at this point, after less than 24 hours, would be a peremptory supervote.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know I've always been respectful toward you, BMK, but the iVote count is insignificant without diffs - there is absolutely nothing to measure behavior against except aspersions which is not allowed in the first place. Considering the targeted editor has not even had a full 2 days of editing after coming off his block by NeilN, this whole discussion appears to be a stab atdouble jeopardy and should not be allowed. That is why I moved for it to be closed.Atsme📞📧23:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why you keep repeating the argument that FACT has just come off a block, and therefore should be treated more kindly. Fact is, when you come off a block, that’s where you are likely to be examined for continuing the behavior that resulted in the block. Plus, you’re correct it’s only three days. But, the editor, by my count, has made 231 edits in that short period, a very large percentage of which have been battleground in nature, including edits on this page.O3000 (talk)00:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that sanction arose out of me complaining about obvious PAs and an attack essay on the user's talk page rather than filing at AE, and then the resulting block was for therelated offense of not respecting an editor's right to blank a DS sanctions accusation on his own user talk even though an admin had been pinged in and it was clearly an attack in violation of DS.Factchecker_atyourservice00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was unjust, I didn't say that to Neil (although I disputed the IBAN itself), and I didn't appeal the block. I'm just saying that the behavior that resulted in the block revolved around me reverting a user on his own talk page because I thought Neil was about to join the discussion there and blanking the discussion seemed like an attempt to avoid DS sanctions. And that was over a user who insulted JFG pointlessly. It had nothing to do with my Trump dossier editing.Factchecker_atyourservice01:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Is this what some people call a kangaroo court? Let the complainants build a case atWP:AE, with diffs and due process. If the evidence against this editor is so overwhelming, any appropriate sanctions will be easily justified. If the above concerns turn out to be mostly aspersions and not liking what this editor says, or that he talks too much, that should come to light as well. —JFGtalk20:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's always seemed odd to me that any attempt by the community to deal with egregious behaviorial problems – which, by their very nature, are apt to bring forth numerous editors who wish to put an end to the disruption – are opposed as being a "lynching party", "mob justice" or a "kangaroo court." The comparisons drawn are entirely inapt, as those actions occuroutside the law, while, on the other hand, under Wikipedia's rules and norms, it is entirely within the community's purview to deal with unruly and disruptive editors in this manner. One can certainly disagree on the basis of there not being enough evidence to justify the proposed sanction, but to say that the proposed actionitself is outside the law is absurd.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, like BLUDGEONing, IDHT, and POV-pushing, as stated in the proposal. My mother used to say to me: "It's not what you said, buthow you said it" after I had smart-mouthed her and gotten my just rewards for doing so. Similarly, it's not your position that is the problem, but how you go about pressing it.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per all comments above byAtsme. This is a railroading job, plain and simple. And yes, I'll use the term "witch hunt" and "lynching" to describe it, as well. Shameful, really.-- ψλ ●✉✓21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed "witch hunt" and "railroading" as pejoratives applied to almost any community attempt to deal with tendentious editors, but objective observers can see Factchecker's behavioral problems right here in this very discussion: "You're flat-out lying", "That makes you a sniper", "A petty attempt at revenge", and similar remarks they've posted here are personal attacks or near-personal attacks, and this appears to be how Factchecker approach disputes.In any case, I've said my piece, so unless there's something particularly important to respond to, I'll try not to respond again. The community has the evidence it needs -- indeed, all that is required is readingTalk:Trump-Russia dossier -- and can make its decision without any further opinions from me.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a majority of the votes are byWP:INVOLVED editors on Donald Trump-related topics. This discussion may need a separate vote of editors that consider themselves uninvolved.power~enwiki (π,ν)22:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural/policy note. INVOLVED does not apply to non-admins and certainly doesn't apply to topic ban discussions.--Bbb23 (talk)23:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, what about casting aspersions perWikipedia:Casting_aspersions? Show me the diffs or close this case. I want to see the dates because we're getting into double jeopardy territory considering he hasn't been editing a full 2 days (give or take) since Neil's block expired - began May 15 for 32 hours - making the expire date sometime on May 17.Atsme📞📧23:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme: The proximate cause of NeilN's block of Factchecker had to do with reverting an edit on a user's talk page. It had, as far as I can tell, little if anything to do with his behavior onTalk:Trump-Russia dossier, which is whatthis discussion is about. There's no "double jeopardy" here, and no requirement that all evidence date from after his block was over, since that block is unrelated to the specific issues currently under discussion. He has not, in any way, "served his time" for his behavior on that article talk page, so you really need to stop citing that 32-hour block as a reason why a topic ban shouldn't be levied, as the scope of this proposal is far more general than the specific incidents which triggered that block.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki, I don't agree that there's a problem with the !votes of those !voting/commenting, but I do have to wonder if you're considering the oppose !votes as coming from involved editors or the support !votes coming from involved editors (or maybe both?).-- ψλ ●✉✓22:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only two !votes I'm fairly sure aren't involved are Jbhunley and Andrevan, and I'm not 100% confident of that. This thread is chock full of the usual suspects on American Politics topics.power~enwiki (π,ν)22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Power~enwiki: "The usual suspects"...? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I don't know about anyone else -- well, most everyone else who edits the AP2 articles -- but I know I always edit those articles,all articles, with the best intentions. I'm really hoping you were innocently and without malice using a turn of phrase and not actually being as accusatory as your choice of of words sounds. But as of this moment, I don't really think you were. Can you allay my fears and walk it back?-- ψλ ●✉✓22:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, I have never edited an article involving Donald Trump, although I did !vote in the RfC onTalk:Trump-Russia dossier. I rarely edit articles which fall under the American politics discretionary sanctions, with the exception of those related to neo-Nazism, similar hate groups, and the Alt-right. (I'm sure there must be other exceptions that I don't recall, but the point is that contemporary American politics is not in any way central to my editing.) Given this, I don't believe I qualify as a "usual suspect" -- but even if I were, as Bbb23 points out, for an editor to work in that subject area does not invalidate their opinions about the editing behavior of other Wikipedians. To insist that only those who aren't familiar with a topic should be qualified to express their views about someone's editing in that subject area simply is not supported by any Wikipedia policy, guideline, rule or norm that I am aware of.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, Factchecker is just trying to deflect arrows - he's not being combative. He's been stonewalled, goaded, taunted, mistreated, and blocked on May 15th but some are not satisfied with their 1000 pounds of flesh - this is only the 3rd day after his block expired and here we are with similar attacks against himfor no good reason andno diffs to support the claims. So what exactly is influencing these support decisions?? All I see are aspersions. I am truly dismayed to see this pile-on without a single diff - it's railroading at its finest. Factchecker attempted to add an accurate, well sourced statement into a highly controversial article that is suffering from noncompliance with NPOV, Coatrack, NOTNEWS and is weighted heavily with unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories. Show me the diffs dated May 17th and later that support the claims of misbehavior by this editor or close this discussion. Cullen, you know full well that political articles are not a fun place to edit - this case is evidence of why - politics brings out the ugly in a society's behavioral norms - it doesn't matter how well-behaved or misbehaved one is because apparently what matters is one's political POV, and how many editors agree with it - and worst of all, it now appears that diffs are not required to condemn an editor. 😞Atsme📞📧22:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, this editor called BMK "a sniper with a grudge" and it is difficult for me to think of a more combative remark than that. I am well aware that politics is controversial but I disagree profoundly with your claim that "it doesn't matter how well-behaved or misbehaved one is". I have spent nine years here trying my best to be well-behaved even when provoked by credible threats of violence against innocent members of my family. I expect every editor of every political persuasion to maintain good behavior, and do not think that I am being unreasonable.Cullen328Let's discuss it23:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He has repeatedly surfaced in discussions to recommend I be blocked, never with any concrete discussion of why, how my proposals amount to "POV pushing", just a general me-too. When things get posted on an admin board it is common for uninvolved people to show up and vote against a person, but he has sought out opportunities to do so, never with any substantive contribution, just a pile-on vote. He is speaking quite loudly for me to be topic banned, yet where are the diffs of my attempts to subvert content policies? Please alsosee here.Factchecker_atyourservice23:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up with evidence. If you don't, you're in straightforward violation of policy. But, since you ask: Yes, I have stopped beating my dog ... I mean, no, I have not stopped beating my dog. What I mean is, I don't have a dog, butyou now have two more counts of BATTLEGROUND behaviors added to the proposal based on your comments in this thread: casting aspersions, and personal attacks.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time, I made some comments at an Arbcom case trying to defendUser:Collect from a sanctions drive—note, Collect is himself somebody I used to have many conflicts with at an article aboutSarah Palin—and that apparently rubbed you the wrong way, Ken. You then participated in an effort to have me blocked, in which you were very abusive and pointlessly hostile and berated me based on entirely imagined viewpoints you thought I had, as well as engaging in allllllllllllllllll kinds of nasty taunting and other venomous responses, reams of them, over the evidence phase in the case, as well as sniping at people who tried to defend me from the sanctions case.
