This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jobas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Respected administrators, I would be really grateful if you could graciously consider my unblock request. I have had six months to reflect on my participation on Wikipedia, including the action that got me blocked and I apologize for that. However, I have grown as a person during the last six months and feel that I can continue to be a productive editor. I hope to hear from you soon. With gratitude.--Jobas (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is a strong consensus against unblocking at this time. This is heavily based on statements made by you which you knew to be false in previous unblock requests and only admitted to this within the last 24hrs. This decline is not to be construed as a WP:CBAN and is without prejudice to a future unblock. However I strongly suggest waiting another six months, at a minimum, before submitting another request for a Standard Offer. A little longer might be better. Also I must say that if you had come clean about all of this six months ago, I seriously doubt there would have been any meaningful opposition to your being unblocked. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T18:33:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T18:33:00.000Z-December_2017","replies":[]}}-->

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ad Orientem and Doug Weller:

You haven't said anything specific about what you would do differently, which is disappointing. I would be willing to consider this if you will accept a topic ban from anything to do with atheism or religion (which would apply to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles or article talk pages) to be followed by a 6 month 1RR restriction on such pages. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","author":"Doug Weller","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z-December_2017","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T18:58:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:11:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Bishonen-2017-12-07T19:51:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T20:10:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Anupam-2017-12-07T21:07:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Mramoeba-2017-12-07T21:23:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T21:26:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T21:29:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Jytdog-2017-12-07T22:00:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:18:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T03:05:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-1990'sguy-2017-12-08T03:18:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Lankiveil-2017-12-08T03:36:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Knox490-2017-12-08T06:14:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Ramos1990-2017-12-08T06:54:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Johnuniq-2017-12-08T08:48:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:13:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:36:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","c-Begoon-2017-12-08T13:57:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

This seems reasonable to me. Give us an idea of what you want to work on with the understanding that you will be under a 1 year topic ban from religion and atheism related pages and discussions broadly construed. I also support the proposed 1RR restriction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T18:58:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T18:58:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Anupam-2017-12-07T19:01:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T18:58:00.000Z"]}}-->

Hi User:Doug Weller and User:Ad Orientem! I hope you both are doing well. I agree with you that a six-month 1RR restriction is appropriate here, although I am not convinced that a topic ban is in order. User:Jobas has done some fantastic work on religion-related articles, such as creating the Christian culture and Christian attitudes towards science articles, in addition to expanding existing articles, such as the one about Religion in Asia. In addition, User:Jobas is from the minority Palestinian Christian community and I feel that this unique and underrepresented background is a valuable addition to the various backgrounds of other Wikipedia editors. He already effectively endured a topic ban with his six-month block from editing Wikipedia completely and the nature of the block was to address the issue of sockpuppetry, rather than the content of his edits. I would suggest that any further violations of Wikipedia's policy with respect to sockpuppetry should result in another block of a longer duration. Keeping in mind these facts, as well as User:Jobas' ten year investment in the project and relatively clean block log during this time, a six-month 1RR restriction is the solution at this time, in my humble opinion. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:01:00.000Z","author":"Anupam","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Anupam-2017-12-07T19:01:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T18:58:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

User:Doug Weller, User:Ad Orientem, and User:Anupam - thank you all for your comments here. I apologize for not making more clear that what I will do differently in the future. I promise to never use a sockpuppet account again and if I am in any doubt about an action that has the potential to be in conflict with Wikipedia policy, I will research the relevant policy before acting. I also will use talk pages more often, rather than jumping to reverting right away. I am willing to accept the 1 year topic ban from religion/atheism related articles, as well as a 1RR restriction that User:Ad Orientem detailed above, while at the same time adhering to the vows I mentioned above. I thank you for your willingness to unblock me and giving me another opportunity to return as a productive Wikipedia editor. Graciously.-- Jobas (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:11:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:11:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:17:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:11:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you. Could you elaborate on what subject areas you intend to focus on during the period you are topic banned? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:17:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:17:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:11:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:25:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:17:00.000Z"]}}-->

You're very welcome User:Ad Orientem. I plan to edit topics relating to medicine and biology, as well as history and geography, during this one-year period. Once again, thanks for giving me another chance. Respectfully yours.---Jobas (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:25:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:25:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:17:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:32:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:25:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Doug Weller. Is this satisfactory to you? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:32:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T19:32:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-07T19:25:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• I'm against unblocking this editor. He edited very disruptively before the block, see especially Mramoeba's comments above, and was very evasive after it. He used to make a lot of tiny obfuscating edits that made his contributions history like treacle to wade through, and when challenged claimed these were due to a "technical problem", but never explained how that could happen. See him evading the question here. I don't think quoting Nyttend's answer at the Village Pump, which was obviously made without knowing much about the context, helps. I myself asked Jobas about it twice[9][10] — see him pretend-answer my first question here and then ignore my impatient follow-up. I've never heard of such a technical problem, and it's surely unlikely on the face of it. Jobas has had six months to find a credible explanation of how such an editing pattern, which was one of the major problems with his editing, could happen "technically", and until he does, or otherwise stops shuffling around it, I'm against any unblock. This is without even considering the sockpuppetry. (Note: Jobas tends to change his own answers and move them about, so the diffs I've provided are simply the best I could manage.) Bishonen | talk 19:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T19:51:00.000Z","author":"Bishonen","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bishonen-2017-12-07T19:51:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• I think I am going to solicit comments via ANI. At the present time my thinking is a six month topic ban followed by six months of 1RR on religion and atheism pages/discussions broadly contrued. However as there is an objection, I would like to get some additional input. I will ask that comments and questions be posted here so as to allow Jobas to respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T20:10:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-07T20:10:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Support Standard Offer Request per my comments above and here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T21:07:00.000Z","author":"Anupam","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Anupam-2017-12-07T21:07:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Question: Having had this considerable time to think about it, what was the technical problem that you had which led to the unhelpful and obfuscating pattern of editing one character at a time, and immediate reversal, which was making it almost impossible for other editors to see what actual edits you were making? What measures can you suggest so that you can be sure it doesn’t happen again? What would happen if, despite your best efforts, the editing pattern started again? Mramoeba (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T21:23:00.000Z","author":"Mramoeba","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mramoeba-2017-12-07T21:23:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Support: Per my comment made at ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC) (see below)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T21:26:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T21:26:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Strong Oppose an unblock until we get a credible explanation of the "technical problem". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T21:29:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T21:29:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T21:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
  • Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what nefarious purpose those edits could have but I just can't find it. Gaming autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed makes no sense since Jobas had 20k edits around the time of blocking. There wasn't anything really to gain, that I can tell, from inflating his editcount.
    Then I thought of something: Maybe Jobas was trying to wipe an embarrassing page off his "most edited" list for the Wikipedia namespace; the xtools edit counter lists the top 9, and number 3-9 are FPC pages afflicted with those odd edits. But if you look at the subpage that lists, I think, the top 100 Wikipedia namespace pages, there are quite a few more pages than necessary to wipe something off the top 9. If Jobas was trying to hide something, he did it slowly, deliberately, and over a very long period of time: there are pages from February 2017, September 2016, July 2016... it's just too spread out for me. Do I think it's possible Jobas was trying to fill up his top 100 WP namespace listing with pages to conceal some page where he'd made 18 edits? I guess it's possible... but the circumstances just don't strike me as credible. I will say that those pages in the top-100 account for more than 2k of Jobas' edits... but even then, he had plenty to hit any editcount threshold well before he began this odd activity.
    Honestly, I'm of the mind that this is probably an input system related issue. Maybe Jobas was editing from an odd mobile device, or had some kind of misconfigured text input setup. It's weird but I don't think it's really his fault or suspicious enough to sustain denying an unblock and converting the block to a siteban per WP:CBAN. Jobas indicated above that it appeared to be related to the computer he was using at the time. If it's truly a technical issue, such as a problem with the system or software he was using at the time, then I think we could leave it with a promise to be wary of it happening again. I don't see any value in demanding an explanation unless there's some obvious nefarious purpose to these edits that I'm missing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T21:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T22:23:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T23:14:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","c-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z"]}}-->
    • Then why refuse all requests to explain it other than saying "technical problem" when asked? It's a simple enough question, and I 'll probably could easily switch to supporting an SO unblock if we get a credible answer (though I do wish you hadn't given him some answers that he could just say "yes, that was it" to). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T22:23:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T22:23:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
    • Just to provide an example (using a diff from above), here's an example of the "technical problem" that went on for a couple of weeks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T23:14:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T23:14:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
    • Mendaliv, the obvious nefarious purpose would be to make his contributions difficult to research, compare Doug weller's comment above that it's hard to find Jobas's questionable edits as they're buried in all the tiny edits.[11], also compare Mramoeba: "Everything was swiftly hidden by the single character edits so it was incredibly labour intensive to see if this was just affecting "my" pages or was an ongoing problem".[12]. You suggest there was a technical problem during a particular period in the past, Mendaliv; that period seems to have continued despite all the complaints he received about it, with no non-admin warnings or pleas having any effect, right up to the point in time where I told him I'd block him if it didn't stop.[13] Then it did stop. That's a coincidence I don't like; it suggests, if nothing worse, that only the threat of imminent sanctions will persuade Jobas to have any concern for the convenience of others. Since I'm here, I'll also say that if people are impressed by Jobas's explanation of his machine-gun quick removals of atheist categories from BLPs,[14][15], their capacity for AGF is greater than mine. Now I'm done. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z","author":"Bishonen","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T23:31:00.000Z-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z","c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T00:33:00.000Z-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
      • Nope, I don't buy the atheist categories explanation either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T23:31:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-07T23:31:00.000Z-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
      • Yeah, that atheist category removal explanation doesn't work for me. Jobas needs to better address why those edits weren't appropriate, and merely explaining the speed doesn't do it. It looks like Jobas is running some kind of bot or script to me. That may be a reasonable explanation for the weird runs of edits in projectspace in FPC noms; they actually become doable for obfuscation purposes. Even if we can't show for sure that Jobas is running something, I believe the speed of the edits is high enough that we can treat it the same as automated editing.
        As I was writing this, I was going to say something about Jobas' editing at arwiki being persuasive given he's clearly continued to work there productively and without getting blocked. Looking at Jobas' editing patterns at arwiki, however, it looks like he's running some kind of anti-vandalism software, like Huggle. The overwhelming majority of his edits in mainspace at arwiki, at least over the six months I skimmed, appear to be reverts. Of course, I don't read Arabic, but I can recognize the automated edit summary patterns well enough to tell what's a revert and what's a rollback. Taken with the speedy edits here, I almost wonder if we're looking at someone using a modified copy of AWB. I honestly wish I could read Arabic to investigate whether there's something untoward going on over at arwiki, but that's neither here nor there.
        At any rate, I'm convinced at least enough to switch to oppose for now (see below), unless and until Jobas can address these issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T00:33:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T00:33:00.000Z-Bishonen-2017-12-07T23:26:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Thank User:Mendaliv for the comments. For the last six months I been editing at Arabic Wiki with my alternative account Jobas1, and as every one can see I expanded existing articles and created some articles during that period, and made more than 1,500 edits. Even at Arabic Wikipedia, I had this problem and they were able to understand my explanation--I am an ESL speaker so I apologize that I was not able to convey it that well here. As I said I had a very faulty computer that would auto-click edit add a character and then save it. I have since replaced the computer that I had and this problem will not occur again. I am sincerely sorry for the problem that it may have caused you and others here and assure you that this will occur no more. Thank you for your understanding.--Jobas (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-07T22:07:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T05:16:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