For some, such asMrX, who compiled most of the diffs in that case, the arguments and diffs in that discussion, and my angry responses to what I regarded as mischaracterizations and hostility will just be more evidence that I should be banned.
To others, passages like the following, wherein BMK speculates insultingly (and absurdly wrongly) about what I think and believe, will illustrate that the motivations and abusive conduct behind that attempt to sanction meprecisely parallel the driving force behind today's application to relieve the community of me.
Think to yourself, imagine being a democrat, a liberal but not a progressive, who has read the NYT for nearly two decades (at the time), having the following lobbed at you—how would younot get angry in response?
Let me answer a question with a question: Do you grasp that your perception of what is an "improper leftist-POV edit" is almost totally based on your own political position? (In fact, there are no "leftists" in mainstream American politics, hasn;t been for many, many decades. Unless, of course, you're Fox News, the Washngton Times or the Teabaggers, in which case anything more liberal than Genghis Khan counts as a socialist.) The edits in question aren't undoing "improper" "leftist" edits, they're instituting conservative views that only look balanced to you because of where you stand.
Actually, I'll answer my question for you - no, you don't see that, and you can't see that, because you are blinded by the fantasy of left-wing hit squads keeping Wikipedia safe for Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. It's actually very, very sad, but it will make for some interesting reading when the history of these times is written in the future. (But, then again, it'll be academics writing those histories, and I guess they're eve worse than politicians. Some of them are still even (*gasp*) socialists! Better go wash yourself, it can't be easy reading that.) BMK (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As above, this is non-responsive and unnecessarily hostile. Why are you even here? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Lots more like that. Recurring players and arguments on multiple fronts. And unlike today's filing, all kinds of diffs of me being bad! I've saved everybody some work.Factchecker_atyourservice01:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. We've already established that we had a dispute some time back, and now you've shown what that was, and when it was --3 years ago. But you said above that Irepeatedly popped up to try to get you blocked.[25] Can we please have the diffs (notexcerpts, please) for thoserepeated incidents?Beyond My Ken (talk)02:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww...Cullen, you are such a sweetie. Yes, "sniper with a grudge" is a bit harsh - I respect BMK - but c'mon - Factchecker is in a foxhole under heavy artillery fire at this drama board. Just the other day I wascursed at and accused of having balls (not sure if I should take it as a compliment or insult 💃). What was said to me is what I consider disruptive - it hurt right down to the core because I have always tried to show respect to that editor - but this case is more a case of editors trying to rid themselves of opposition at a highly controversial political article for things that don't even register on the offensive scale. I sure didn't run to AE or AN crying weee-weee-weee all the way home. C'mon...how is this case not considered double jeopardy andWikipedia:Casting_aspersions? There has not been one diff provided to support the allegations dated after the time he already served which was only a short 2 or 3 days ago. NeilN has been monitoring his regularly. You know I'm not one to get involved at the drama boards but this case is just not right and the lack of diffs prove it.Atsme📞📧00:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Factchecker is in a foxhole under heavy artillery fire..." Atsme: such an attitude is the epitome of having a BATTLEGROUND approach toward editing.Beyond My Ken (talk)02:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think what Hillary and I have in common are referred to as balls but I'm pretty sure mine are bigger[FBDB] but this isn't the kind of "weight" issue we discuss on WP. Oh, and your other claims require citations to RS or you can upload published images at Commons under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license...a talent release is not required unless it resembles a face.Atsme📞📧00:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unnecessary and unwarranted. How many places at once are we going to request sanctions? This is getting a little ridiculous.PackMecEng (talk)23:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had not seen that. Casprings' comment there was primarily about countering Factchecker's comment by saying that he didn't come there with clean hands, but it is true that he suggested that Factchecker should be sanctioned. However, the way that AE works, such a suggestion would be ignored, because it (the suggestion of sanctions) is irrelevant to the question that is being considered there. Although it hasn't happened yet, the standard response to such a comment would be that Casprings should file a separate report. In any case, it wasn't a formal request for sanctions, although I do agree that things would be cleaner if Casprings hadn't made that part of his remarks in that venue, since it opens them up to claims ofWP:Forum shopping.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, don't forget he's already done time for offenses prior to 05/15/2018 so the diffs you need should be dated when he came back sometime on 05/17/2018 excluding this drama board.Atsme📞📧00:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That turns out not to be the case, as I explained in a comment above. Please read the proposal again - the sanction is suggested for theentirety of Factchecker's behavior onTalk:Trump-Russia dossier, while the block was issued for general disruptive editing, but was triggered -- according to NeilN's explanation on Factchecker's talk page -- for reverting an edit on another user's talk page. Those are different issues.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In parts of the Southwest, they had a policy that a speeding ticket was “good for all day”. That is, if you get a speeding ticket, that’s a ticket that allows you to speed for the rest of the day. Afraid that doesn’t work here. As for:How many places at once are we going to request sanctions?, I would say as many as are needed.O3000 (talk)00:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm: "as many as are needed"? Sounds like a new type offorum-shopping, to me (just over a period of days rather than minutes). Also sounds prettypunitive, rather than preventative, too. Which brings us back to the witch-hunt/railroading tone and theme to this whole thing that was dismissed above (and too quickly, it would now seem).-- ψλ ●✉✓00:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say you are allowed to use more than one forum for the same complaint? In fact, isn’t that exactly what some here have suggested as their positions aren’t in the majority?.O3000 (talk)01:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O3000 - you actually supported my point. The diffs we need now are those that reflect misbehaviorafter the recent block date or you're in double jeopardy territory. How many times is he going to be blocked for the same offenses? NO, that is not how it works, it is not right and should not be happening here now. I shudder to think our policies would even work that way. That would be like saying we can go back in the history of any editor who recently returned from a block and prove they've been disruptive based only on their disruptive past which got them blocked earlier - THAT. IS. PUNISHMENT. The fabricated disruption editors are complaining about now is what needs diffs, not diffs that he's already been blocked over.Atsme📞📧01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are talking about. We are clearly talking about his behavior, both on article talk and on this page, after the block ended. I really don’t see the need for diffs in this section since we are in this section.A petty attempt at revenge,It makes you a sniper with a grudge,Justify your vote or strike it please,he was flat-out lying in order to try to get me blocked Add to that his edit claiming his prior block was not right, which means his lack of understanding of the purpose of his previous block is very much a matter of concern. As you say, blocks are not punitive, they are designed to provide time for introspection. The prior block didn’t work, and is therefore grist.O3000 (talk)01:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I recently told FCAYS that [some of] his participation atTalk:Donald Trump has been the most verbally abusive we've seen there in recent memory. My position has always been and will forever remain that that kind of thing is a net negative, even when one is right on content, which is a matter of dispute here. Wikipedia editing should not be a street fight, and it all too often is. I have not been involved at the article in question but I doubt FCAYS's behavior is significantly worse at Trump. I'll produce as much "evidence" to support my position as do those claiming kangaroo court, lynching, witch hunt, railroading, and pile-on—no less, and no more. ―Mandruss☎01:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editors that called this a “lynch mob” would do well to listen toStrange Fruit a few hundred times for some perspective. And, we also know whereWitch-hunt came from. After all, isn’t that what we’re here for?O3000 (talk)02:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another example of Wikipedia's bias, I found not mention of Monty Python in theWitch-hunt article. No mention of how they float, their want to turn people into newts, or their relation with ducks. This is the world we live in sadly.PackMecEng (talk)03:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Procedurally since this should be done at AE. Seriously folks...this nonstop wall of back and forth bickering is ridiculous. This thread should be closed and everyone go get some sleep.