Oh okay. Interestingly Jobas1 has made an edit here, though it looks like it was accidental. I'm not going to argue it's a sock, but it does add credibility for my purposes that it wasn't used illicitly after you were blocked on this account. It also looks like Jobas1 is being used for actual article work at arwiki. Any particular reason for the separate accounts? If not that's fine, I'm just curious, not suspicious of anything.

As to the issue you're describing... in what seems like a past life, I used to do tech support work. Sometimes crazy things do happen with browsers, whether they're misconfigured or something else, and people do tend to ignore them for a long time. I'm not exactly onboard with your explanation, but I've got two possibilities before me: (1) You're being truthful, aren't sure what was going on, and just didn't address it until it actually did become a problem; or (2) you're lying to cover up misconfigured automated editing scripts or generating edits to mask some kind of behavior or evade scrutiny. If you got an unblock here, and it happened that you were lying, then I think it's pretty likely you'd rapidly return to doing whatever you want—and what you were doing previously is pretty easy to discover—and you'd wind up reblocked in short order. That's pretty normal, honestly, and to an extent I believe the others below want you to confess to doing something untoward before they'd support your return. And, really, if you were deliberately doing something either strange or improper, confessing, owning up to it, and promising not to repeat would go a long way towards your credibility. That said, it's still possible in my mind that you are telling the truth, and really have no knowledge of the problem other than it was something wrong with your computer. If that's the case, I think the standpoint of demanding you confess to something you didn't do, and therefore can't really allocute to, before granting an unblock is unreasonable. That is, if we assume you're telling the truth, what's your pathway to an unblock? If the Standard Offer means anything, then you ought to have a pathway to an unblock that doesn't involve deception. In particular, given I haven't found any reasonable nefarious conduct that might explain the odd edits, I'm inclined to say the onus should on those opposing your unblock to demonstrate that those edits served a prohibited purpose. I do not find the claim that it was generating "white noise" to mask other improper edits to be persuasive. At the very least, I'd have to see evidence that the strange edits coincided with or actually masked controversial edits.

I do, however, still believe that much of your editing is bot-like, particularly with depopulating categories and making single changes across a wide variety of articles. Even if you aren't using a bot, I think you would do well to seek to discuss edits you make to a large number of articles before you carry out those edits. This is what you should have done with removing the atheist categories, honestly. At least providing some advance discussion of the reason for making the edits, like depopulating a category, and showing your work on a few example articles that you plan on removing. I would say, in particular, where you're dealing with categories where the attribute is central to the subject's notoriety (e.g., subjects who are well-known atheists but you don't have an exact reference at hand to show it), it's less urgent for you to remove the category before discussing.