--MONGO02:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Ballioni has already said that there's no procedural reason that thismust be at AE. That you think it's not worthwhile to pursue it here is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but there's no policy reason why it can't be.Beyond My Ken (talk)02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Table Because FCAYS and their supporters (coughAtsmecough) so vociferously want to shift the issue to ArbEnforcement I suggest that their request be entertained at Arb Enforcement under the AP2 heading. All that was asked for initially was a Topic ban on Donald Trump topics, now the die has been cast and all of American Politics or WP as a whole. Stay this discussion for 2 weeks for an ArbEnforcement petition to wind it's way through. If the ArbEnforcement doesn't come up with a conclusion this discussion be resumed without prejudice (i.e. no claims of Double Jeopardy). A conclusion could be "Punt back to AN because the community can sort through this without resorting to AE remedies".Hasteur (talk)02:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, you really should do something about that cough. I heard the grass pollen count in our area was high today. Oh, and I just learned that May isAllergy & Asthma Awareness Month to promote clean air. Let’s help by clearing the air right here, and end this discussion. It’s bad enough knowing tomorrow is Monday and the weekend is over without prolonging the agony here.Atsme📞📧05:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this was tabled and the issue was brought to AE, could Factchecker's behavior inthis thread be included as part of the evidence? If not, then I think it would be better to leave it here.Beyond My Ken (talk)02:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I want it at AE. My primary desires are (1) to have the Trump dossier articles discuss RS analysis about collusion evidence and (2) not being topic banned.Factchecker_atyourservice02:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. My guess is that by the end of an AE filing it would result in both an AP2 TBan and a block. But, it would also be a time-sink, not even counting the appeals. The way I look at it, is that if the community can come to consensus, why bother AE? Or, an admin could just apply a sanction on normal DS grounds, not even counting the IBan vios. But, this stuff is over my pay grade and why I’m happy to be bitless.O3000 (talk)03:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: In my mind, yes as being directly to the cause ofDisruptive conduct with respect to AP2 germane topics.@Factchecker atyourservice: Sorry, but your supporters have made a quite compelling case for handing out some sanctions under AP2. Your "Truthiness" sources and discussions here alone are enough for me to have made up my mind as to the debate, however I'm wanting to give you and your supporters all the time to prove your case (or tighten the noose) as needed.Hasteur (talk)03:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SorryHasteur but I'm not sure what you mean by "truthiness sources"? Have you stumbled into the wrong discussion? Looking for another user, perhaps? Not paying attention to what is going on?Factchecker_atyourservice03:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Because FCAYS and their supporters (coughAtsmecough)...I'm wanting to give you and your supporters all the time to prove your case" Excuse me,Hasteur, but sanctions and discussions about same are supposed to be about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia, not bullying and crucifying editors who oppose the sanction being proposed. I have no personal interest in FCAYS as an editor and can hardly be referred to as one of his "supporters" (or detractors - call me Switzerland as far as he's concerned). When I see a wrong being done, because it's my nature to do so, I will always speak out when I see it occurring.-- ψλ ●✉✓03:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to AE -Talk:Trump-Russia dossier is an absolute horror show. I think the appropriate venue for this to be sorted out is AE. It would not surprise me if the outcome was TBANs for multiple parties (a la the IPA case that was recently closed), because reading through those comments; there is a lot of baiting, tendentiousness, and general unpleasantness.Mr rnddude (talk)04:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and preferAE if necessary per those above and to allow the evidence for such a restriction to be formally organized and presented. If sanction(s) are due they can be doled out there.— Godsy (TALKCONT)05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lionelt. I see that after two failed ANIs you filed against me, resulting in your being excoriated by the community, and following me around a bit, you found another way to poke the bear.Beyond My Ken (talk)07:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not baiting you, I just wanted the closer of this discussion to understand the ulterior motivation behind your !vote, which is especially obvious considering that only 31 of your 24,000 edits are toWP:AN[26], so it's not like you're a regular contributor here and came across the discussion naturally.Beyond My Ken (talk)08:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a lot of noise about Philip Cross (PC) on the internet, with implausible claims of COI and such, and it is pretty clear that he's engaged in a Twitter spat with some of the subjects of articles he's edited. That may well not be a problem at all - I have sparred with Dana Ullman online, that dispute originated with his POV-pushing here, it's not an off-wiki dispute imported to Wikipedia, it's a Wikipedia dispute that attracted off-wiki activism from people dissatisfied with our reflection of an entirely mainstream view, and the same seems to me on the face of it to be true with PC.
The characterisation of PC's targets as "anti-war" is framed to invoke sympathy from a typically small-l liberal project, but is problematic.George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be antisome wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way. It's also worth noting that the three main sources for criticism of PC are George Galloway, Sputnik (where Galloway is a presenter), and the Russian state media conglomerate RT (which is the parent network of Sputnik).
Given the off-wiki profile of this, and the to me obvious involvement of non-public information in assessing whether any of the claims made by Galloway (e.g. that PC is an account shared by a network of paid individuals) are actually true, should we refer this to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow PC to definitively clear his name? Or is it a nothingburger? I'm rather leaning to the latter but I honestly don't know.Guy(Help!)11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support referral to ArbCom to ensure transparency and allow Philip Cross to definitively clear his name. The proposer has related some context, but from a point of view that clearly indicates, as he concedes, that he considers this "a nothingburger." I believe it's a something burger, and offer the following additional background.
There ensued a lopsided exchange, with Galloway tweeting to or about Cross nine times, and Cross tweeting to or about Galloway 75 times. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB
In my opinion, Philip Cross has violatedWP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." This applies not only to George Galloway, but to the other subjects of Wikipedia BLPs whom Cross has called "goons"—Matthew Gordon Banks,Craig Murray,Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed,Tim Hayward (academic),Piers Robinson, andMedia Lens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited.