Going back to the Jobas1 account, I note again that Jobas did not use that account for socking on enwiki, and has spent the last six months over at arwiki actually creating content. I think that's a very positive sign. As I mentioned elsewhere, we used to look for positive participation on another wiki as almost a sine qua non of eligibility for an unban or community lifting of an indef. Unless there's evidence that Jobas or Jobas1 actually have not edited productively at arwiki, then that would change things. To sum up, my main concerns are your bot-like editing and your understanding that it's usually a good idea to discuss first when contemplating mass changes that some editors may find controversial. While I believe the concerns about your explanation for the strange edits are well-founded, I consider your explanation plausible enough that conditioning your unblock on a better explanation (i.e., explaining what nefarious acts you were doing) to be unfair. Thus, I will support an unblock with the conditions agreed to previously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T05:16:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T05:16:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:39:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T05:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Mendaliv: Re "At the very least, I'd have to see evidence that the strange edits coincided with or actually masked controversial edits", please see my further observations below, which I believe demonstrate exactly that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T12:39:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:39:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T05:16:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Comment as somebody who edits primarily about health and medicine, where we have high standards for sourcing and very clear norms and guidelines for content, I am worried about whether Jobas will take the time to understand WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDHOW, etc, given the combative nature of his past behavior, and about my watchlist getting overwhelmed with the kind of rapid fire fiddling changes that Jobas did in the months prior to his block. The continued evasion about the "technical problems" is also a concern. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-07T22:00:00.000Z","author":"Jytdog","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jytdog-2017-12-07T22:00:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:23:00.000Z-Jytdog-2017-12-07T22:00:00.000Z"]}}-->

• It seems clear to me from the comments here (and I imagine it would be clear to Jobas) that getting into the fiddling changes again would almost certainly result in reblocking. But since MEDRS, etc. haven't previously come up as issues for Jobas (to my knowledge), and since he also mentioned biology, history, and geography, that doesn't seem like a reason not to unblock. (Though I realize you're expressing concern rather than opposing here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T00:23:00.000Z","author":"Rhododendrites","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:23:00.000Z-Jytdog-2017-12-07T22:00:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• My suggestion would be to separate the block from the ban, and to consider this as an appeal of the block, leaving an indefinite topic ban in place that can be appealed separately via ANI. If that were the case, I would be inclined to conditionally support the unblock, since Jobas can be a productive contributor (even if I have disagreed with him at nearly every interaction we've had :) ). But not an unblock while at the same time attaching an expiration date to the topic ban (if I understand what's being proposed correctly), as that should be a separate discussion that the unblock doesn't need to be weighed down by. Of course, per comments above, any set of unblocking terms would need to require an explanation of the "technical" matter (even if it's "I was trying to increase my edit count" or "I didn't want people to scrutinize my edits", that's better than nothing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T00:18:00.000Z","author":"Rhododendrites","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:18:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:18:00.000Z"]}}-->

User: Rhododendrites, I'm grateful for your faith in me and willingness to give me another chance. Thank you so much.--Jobas (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:43:00.000Z-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T00:18:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Oppose pending a credible explanation for the behavior shown in Boing!'s "technical problem" example above. I can think of lots of motivations for repeatedly adding and removing whitespace but few of them are good. We can support a SO unblock even for someone who was pulling shenanigans provided they come clean about all the circumstances leading up to the block/ban. But he hasn't done that. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z","author":"Shock Brigade Harvester Boris","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:14:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z","c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:56:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you for your honest questions User:Mramoeba. I had a very faulty computer that would auto-click edit add a character and then save it. I have since replaced the computer that I had and this problem will not occur again. I am sincerely sorry for the problem that it may have caused you and others here and assure you that this will occur no more. Thank you for your understanding.--Jobas (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:14:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:14:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T02:46:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:14:00.000Z"]}}-->

But Jobas, how do you account for having a run of that weird behavior on February 14, from 00:06 to 00:26 UTC, but your account at Arabic Wikipedia, which was actively editing around the same time, didn't have any such problems? There are many other near-overlapping periods where you clearly switched between Wikipedias but you only experienced this problem on English Wikipedia as far as I can tell. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:46:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T02:46:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:14:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T02:52:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T02:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

Good point.

So to clarify, you had a computer that was so malfunctioning as to select pages (and only pages, not talk pages or draft spaces) in alphabetical order, make only single character edits and immediately revert those edits exactly, several times in succession, over days (maybe weeks). And at no point did it occur to you to stop immediately what you were doing? You never once thought to fix it or get some help, maybe leaving an explanation somewhere apologising or explaining that you were trying to fix it, and it coincidentally stops when an admin informs you you’ll be banned if you don’t stop? That is what you are asking me to believe because I just want to be sure I understand.