I'm inclined to agree that the conspiracy theories themselves are a 'nothingburger' that probably do notneed an ArbCom case to "clear his name" (though if he really feels the need to clear his name, it should beallowed). That said, that doesn't mean there'sno problems that need to be addressed. When your editing behavior causes controversy in the media, there's most likelysome problem. In this instance, I think this for sure satisfies "significant controversy or dispute" with an article subject, an obviously-important stipulation of BLP that the user in question has acknowledged when confronted about it on Twitter, but has ignored in practice, as is evidenced above. This type of violation should uncontroversially result in a AE TBAN from the article at the minimum (especially if the user in question is the article's largest influencer, this obviously damages the credibility of our supposedNPOV), but if the user has additional COIs that they're editing articles in spite of, additional discretionary sanctions might be necessary. Is there some reason admins haven't addressed this yet? Seems like something that should have at least beenreported by now.Support referral to AE to address the BLP considerations.Swarm♠17:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Next on 18 May, I filed a report atCOI Noticeboard. It was closed withinliterally two minutes, with the explanation: "Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." (User:JzG determined this in the span of 120 seconds. Amazing!)
Later that day, I filed a reportat ANI. It was closedfive minutes later by thesame Admin, with the explanation: "WP:FORUMSHOP." Forum shopping is defined atthe relevant page as "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages," and is forbidden because it "does not help develop consensus." Duh! How can editors arrive at consensus if my every attempt to stimulate a discussion is instantly quashed?KalHolmann (talk)17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look at actual edits, not at off-wiki garbage. If editors can be run off controversial topics by media mentions then various special interest groups will have a field day. On Wikipedia, we have asock farm targeting Cross,KalHolmann who inappropriately canvassed before I told him to stop, and attacks by usually-dormant accounts[27] and IPs[28]. What I haven't seen yet is a veteran, experienced editor expressing serious concerns about Cross's edits. --NeilNtalk to me17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN, I found three veteran, experienced editors expressing serious concerns about Philip Cross's edits. In December 2015,User:John (207,744 edits since 2006-01-08)wrote, "Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, and more especially on the apparent inability to see that comments like this will be seen as problematic." Helater added, "Count me as a 'support' topic ban." That same month,User:Guerillero (18,031 edits since 2009-11-07)wrote, "I support a topic ban after this revert. Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article." In February 2016,User:AusLondonder (24,968 edits since 2015-04-17)wrote, "I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing by Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop."KalHolmann (talk)20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN takes a cheap shot, coming here to accuse me of canvassing. As Iexplained to him on 18 May 2018, I posted a notice to each of six BLPs directly related to mynewly opened section atTalk:George Galloway. I did so to comply withCOI Noticeboard instructions, which state: "This page should only be used when ordinarytalk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." (Emphasis added.) I sought to follow, in good faith, the procedure as I understood it preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report. Now, NeilN tries to shift the focus of this latest discussion from the behavior of Philip Cross, where it properly belongs, onto me, a "sock farm," and "usually-dormant accounts." I encourage other editors to examine the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved.KalHolmann (talk)18:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: Canvassing[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34] to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban. And you haven't presented any examples of problematic Wikipedia edits, only asserted that "Philip Cross has disgraced Wikipedia in the public eye." How is that examining "the underlying issues, not the various personalities involved"? Pretty sure various editors have "disgraced" Wikipedia according to public special interest groups. --NeilNtalk to me18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN, thanks for providing diffs of my notifications to each of the six BLPs directly related to my newly opened section atTalk:George Galloway. I tried to follow the rules as I understood them, and made no attempt "to get a mob of involved editors calling for a topic ban." As for your other point, I do not regard the proposal on which we are commenting to be about "problematic Wikipedia edits." Rather, it's about the spectacle of a conflicted editor waging war on Twitter against the "punks" and "goons" whose BLPs he has frequently edited and with whomhe has admitted, "Well I have a big COI now." This is not about edits. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia as perceived by the public at large.KalHolmann (talk)18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, Wikipedia page protection filters prevent me from providing a direct hyperlink to Twitter search results, which show exhaustively the ongoing public debate on this issue. However, as a workaround, please navigate in your browser to any Twitter page, and paste the following into the Search box at upper right: (Wikipedianhidin OR philipcross63 OR "Philip Cross" OR "Phillip Cross"). When results display, click "Latest" for full list.KalHolmann (talk)18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time (and more bluntly), subjects of articles are not the "public at large". Parties interested in influencing our coverage about them or their causes are not the "public at large". If you can't produces examples of problematic editing then this is a nothingburger asJzG says. --NeilNtalk to me18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom does not exist to review conspiracy theories on off-wiki websites. If anyone has actual evidence, they can file a case. If they do not, then we move on.TonyBallioni (talk)18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KalHolmann, you clearly violated the guideline againstcanvassing because your notifications were not neutral. I recommend that you apologize for that infraction. You are also wrong when you write "This is not about edits." It isalways about the edits here, first and foremost. So, if he is the most active editor working on the Galloway BLP, but all of his edits accurately summarize what reliable sources say, then there is nothing at all wrong with that. Almost every developed article has a most active editor, unless two or three happened to be tied in the edit count at a moment in time. So, your task is to show, with diffs, that the editor is misrepresenting sources or violating BLP policy or core content policies. The self-admitted Twitter squabblingis a problem, in my mind. Personally, I consider that behavior to be very unwise and unseemly, and I am very interested in what other uninvolved editors have to say about it.Cullen328Let's discuss it18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothingburger. If anyone has policy-violating bad diffs please present them, but the diffs seenhere don't seem to support a conflict of interest claim. I'm really not seeing evidence that this user is a "stalker-troll." But, if anyone has diffs of that, pony up.Andrevan@18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this looks to be a well-organized attack campaign run by "the Russians".WP:RBI probably applies to their on-wiki activities. Separately, while Philip Cross probably could use a short vacation from a "quality-of-life" perspective, I haven't seen a single diff that justifies any action against him.power~enwiki (π,ν)19:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Piers Robinson's was bad, go and look at Tim Hayward (academic) immediately after Philip Cross had finished with it.Ludemate—Precedingundated comment added19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear to me from this that there is a COI or POV pushing. This person certainly seems politically controversial. It seems the article has beencleaned per BLP, and I don't see Philip Cross revert warring to insert his content. Perhaps he could comment.Andrevan@19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, content was added by a block evading anon who is now blocked, and consisted of copypasta from 2015 and 2016 of dubious provenance, structured to look like users supporting a topic ban in this thread. Misleading at best.Andrevan@19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kal, if you'd like, I can reblock the IP instead. Dumping comments here from a discussion years ago, and conveniently fitting them smoothly into this discussion, is not a good-faith contribution to the discussion — it's an attempt to skew the discussion a specific direction by making it look like these comments were made inthis discussion, not a separate one. No comment on whether it's a sockpuppet or not, but the person behind this IP is significantly disrupting things, and as this IP's following project conventions (e.g.{{od}}) in an internal project discussion, we give a good deal less leeway than with an IP tweaking a few things improperly in an article.Nyttend (talk)20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. Kal was complaining that you're using the tools inappropriately, blocking someone on the other side of this discussion in which you've involved yourself. My point is that if he really thinks it's wrong, I'll happily reblock, and he'd better be satisfied because I've not offered any opinions (and haven't formed any) on the merits of the complaint. In other words, I'm the "any reasonable administrator" ofWP:INVOLVED.Nyttend (talk)21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP
So, ignoringall of the other crap above, we do still have the most prolific editor of a BLP directly feuding with the subject of said BLP, and continuing to edit the article, in contravention ofclear BLP guidance on this specific situation. That concern, to me, comes across as a legitimate one, even ifeverything else about the situation is complete BS. Are we going to address this or just look the other way on this one?Swarm♠19:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The feud seems to be that the subjects of the articles don't like what has been written about them on-wiki, right? Is there an indication of non-neutral editing that we can pick apart?Andrevan@19:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To expand: theThe Guardian, Robinson has said, should employ Beeley and another blogger, Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet). In so doing, it would become more "ethical, independent and glamorous" by doing so. sentence was mentioned in the off-wiki site (amidst other, perfectly good edits). I'm not sure ifwww.opendemocracy.net is a reliable source, but that entire sentence reads a lot into atweet, and I feel it's deliberately intended to mock the subject. WhenTibloc suggested its removal, Cross implied that Tibloc was a Russian agent. The current version of the article (after removals byDrmies) reads fine to me.power~enwiki (π,ν)19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Power, what about that website would give you any reason to think that it might be reliable? Seetheir about page; they're activists, and their significant figures formerly includedAnthony Barnett (writer) andTony Curzon Price — just average journalists, with no evidence of scholarly review or expertise in anything except news reporting and (in the case of former editor Price) an unspecified area of economics. Unless I've missed something significant, if anyone used a source like this in a literature review, his committee would quickly begin raising questions about his competency.Nyttend (talk)20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. Newspapers with "average journalists" can be reliable sources, especially for fact-based claims. That said, I'm not claiming it's reliable, I'm just noting that Philip Cross used it as a reference. I have concerns, but haven't investigated it enough to claim it's not reliable.[35] is the specific article, which looks to be a contributed piece.power~enwiki (π,ν)20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're almost never reliable secondary sources. You can often trust them with simple facts about recent events (e.g. "During yesterday'sQuestion Time, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X"), but there they're primary sources because their writing comes at the time of the event; they're not summarizing and distilling at-the-time-of-the-event sources from a chronological distance. We mustn't use them significantly, because we risk placing undue weight on something that doesn't get covered by reliable secondary sources — WP:BALL, we can't know whether yesterday's Question Time will get mentioned in the secondary sources, since they can't exist yet? And when they're writing about past events, yes they're secondary, but journalists' credentials are typically restricted to covering the news, not providing solid retrospective coverage of something. You have to limit it to simple stuff (e.g. "Twenty years ago, MP George Galloway questioned the government's policy on X") unless it's written by someone with credentials in that field, or unless it's reviewed by someone with credentials in that field, e.g. a retrospective on economics reviewed by the editor with the economics Ph.D.Nyttend (talk)20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]NeilN, you linked to a revision, not a diff.Here is the edit resulting in that revision (a bot could do that), and while I've checked several edits before that, all I'm seeing is adding links, changing "he" to "Robinson", adding relative pronouns, moving content from one paragraph to another, etc. — nothing potentially problematic. What could possibly be wrong? Did you provide the wrong link by mistake?Nyttend (talk)20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, no, the feud is not solely that the article's subject does not like what is being written about him in good faith. The editor isdirectly attacking the subjectoff-wiki. It's a direct interpersonal dispute, and diffs are not needed when the existence of the COI has beenself-acknowledged by the editor. BLP policyspecifically addresses this situation, and as of now, it is not being followed. The policy does not tell us to "examine the diffs" and determine whether there is actually non-neutral editing going on. It explicitlypreempts the potential of problematic editing, byprohibiting editing during a direct dispute with a BLP subject. If someone's advocating that Cross should beallowed to ignore the specific BLP guidance on the situation, I find it hard to believe that his participation on the article isthat essential.Swarm♠20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with your estimation of the situation, but if Philip Cross has self-acknowledged the COI and has indicated he will no longer be editing there as he now has a COI, do we need to enforce that through a sanction or a referral to ArbCom? Maybe we do - but it seems like there is a well-organized sockpuppet opposition pushing for such an action, which makes me suspicious. My cursory analysis of Philip Cross is that he is largely a well-intentioned editor who may have let his political POV creep into a few of his edits, but I don't see a sustained practice of POV pushing. Has he been continuously editing after he said he wouldn't?Andrevan@20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: No, the policy actually says, "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." It does notprohibit editing (your emphasis) with good reason as there have been times in the past where editors have been targeted off-wiki and have defended themselves. Not saying that's what's happening here but saying policy mandates prohibition is reaching too far. --NeilNtalk to me20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I'm not saying we need to enforce it with a sanction (though a discretionary sanctions TBAN would be the most obvious way of enforcing it). The ideal scenario would be forPhilip Cross to simply acknowledge the policy guidance on this issue and agree to abide by it.@NeilN: point conceded, it's not a hard prohibition, and it theoretically allows for the possibility of continued editing with good reason. But it is straightforward guidance from a policy that we generally take pretty seriously. So, that's fundamentally what I'm getting at.Is there a good reason for Cross to be ignoring the clear policy guidance on this situation? If not, he should understand why it's not ideal and agree to stop, at least until his issues with the subject die down.Swarm♠20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Yes, he actually has edited the article since he acknowledged his COI, as evidenced by KH in his first comment. That's why I'm bringing this up. It's not a sustained problem, just something that I think should be addressed.Swarm♠20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: I agree that Cross should voluntarily stop editing the affected articles. I suggest he use edit-request templates if he has content changes to propose. --NeilNtalk to me20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so folks will need to watchlist those and make sure they are not disrupted. Just in case someone was waiting until Philip was out of the way so they could insert their POV. --Kim Bruning (talk)21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The primary concern is the George Calloway article, because he's directly in a dispute with George Calloway, and the policy guidance on that situation is clear. That's a valid concern. We're not going to start imposing blanket restrictions strictly because of opinions expressed on Twitter.Swarm♠21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Swarm I agree with your OP completely. I want to emphasize that we don't know (and cannot know) if the real person operating the Philip Cross Wikipedia account and the real person operating the Twitter account is the same person.If it is, in my view this would be very problematic with regard to BLPCOI,if the twitter account is actually interacting with the article subject on twitter. (Giving opinions is one thing; actual interpersonal conflict is another). I looked and have not seen if Philip Cross has disclosed here on WP if that is their tweeting or an imposter. (I know about twitter imposters -- i had one).