BTW I concur with Bishonen that it serves to hide edits which may indicate other editing patterns. Mramoeba (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:52:00.000Z","author":"Mramoeba","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T02:52:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T02:46:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I can understand how that is concerning. I only edit Arabic Wikipedia from the university rather than my personal laptop since the latter does not have an Arabic keyboard. My personal laptop had a technical problem, not the university computers. I regret that I did not fix the issue before I was threatened with a block because I did not think the technical problem was a huge deal since I could just revert the automated edits. I hope you can understand. Jobas (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T02:56:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:56:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-12-08T01:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T03:21:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

This explanation does not compute (so to speak). I cannot fathom a way this would be technically possible without some intentionally introduced Wikipedia-related software. It's not like the "edit" and "save" buttons operate according to similar functions, use similar url parameters, or are even located in the same area of the screen. If they were both the first link on a page, if it was a matter of a character being removed from the url, etc. In an attempt to AGF, since it's possible there's something I'm not thinking of, I've asked at VPT, intentionally not linking to this thread: is it possible... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T03:21:00.000Z","author":"Rhododendrites","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Rhododendrites-2017-12-08T03:21:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T02:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Strong oppose I am entirely unconvinced by the explanation. I didn’t even get an answer to my questions. And by the way if you are sure your english isn’t good enough for an explanation at the time then how on earth is it good enough to make any sort of rapid editing decisions (several per minute re atheist categories removal et al.) on pages which require reading closely. You can’t have it both ways. Mramoeba (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T03:05:00.000Z","author":"Mramoeba","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T03:05:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Support unblock request: Jobas was a longtime and prolific content editor and a net positive to Wikipedia -- his articles are very detailed and high quality. By keeping him blocked, we are loosing avery good editor who would continue to improve WP. Being a sockpuppet was obviously something stupid that he shouldn't ever have done, and he should promise never to repeat that behavior again, but having one sockpuppet over a ten-year editing career on Wikipedia (the sockpuppet was created after 9 years of Jobas editing) is not enough for me to refuse his unblock request. The quality of his edits and how much content he created shows he should be unblocked. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T03:18:00.000Z","author":"1990'sguy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-1990'sguy-2017-12-08T03:18:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Oppose. I find the (repeated) explanation of the "technical issues" to be completely unconvincing. If there were a mea culpa along the lines of "yes, I was filling my edit history with rubbish to increase my edit count/obscure controversial edits, and I originally lied about the reason for this", that honesty would create enough trust for me to support a provisional unblock. But we keep getting these fantastic stories, which indicates to me that Jobas is still trying to deceive the community. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T03:36:00.000Z","author":"Lankiveil","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Lankiveil-2017-12-08T03:36:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Support Unblock This user has written entire articles and I'd hate the community to lose such a productive editor. I don't understand why some are harping on the technical problem that ceased well before a block for a totally unrelated issue.Knox490 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T06:14:00.000Z","author":"Knox490","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Knox490-2017-12-08T06:14:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Support Unblock I have had intersections with Jobas in the past and have not experienced many issues at all. If anything much of the conflict that other editors have mentioned including supposed sock puppeting seems to boil down to other editors obsessively stalking him on atheism and religion pages, such as User:Xenophrenic (who is known for aggressive, obsessive, and tendentious behavior including altering admin comments on closures for ANIs). Seeing that Jobas only had one content block in recent years unsurprisingly due to edit warring with User:Xenophrenic, I think that the issue is certainly fixable on Jobas' side. Though some have mentioned about Jobas doing rapid deletions of categories, I found an ANI on this [16] and it looks like Jobas and Xenophrenic were engaged in an edit war where Jobas only reverted 13 reverts in a short time period in response to Xenophrenic did 43 reverts in a short time period. Obviously the more aggressive editor (who was not Jobas) was never blocked indefintily despite the higher volume of reverts. Jobas got a slap on the wrist here since he had good behavior up to then. Considering that Jobas has been around for about 10 years and has made lots of fruitful contributions to wikipedia, it may be too much to keep him blocked. He has already allowed for 6 months to pass and I would not mind monitoring him for a bit to make sure he does not engage in silly little obscuring edits. If he is unblocked and if he returns to such behavior, I would not hesitate to support sanctions on him. A topic ban is a different issue, but I would disagree with a topic ban too since people would have not show that he has engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing on particular topics in a consistent fashion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T06:54:00.000Z","author":"Ramos1990","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ramos1990-2017-12-08T06:54:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Huitzilopochtli1990"}}-->
• Oppose unblock without clear acknowledgement of past issues. The "technical problem" explanation is clearly a smoke screen with no basis. Three supporters arrived here within four hours with two (1 + 2) having no other edit in the last ten days. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T08:48:00.000Z","author":"Johnuniq","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Johnuniq-2017-12-08T08:48:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• I'm not buying the explanation for the "technical problem" at all. It's hard to believe technically (for reasons other people have raised), but to accept it we'd have to also believe that it went on for days and even weeks on end (the example I linked to continued in episodes over nearly two weeks), and that it fortuitously didn't happen when Jobas wanted to make actual edits.

  In the example I showed, there's a period from 10:09, 13 April 2017 to 12:45, 14 April 2017 when the "technical problem" wasn't happening and Jobas was editing just fine, and then the "problem" kicked in just 13 minutes after that and went on for about half an hour unchecked. Then on 15 April we have the same - some real edits followed by another "technical problem" session.

  Go back a bit further and we see Jobas controversially removing the atheist categories from all those pages, between 13:09, 5 April 2017 and 13:23, 5 April 2017 and then the mysterious problem kicks in again just a few minutes later and goes on for a couple of hours (and then picks up again the next day). And all the while this technical problem just happens to be choosing articles in alphabetical order, ones which Jobas had not edited before.

  What we are seeing is clearly Jobas making controversial edits and then trying to obfuscate them by pushing them way down his edit history. Had Jobas confessed I would probably still support an unblock, but this latest pile of horseshit pushes me to oppose strongly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T12:13:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:13:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

  As an aside, I was a software developer for more than 30 years (and still do some now in my spare time), starting in the days when a computer was bigger than a bedroom suite, and I've heard all sorts of "blame the computer" excuses in my time at Wikipedia - and I've not once been wrong yet in disbelieving them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T12:36:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:36:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:29:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:36:00.000Z"]}}-->

  As a quick test, I did a session in my sandbox where I made the same type of edits manually and reverted manually. Wikipedia response seems a bit slower that usual at the moment, and I managed 2 or 3 edits per minute. Jobas's similar sessions saw 6 to 8 edits per minute, and (based admittedly on my single annecdatum) I can easily see that being about right for an automated script driven by an alphabetical list of article targets.

  At this stage, I'd say Jobas needs to finally tell the truth and then try again in another six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T12:29:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:29:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T12:36:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Oppose Having reviewed the discussion on this talk page, their explanation of a "computer malfunction" for their previous obfuscatory edits holds no water at all. In fact, it is clearly BS. Now this is a shame, because if, at this point, they had said "yeah, I admit they were obfuscatory edits, but I'm sorry and I won't pull a stunt like that again" then this request would likely have been successful. But we are where we are, and the request asks us to trust them that they will behave differently in future, while demonstrating a continued lack of honesty about the past. On that basis I can't support right now. (commenting here, per the ANI request) -- Begoon 13:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T13:57:00.000Z","author":"Begoon","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Begoon-2017-12-08T13:57:00.000Z-Doug_Weller-2017-12-07T16:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-Begoon-2017-12-08T13:57:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee for your honest questions and comments. I am a young user and I admit that I was immature about the issue in the past - the technical problem was simply me attempting to boost my edit count so that I could one day display a Service Badge on my userpage. This is quite embarrassing for me and I am ashamed to admit this, but in good faith, I have honestly come forward to answer the question you asked about the technical problem, a behaviour I ceased well before my block. I promise that I will never do this again and embrace the one-year restrictions that are currently recommended for me. Now, I ask that you please forgive me for this, Thank you. Jobas (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-Begoon-2017-12-08T13:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

I have answered below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Folks, have a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#is it possible to have a bug that automatically edits, adds/removes a character, and then saves a page repeatedly?, which I think pretty much nails it. And it's interesting to see that the +1/-1 edits appear to have been driven by category - the ones here are all in Category:Italian cuisine and are being edited sequentially. An earlier batch in March was driven from Category:Greek cuisine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z-The_\"technical_fault\"","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:11:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-Fram-2017-12-08T15:09:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-Bishonen-2017-12-08T15:51:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-JamesBWatson-2017-12-08T17:05:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-Alex_Shih-2017-12-08T17:21:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","c-Doug_Weller-2017-12-08T17:29:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z"]}}-->

Ah, it's just struck me that G comes before I, and a little further digging shows that prior to editing the Category:Italian cuisine articles we see Category:Israeli cuisine, and prior to that Category:Iranian cuisine. It looks like he's been drilling down from Category:Cuisine by country. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:11:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:11:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:11:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you for your honest questions and comments. I am a young user and I admit that I was immature about the issue in the past - the technical problem was simply me attempting to boost my edit count so that I could one day display a Service Badge on my userpage. This is quite embarrassing for me and I am ashamed to admit this, but in good faith, I have honestly come forward to answer the question you asked about the technical problem, a behaviour I ceased well before my block. I promise that I will never do this again and embrace the one-year restrictions that are currently recommended for me. Now, I ask that you please forgive me for this, Thank you. Jobas (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:11:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-1"]}}-->

No, you did not "honestly come forward", you kept on lying until it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were lying and you finally had no alternative but to confess. In doing so, you have wasted huge amounts of other people's time. You were being dishonest about your editing as recently as yesterday, which in my opinion resets the WP:Standard Offer clock.