I think that editing on any of these Russia-related-populist subjects is very hard and I am glad we have people like Philip Cross doing it. But if it is the same person on twitter and here, and if the twitter interactions are actually interpersonal, then we are not in a good place. I think this should be referred to Arbcom so the issues of whether it is the same person, can be clarified. What remedies Arbcom would choose, I don't know. As I understand it this is not the same issue that KalHolmann has been raising. This is quite narrowly focused on carrying out a real world dispute here on WP, too. It may be that Philip Cross' edits are perfect, but if the same person is operating that twitter account, theoptics are reproachable.Jytdog (talk)23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom. If the person operating the Twitter account and the one operating the Wikipedia account are the same person, then we need - at the very least - topic bans for Philip Cross on cerain BLPs here. I don't think this is even arguable.Black Kite (talk)23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog &Black Kite, as shown ina now-deleted version of his Wikipedia user page,Philip Cross advised (¶3): "You can contact me via the user talk page, email (see the toolbox on the left), or via twitter @philipcross63." As preserved in aWayback Machine snapshot ofone of his Wikipedia-related tweets dated 7 May 2018, his Twitter profile bio then read, "My main published outlet is via my Wikipedia account as Philip Cross." On May 16, 2018, he changed his Twitter handle to@Wikipedianhidin and removed Wikipedia from his bio, but otherwise his account remains, in all essential aspects, identical.KalHolmann (talk)23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not ping me. Do not write on my talk page. If you reply to this, I will not reply. I want nothing to do with you. You were advised below to drop this, and you absolutely should.Jytdog (talk)01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if Philip Cross wants an ARBCOM case, it's reasonable, but I think that enacting a topic-ban here is both reasonable and sufficient. I'm not sure of the scope, but I agree with Black Kite that PC editingGeorge Galloway is too problematic to allow.power~enwiki (π,ν)00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged here as a courtesy, but while I'm here I might as well say that I see no reason to allow Philip Cross to engage with this subject any further. I think it's NeilN above who is very curt on the topic ("unacceptable COI" or something like that), and I agree. And at the same time, of course, we should extend them all the protection we can: editors who jump on Cross one way or another should be dealt with.Drmies (talk)01:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Philip Cross should not edit George Galloway anymore. I noticed the COIN case and at that time since I didn't look in the details, assumed Guy's summation was reasonable. But having read in more depth here, I agree there's a clear problem. Even if GG is the one who initiated the 'feud', it seems clear PC responded in kind. Once you're as involved in a dispute with someone as PC appears to be here, it at a minimum causes major perception problems if you're continuing to edit their article. And more than that, there's a reason why we strongly discourage direct COI editing. It's very difficult to be neutral when you have strong feelings and having a major dispute with someone is likely to generate those feelings. When it's a BLP involved whatever 'fault' the subject may in starting the dispute we can't allow them to be punished for it. I can understand why PC may have wanted to push back if they felt the way they were being treated was unfair. And I do have concerns that subjects can pick a fight with editors who are potentially editing perfectly fine and try and goad them into a response to stop their editing. But we have to deal with these situations when they arise. And I see some signs it may have been PC who initiated the offsite dispute anyway. (Haven't looked at the timeline in detail since ultimately it's irrelevant.)Nil Einne (talk)16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Philip Cross has knowingly violatedWP:BLPCOI on several occasions, jeopardising Wikipedia's reputation. That said, I'd prefer for him to voluntarily recuse himself, perhaps accompanied by a formal pledge here, from editing articles on UK political activitists and similar with whom he knows he has a profound disagreement, to put it this way. A tban would perhaps go too far as first punishment as I am not aware of any previous formal proceedings against this editor. —kashmīrīTALK21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Philip Cross can write on these BLP subjects from the disinterested/dispassionate angle that is required of BLP editors. So I agree that Philip Cross should stay away from these articles, especially the George Galloway one as the two are engaged in an escalating public spat. I'd like it to be a voluntary recusal.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it wholly unacceptable that someone having a real life disagreement with a subject should edit about the subject. While I'd prefer Philip Cross step away on his own, the community might need to step between him and the article.--Dlohcierekim (talk)12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Cross needs to stop editingGeorge Galloway immediately, along with any other articles about people whom he is hurling abuse at. You can't be publically labelling someone a 'punk' and a 'goon' and expect people to see you as capable of editing disinterestedly with your Wikipedia hat on. If he can't do it informally then a formal topic ban needs to be imposed.Fish+Karate12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless there's a voluntary recusal from matters related to Cross going forward. He's derailing the process with his zeal here.Swarm♠21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. When I pointed out a specific error that KalHolman made, the editor apologized. Although much of this incident may be based on baloney or worse, I am convinced that Philip Cross has shownextremely poor judgment by taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitterfor years, while actively editing their biographies. I simply cannot see that as acceptable behavior, and I am surprised to see editors I respect make light of it. Though there have been some fumbles, I for one thank KalHolman for bringing this to our attention.Cullen328Let's discuss it21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Issue brought to our attention - good. Unable to realize that people/organizations with vested interests are not "the public eye" - not so good (otherwise, according to The Daily Mail, we're all completely useless, biased, etc.). I'd like to see how KalHolmann interacts with Cross in the future after this matter is settled. --NeilNtalk to me21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been co-editing (and arguing) with KalHolmann for a month or more atJoy Ann Reid. My strong opinion is that he/she cares about our Wikipedia project and puts effort into making this great encyclopedia better. You might disagree with his/her opinions (snd I often do) but their seriousness and good intentions should not (IMO) be doubted.HouseOfChange (talk)22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I fully agree with what Cullen328 wrote above: taunting BLP subjects as a self-identified Wikipedia editor on Twitter...is simplytotally unacceptable behaviour, IMO.Huldra (talk)22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If asking the one editor to stay away from an article (or a set of articles) is not a big deal, it's also not a big deal for the other--per Jytdog, really.Drmies (talk)01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Drmies, if any restriction be applied to Philip Cross, Kal Holmann also seems to naturally fall under said editing restriction. However, if both are to be warned to voluntarily not involve themselves with COIs and/or sensitive, politically charged topics and to use their best judgment, that also seems fair at this juncture, absent more current diffs of problematic editing. Philip Cross obviously knew he shouldn't have been Tweeting at article subjects and editing them, so I doubt he would have any problem with toning that down, considering he's a very prolific editor on many other pages that need work.Andrevan@02:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an editor should not be restricted merely because it is perceived that they are "not helping" (explicit evidence is needed) and a topic ban is not merely "asking [an] editor" to do something but mandating they do so or face punishment.— Godsy (TALKCONT)04:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is getting ridiculous, although I agree with Andrevan (and others) regarding the need for both editors stepping as far away from any potential COI editing as possible, this is an editor facing severe harassment off-site. The least we can do is deal with their behaviouron-site following the rules ofWikipedia as opposed to "George Galloway said Phil was mean to him on Twitter therefor". If there are things to be answered for then let's deal with them and not get distracted/side-tracked by RT and a twitter-spat.PanydThe muffin is not subtle14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If KH continues to have problems with PC then it's worth reconsidering. But even if their approach wasn't the best KH had a very relevant point namely that there were significant problems with PC editing GG given their apparent feud (whoever initiated it). It's unfortunate it took us this long to deal with it. I do agree now that this has our attention KH needs to step away.Nil Einne (talk)16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on policy grounds but issue a formal warning to KH. We don't normally impose such sanctions for GF actions, whereas breaches of CIV or STALKING should normally require at least one warning before any bans. Additionally, I fear a penalty may also be seen as punishing an editor for bringing up valid issues with other editors' editing (even if we agree the manner WH did this was inappropriate). Should warning not work, a ban would be an option. —kashmīrīTALK18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I do not see any proof submitted that this editor has been repeatedly disruptive WP:CBAN. And vis-a-vis his comment about Kal I agree with Cullen WP:AGF.–Lionel(talk)05:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proposal is bizarre - I see no evidence of disruption, merely the odd mistake any of us might make. I agree with Cullen above. --NSH001 (talk)08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move ban for Jimbo
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hatting by Andrevan, a Wikipedia constitutional crisis certainly won't be solved on WP:ANI and this is a noticeboard used for admin issues day-to-day. This ban proposal is disruptive because it is unlikely to obtain consensus, and is unenforceable even if it did, absent some ArbCom ruling to the contrary. The Supreme Court of Wikipedia is the only entity that could feasibly check its benevolent dictator. So don't revert the hat, thanks!Andrevan@05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were long discussions atMeghan Markle about changing the page name in light of her upcoming marriage.
User:NeilN move-protected the page inthis diff at 16:34, 17 May 2018 , and the time of that protection was extended by another admin,User:Zzyzx11, inthis diff at 03:47, 19 May 2018, and Zzyzx11 added further editing protection inthe next diff.
Jimbomoved the page unilaterally at 11:15, 19 May 2018.
A "move back" discussion was opened at 11:16, 19 May 2018; the section ishere.
A discussion was opened at Jimbo's talk page atUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Unilateral_page_moves (permalink) at 11:47, 19 May 2018, asking Jimbo to self-revert. Jimbo replied there at 13:08, 19 May 2018once, writingActually, looking at the talk page, there appears to be quite a strong consensus in favor of the page move.
At 13:28, 19 May 2018 Jimbo made a comment at the move discussion, and wrotethis:I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. and some more.
The unilateral page move over protection was bad enough. The comment at Talk is another thing altogether. The admin tools are not given for "fun", nor for playing at being The One Who Moves Royal Bride Pages.