Now, while you're here, do you want to also confess that your claim that you researched all those "atheist" articles properly and made notes in your notebook before rapidly removing the categories was also a lie? Coming clean completely would be a big help, and if you do that I would personally support making a new WP:Standard Offer, meaning try again six months from today when I would probably support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:16:00.000Z-1","replies":["c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:31:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you again Boing! said Zebedee, I admit that I was immature in rapidly removing the categories without scanning well the categories and previous statement about the notebook was false, I ask that you please forgive me for this, and sorry for wasting your and other people time.--Jobas (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:31:00.000Z","author":"Jobas","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:31:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:25:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T14:36:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

The pattern repeats itself. You continually lie about something until another editor is forced to threaten or waste his or her own time to find evidence which exposes you. Then and only then do you attempt to confess, and not even honestly, with some half assed excuse about your English, or this time your age (having previously tried to express how experienced an editor you are with 10 years and tens of thousands of edits to prove your worth). The burden if responsibility is not on the community here to catch you being dishonest. The burden of responsibility is on you to behave and edit in an honest way. You have failed to demonstrate any change in behaviour leaving me forced to conclude you haven’t learnt a single thing from this ban. You are wasting our time once again. Mramoeba (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:36:00.000Z","author":"Mramoeba","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Mramoeba-2017-12-08T14:36:00.000Z-Jobas-2017-12-08T14:31:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Question for those opposing the unblock request Given that Jobas has confessed to what most everyone already knew, namely that their explanations of a tech glitch and rapid removal of atheism categories were false, and that he has already been blocked for six months and further that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, is it believed that he poses an ongoing threat to the project that requires he remain blocked? I am not trying to play the Devils advocate here (pun intended). Rather I am trying to get an idea as to the rational for declining the requested WP:SO if that turns out to be the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:59:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T15:06:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","c-Begoon-2017-12-08T15:10:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T15:18:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z"]}}-->

My view is that Jobas is not sufficiently honest/mature at this point to be allowed back yet, having been blatantly and repeatedly lying even in this unblock request discussion - the "lying until you can't hold out any longer" approach is characteristic of juveniles when they're caught, and they say what they think needs to be said to get them off the hook - and I've seen too many cases of confessions and promises being made by young editors who then carry on doing exactly the same things that they think they just got away with. I would like to see a further six months of maturity before I'd support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T14:59:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T14:59:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Oh, and I'll just add that Mramoeba makes a good point above (which I've only just seen) in that 10 years of experience does seem to clash with the claim of being young and immature just six months ago. Genuinely immature, or being dishonest about being immature? I don't know - it is common to still be immature into one's late teens or even early twenties. Either way, I think it would be a mistake to unblock at this time - until he has had some more time to properly reflect on what has just happened and re-assess his approach to honesty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:06:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T15:06:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

It seems to me that there is still a real concern that Jobas has not demonstrated an understanding, ability and genuine intention to return to editing without a very real probability that more community time-sinks such as this would be the result. I don't see genuine understanding and intent to alter behaviour, just a final, minimal "confession" of the obvious after enormous effort and wasted time, when totally backed into a corner, and no reason to think it would not happen just this way again. Boing's points about maturity and time to reflect are well made too. -- Begoon 15:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:10:00.000Z","author":"Begoon","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Begoon-2017-12-08T15:10:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

(edit conflict)The lying doesn't impress me. Particularly given the admission to being focused on a high edit count just for the sake of having a high edit count... it makes me wonder about Jobas' high edit count over at arwiki, where his main account behaves like an anti-vandalism bot. I'm not convinced, however, that this has to be fatal to Jobas' request here. We now know the apparent root cause of Jobas' misconduct, and have something to hold him to when crafting unblock conditions.

That said, one of the critical issues with a SO unblock is, as I refer to above, the paucity of evidence of change and improvement during the period of inactivity. As a result, the requestor's approach to the request and the questions asked of him or her are afforded a great deal of weight. In fact, in the absence of red flags, I think the approach to the request is given at least as much weight as the conduct that led to the block in the first place. And so, as here, getting caught in a lie (the strange edits), and having to fess up about different misconduct only after being caught in the lie (the cat removal) would normally be fatal to a SO request.

So where does that put us? We have a root cause of misconduct, the desire to have a high edit count, leading to fairly obvious behavior, artificially inflating edit count. One of the main annoyances reported is watchlist spam, which reminds me of unauthorized bot use... so why not try the same solution here? As added unblock conditions, I believe Jobas should be prohibited from making automated or semi-automated edits, as well as warned that bot-like behavior (such as long stretches of small edits across many pages in consecutive minutes) will be grounds for a reblock. I think, whether a SO is granted this time or in the future, this should be a part of the unblock conditions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:18:00.000Z","author":"Mendaliv","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T15:18:00.000Z-Ad_Orientem-2017-12-08T14:44:00.000Z","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T15:36:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T15:18:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes, that sounds like a wise move to me, and I'd certainly support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:36:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T15:36:00.000Z-Mendaliv-2017-12-08T15:18:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Oppose. Given that the editor has extensively shown in the above discussion that he can't be trusted at all, keeping the block is not punitive but preventative. I also note that their actual edit runs (between the "technical fault" ended and his indef block) consist mainly of edits which are pointless ashould in fact be reverted if you want to follow the MOS, i.e. adding "see also" links which are already present in the short articles. 18.14-18.51 29 May were 100 or so edits like this (a Rayon and a District are the same thing); 17.17-17.37 26 May were 50 or so edits like this where the see also is literally included in the one or two line article already; 14.32-14.49 is another run of the same thing. 25 May consists of hundreds upon hundreds of edits doing again the same thing for other provinces. 20 May, 17 May, ... all the same useless pattern. Either they don't understand why having a see also which repeats a link you can find in the body two lines up is useless and actually unwanted, or they do understand this but are just still trying to up their edit count, but this time with edits which seem at a cursory glance to be beneficial. An editor you can't trust (not even in their unblock request after having veen blocked for months already), who causes problems, and where the majority of his edits are useless anyway, is an editor we don't need at all. Fram (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:09:00.000Z","author":"Fram","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fram-2017-12-08T15:09:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Since Ad Orientem wants further commentary from those opposing an unblock, I still oppose it. Jobas only confessed after being backed into a corner here and now, first trying further evasiveness and timewasting. This after having had six months to think it over! I really don't think it's time to unblock. It's not a question of punishing him; rather, I still think he poses a threat to the project, inasmuch as it looks like he will again need to be policed by editors who could be doing something more useful, not to mention more fun, with their editing time. Pinging the blocking admin, @Dougweller: after what has transpired here, what do you say? For my part I believe the user should stay blocked, with another six months before the next unblock request. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T15:51:00.000Z","author":"Bishonen","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bishonen-2017-12-08T15:51:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• I totally oppose any unblock. Jobas has lied and lied and lied again, and is almost certainly still lying. The "confession" came not only, as other editors have mentioned, after the dishonesty had been proved so clearly that even Jobas must have realised that his lies were obvious to everyone, but also only after being told by one or two editors thing to the effect of "if you had confessed I might have supported an unblock". It is evident that he "confessed" only because it looked to him as though doing so would help his unblock. When the "confession" came it was a partial confession, which looks highly implausible. Also, although there are now "confessions" to a couple of parts of the problem, namely the lies about the huge number of pointless trivial edits followed by self reverts caused by a mythical "technical problem" and the mythical "notebook", there are still other, and in my opinion more important, problems which are totally unresolved. For example, although we now have a confession that the "notebook" used in the blatant attempt to censor Wikipedia by removing references to atheism was a lie, we still do not have any explanation of that attempt at censorship itself. In the context of everything else we know about this editor, the trivial edits and self-reverts look far more like an attempt to hide controversial editing, such as the atheism censorship, from scrutiny than like a simple case of edit-count build up for vanity, as the "confession" claims. Several editors, notably Bishonen and Boing! said Zebedee, have given a whole string of reasons why this editor cannot be trusted, and the more I study the things he has said and his twists and turns when confronted, the more it seems to me that he is still lying to us. I also do not agree at all with the long-standing and oft-repeated view that if an editor "has made some good contributions" we should tolerate the fact that he or she is persistently disruptive and dishonest, and turn a blind eye to incessant lies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T17:05:00.000Z","author":"JamesBWatson","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-JamesBWatson-2017-12-08T17:05:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Oppose (edit conflict) unblock, basically based on the rationales presented by Boing! said Zebedee, Fram and Bishonen. The standing offer rationale was insufficient to begin with, as pointed out by Doug Weller, and neither was the subsequent explanations noticeably better. Admittance is one thing, but not being completely truthful is troubling for me as well. I am not convinced that the same pattern of unproductive editing in the earlier months of this year will not be repeated. I think Jobas should wait another 3 to 6 months while present some more evidence of constructive editing from other sister projects, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T17:21:00.000Z","author":"Alex Shih","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Alex_Shih-2017-12-08T17:21:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Now opposing I made a proposal for editing restrictions as a condition of unblocking in good faith, believing in Jobas's explanation. Now I find that although a few hours ago he was still claiming that many of his problematic edits were due to a technical problem, he now admits "the technical problem was simply me attempting to boost my edit count so that I could one day display a Service Badge on my userpage." Even though these occurred well before the block, at that time and until today he maintained it was purely a technical fault and nothing to do with his editing. He also now admits that he hadn't actually done any checking before rapidly removing categories and that his statement about taking notes in a notebook was also false. He has wasted a lot of time and energy by lying about his past activities. He also tries to excuse himself because he is a young user, but he's got 10 years of experience here. I can't see why he should be unblocked yet, this was not a good faith request and his finally admitting that he lied doesn't change that. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T17:29:00.000Z","author":"Doug Weller","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Doug_Weller-2017-12-08T17:29:00.000Z-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2017-12-08T13:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->