A dramafest is not required since Jimbo will never move pages around in a disruptive manner. He may ruffle some feathers every few years, but themove discussion shows that Jimbo's move is supported by the community and posting here is not helpful.Johnuniq (talk)22:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When Jimbo moved the article, there was aquite clear consensus on the talk page not to move the article without a discussion. Even those who were in favor of moving the article agreed that it should only be done after a move request. Jimbo's complete disregard for that discussion and for the move protection is disappointing. His justification of his action ("It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again.") was degrading. The same thing happened to thePrince Harry article. The article had been the subject of several move requests in the past and the future title of the article had been discussed since April. Several options were on the table when another administrator swept in and decided the page title on his own, with no regard to the talk page discussion. Why do we even bother discussing?Surtsicna (talk)22:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the remedy is that we should have fun arguing about a topic ban? I know it is irritating when someone sails in with a bold edit that turns out to be supported by a new consensus, but life is full of such irritations and it's best to get over it and move to something constructive.Johnuniq (talk)23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the bold page move was hmmmm, but the talk page comment was completely beyond the pale. Using the admin tools for "fun" is horrible. Saying "I would do it again" is mind-bogglingly arrogant behavior. The celebrity-whoringness pattern of behavior of "I move British Princess pages" is disgusting. We don't give admin tools for any of those reasons. The response is desysop worthy. I will settle for a pagemove ban.Jytdog (talk)23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to do this please put the proper notice on Jimbo's talk page (I am inclined to support with the present evidence but will see if he has anything more to say after notice).Alanscottwalker (talk)22:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on general principle and with full knowledge it will never happen. In a perfect world we would remove the +admin bit for such blatant abuse but since Jimbo gets his tools via the +founder bit I do not believe there is really anything to be done. We have nobarons to leash our capricious lord so we simply suck up these mostly harmless whims and protest in futility to make ourselves feel a bit better.Jbh Talk23:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh FFS. There is no realistic doubt that the article will end up at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, so this entire argument is about whether Wikipedia editors should have a temporary right of veto over what is, after all, now her correct official name.Guy(Help!)23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best outcome would be for Jimbo to voluntarily and irrevocably relinquish his "ultimate authority" powers, and stand for RfA and for a seat on the WMF board. I do not care about the ultimate outcome of article title, but I consider it disruptive and arrogant for the "boss man" to edit through protection, just for the fun of it.Cullen328Let's discuss it23:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (and rarely) I disagree with you. Every now and then we have a situation where someone needs to just cut the crap and deliver the correct outcome.Guy(Help!)23:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the situations and topics where I would consider what you say truethis case is nothing of the sort. The chance of Jimbo jumping into a controversial or problematic policy or operational issue is so close to zero as tobe zero. This was just an ego-gratifying whim — nothing grand or useful about it at all.Jbh Talk23:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have met Jimbo one on one for a beer. He simply does not come across to me as the sort of person to behave as you describe. He now lives in England and has a decent appreciation of English mores. I think the best and most charitable explanation is that he moved the article to the correct target in order to shortcut pointless process. PMy son is at Sandhurst right now, Prince Harry is normally known as Harry Wales, the name he used in the Army. Maybe Jimmy feels some kind of connection, albeit tenuous. Who knows.Guy(Help!)23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Short circuiting process, on a collaborative project, is seldom the right move. It certainly is not when there are no pressing issues, such as BLP, requiring immediate action. Regardless of motivation we expect those who have advanced permissions not to use those permissions to enforce their view whether the outcome is 'right' or not. If Jimbo understands neither that principle nor that by moving through protection he would inevitably cause drama and disruption then there is a problem. He deserves respect for what he has done with Wikipedia but at some point that respect can no longer include the ability to arbitrarily do as he pleases. Children grow up and parents let go. This shows it is finally time for him to let go.Jbh Talk00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about whether administrators should be able to override talk page discussions because it amuses them to do so. There was absolutely no consensus for thePrince Harry article to be moved to a new title either. There had been quite a few move requests regarding it throughout the years (which clearly spells controversial), and several possible titles were being discussed when the page was abruptly moved, baffling those involved. But whatever, it has already been pointed out to me that I am not worthy of questioning the supreme leaders.Surtsicna (talk)23:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amuses? This is England. As of right now she is, officially and formally, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. You may or may not be contemptuous of our customs but that is the objective fact. Wikipedia was launched in 2001. My school was founded slightly earlier, in948. Even then, a person marrying a Duke would be addressed in this style.Guy(Help!)23:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not England. This is Wikipedia. And no, she is not officially and formally "Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk". If we were using the official and formal title, the article would be calledHer Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The present title reflects the style of an ex-wife of a duke, not of a spouse. IsPrince Harry, Duke of Sussex also official and formal? No, it is not. But all that is entirely besides the point of this thread, and the title itself is discussed elsewhere. This is about unilateral page moves that pay no heed to the ongoing discussions and do not even acknowledge them in edit summaries. It's cringeworthy.Surtsicna (talk)23:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now 1) there was no actual reason to do it right then - it could have waited days, weeks. 2) It is very bad use of admin permissions to force your content edits. 3) It seems very disrespectful of those, who had weeks ago properly opened the discussion, asked for the protection, and gotten a neutral admin to apply it.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (In matters of disclosure, I have not yet voted one way or the other in the move, prefer to see next weeks coverage, if I vote at all, I do note that theNew York Times used "Meghan Markle" after her wedding.)Alanscottwalker (talk)01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eng-land swings like a pen-du-lum do. Her name, from the moment she was married, was exactly the name that Jimbo Wales moved the article to. He found it fun to move the page to its inevitable title, and having fun on Wikipedia, if we assume the move was made in good faith, is nothing to sneeze at. And Jimbo having fun on Wikipedia? Priceless (a multi-editor trout decorated with a two hour ban and I bet he wouldn't complain).Randy Kryn (talk)23:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it absolutely is not "Duchess of" is a title not a name. Moreover, apperantly there are sources saying it's the way you refer to a widow in England, but regardless of any of that, such moves are to be discussed.Alanscottwalker (talk)00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, if one were to be all formal and proper, she wasPrincess Henry in the same way as Princess Michael of Kent.Jbh Talk00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sheis Princess Henry. Had Prince Harry not been been made a duke, that is what we would call her. But she has adopted the style Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Which is fine. The guiding principle is everyone gets to determine their own form of address.Hawkeye7(discuss)00:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well as a general principle that sounds fine, but do you have a source that she has ever called herself that? The closest source I have seen, the royal website does not call her that.Alanscottwalker (talk)00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the arguments regarding the title odd, considering thatCatherine, Duchess of Cambridge has been at that location for several years, and no consensus has found any reason that name is inaccurate. Also, due to the sheer volume of fuckwittery in discussions in the area, naming conventions of British royals is one of the few areas where there's a plausible argument for theArgumentum ad Jimbonem. Finally, unless Jimbo is interested inJack Brooksbank, the situation is unlikely to recur in the next decade.power~enwiki (π,ν)00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bad move, obviously. Would have got any other admin into trouble. But nothing is likely to come of it and, frankly, if Jimbo is such a big fan of the royals that's his problem. Let it go I say. --regentspark(comment)00:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly.Any other admin, and we'd be having aWAY different conversation right now. But, since it's Jimbo and we really can't do anything about it, it's a waste of time to pursue.SQLQuery me!02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering comments by JzG (Guy), Johnuniq, and others, I suggest weact responsibly and close this thread, before it becomes a meaningless dramaboard. No offense to OP.Rehman00:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. No earthly good will come of this thread, and there's no need to pillory Jimbo in multiple places at once. ~Amory(u •t •c)00:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something good and simple would be a page move ban. This is the only place other than arbcom where that could happen. Arbcom would be drama.Jytdog (talk)00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:IAR,WP:NOTBUREAU,WP:5P5,WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:BOLD. Perhaps Jimbo still believed in those ideals, and we've greatly let him down. Perhaps it was just an ego-fueled power play. But given the overwhelming community consensus backing it, the move itself was a good one. And sanctioning someone for doing a good thing to an article, for nothing but procedural objections, is worse than an out-of-process move itself. By all means, express your anger on his talk page, take him down a notch, but let's not overdo it. The project isn't seriously going to benefit from slapping Jimbo with a ban. And, not that this card needs to be played, but he literally founded* the project. Give the guy a damn break.Swarm♠00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The corruption in the talk page "rationale" is as obvious as the snout on a pig. Celebrity pages are the cesspool of WP and I guess some abuse of admin rights in the midst of that cesspool is not a big deal to folks. I am fairly disgusted by the boys club Jimbo ass-kissing hereand will not be commenting further.Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (aw heckJytdog (talk)05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Lets be realistic here, this thread isn't actually going to accomplish anything. The page was going to end up there any way this isn't abureaucracy. The community most likely will never agree on sanctioning Jimbo. Lets all go back to being productive and return to our normal editing. While I commend Jytdog for their sense of fairness and moralistic views this honestlyisn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.--Cameron11598(Talk)02:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JzG, but I would like to express disappointment in Jimbo. That move, and especially that subsequent comment were dumb decisions. Furthermore,Support freshwater fish-based responses from the community.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTazerdadog (talk •contribs)02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sanction, this was nowhere near egregious enough to merit sanctions based on one bad call. But for reference, it was a bad call. "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean "ignore other editors", and while there's a decent chance this would have been the outcome anyway, letting the process take its course so everyone can be heard harms nothing and often prevents ruffled feathers, and the editors involved seemed to be fine with waiting for the discussion to run its course. But a topic ban is overkill, anaquatic-based kinetic remedy will do. (And for Guy in particular, thecommon name, not the correct name according to UK rules, is what would be used).SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qppose. Seniority has...or at least should have...its privileges, and having fun doing funny things is one of them. Btw, the cowboy rode into town on Friday, stayed 3 days and left on Friday....how did he do that?Nocturnalnow (talk)03:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cowboy invokedWP:IAR. Whether it was a good move to eliminate three days from the calendar was impossible to predict in advance, and that could be resolved only through extended, heated, and time-consuming community discussion. In the end, nothing came of it because the cowboy was well-liked and respected overall. The next month, a different cowboy eliminated three days from the calendar under slightly different circumstances, and ended being hanged for it. It's a little like quantum theory. ―Mandruss☎05:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am back. "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I guess that really is the world we live in. I am not OK with that.Jytdog (talk)05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIV currently has a backlog of 23 reports, and has been registered as backlogged for about 5 hours. Reporting here in an attempt to get a little more visibility if someone can clear it out.MarginalCost (talk)05:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, because the logo is of a British company and British copyright law has a much lower treshold of copyright than the US. A textlogo that isn't copyrightable in the US may be copyrightable in the UK and thus ineligible for Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk,contributions)13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admin dashboard count oddities
Template:Admin dashboard - As I'm looking at the count for CSD, it says 133. I manually counted 43 and found no others listed. Likewise, Open SPI investigations says 156 - I didn't manually count them, but 156 seems high even for SPI. Why it is over counting on CSD, and possibly on SPI?— Maile (talk)19:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For CSD yeah it takes time to update, for SPICategory:Open_SPI_cases does have 156 members, though ~50 are awaiting archival and ~50 are CU complete; the code was subtracting a category that has been deleted since 2014 to calculate open cases; I made it now subtract those awaiting archival (though with the number so high does it matter..)Galobtter (pingó mió)19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A day later, we still have a greatly inflated count on the number of CSD. It's worse than yesterday. As I write this, we have 37 actual items at CSD, but the Dashboard count says it's 176.— Maile (talk)11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After many years of constructive editing, I was accidentally blocked 5 years ago when I created a new account, which drove me mad. See discussion above this diffhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=574382876&oldid=574380296. I request a restoration of my editing privileges. Time has passed, and my activities and experiences in that time have affected me, and I have grown up. Time is also important as I was originally blocked as a vandal by mistake, and I found it hard to forgive the editor who made the mistake. 3 years ago I realised I was still too emotionally involved, and excited. Now I forgive, and more or less forget, and feel ashamed that I behaved badly.
I also see that the guidance concerning IP, and Checkuser blocks, and other blocks has much improved since then :)
I am sorry that I got so worked up, obsessive, and that I was disruptive.
I didn't want to address the specifics, as it was very painful for me, but I try.
I realise that I lost control, forgot how to behave, and made a bit of a mess. I thought I was trying to improve the project, but I confused it with personal disputes. Most importantly, I think, I didn't back off, and became fixated with the idea that I needed to edit wikipedia then, defend my good name, not step back, not take a break, not let things calm down.I constructively edited wikipedia for many years before I was first blocked as a vandal, out of the blue, by mistake, by an administrator who later became a checkuser. This made it impossible to get the block overturned. He refused to do so, and refused to unblock me or apologise. I didn't understand why, what was happening, and it was a difficult period in my life, and due to impatience, ignorance and immaturity I became obsessed, and lost it. I had already some resentment that Ip editors were treated badly, the newspapers were full of stories that people were put off editing wikipedia, and I felt I should try to campaign. I confused this with a content dispute regarding what I perceived as censorship, and went right off.
My original block occured because a vandal used a prior Ip address I had used for years previously, that I linked to this account (with other Ip addresses and user names) , and a user, who later became a Checkuser, was confused, and I did not realise why nobody else would review his block, because I had no understanding of what a checkuser meant. This frustrated me, and sent me a little crazy. When the block was eventually lifted by the Checkuser whose page the administrator had been watching (he refused to do it himself), it seemed to me that nobody believed that a checkuser could make such mistakes, and people claimed he knew bad things about me because of his status.
I wanted to clear my name, took it far too much to heart, and too personally, could not see who was acting in good faith, attacked everyone, and at the same time I had an exaggerated idea of the importance of editors being able to edit without being caught up in anti-vandalism actions.
I felt caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare.
One of the editors repeated this mistaken claim in ANI, and I got this ban for arguing about it, and for how I argued.
Being right, and fixing what seemed to me then a broken system, seemed so important that I declined partial bans, was a nightmare, lost sight of the merits compromise.
I was used to arguing about content, and sources, but totally unused to ANI, and such politics, I took the provocations, it was horrible,it felt awful. I realised that I was being judged on my conduct, but it seemed so hard to avoid the content of the discussions, not to argue, to insist on being right, rather than walking away.Thats why I left this completely alone for 3 years.
Now I feel calm, I can control myself, and I would like to edit again.When I see something wrong, I want to correct it, when something is missing, sometimes I like to research it, and enrich the world's knowledge.
I am mature, stable, believe in the project, and I have no intention, or desire, to get in such a horrible situation again.
I know that this reads a bit still as if I am angry about the original accidental ban, but I am not.
I write about it because due to it I felt trapped in an extreme situation that pushed my behaviour over the edge.
I have matured, am a better person, argue less, understand the points of view of others better, and am calmer and wiser.()14:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - Bloody hell it feels like yesterday I commented on the block!, Everyone deserves a second chance and some ROPE, Support. –Davey2010Talk02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worthy of a second chance. The request is believable and 5 years is quite a long time to wait to come back. Hopefully they stay away from what brought them to the block in the first place.RickinBaltimore (talk)12:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
