Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325

Full protection on Susie Boniface

Bringing this here for community review as suggested at RFPP. David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) full protected Susie Boniface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) back in June 2020 for this diff by Shakehandsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was (as far as I can see) a poor interpretation of a primary source. In the given source, the subject was asked in a joking fashion by the interviewer if she'd "really cleaned her toilet with her electric toothbrush" to which she replied "yes, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, it was a really good idea at the time". The editor worded this statement as "Boniface admitted to abuse of her husband such as using his toothbrush to clean the toilet". BLP violation and bad original research, yes, but evidence to suspect chronic disruption by multiple editors rising to indef full protection? David Gerard claims the subject rang him up, after which he removed the content, indef protected the page, and created a BLPN discussion. This was discussed at BLPN at the time, where Shakehandsman said they don't intend to readd the material. When requested to lift protection, Gerard said he'd wait a few days and see, but discussion was archived as stale, with no explicit support from any editor to uphold the protection. Talk page requests by Arcturus were ignored contrary to WP:ADMINACCT, and their RFPP request was closed procedurally in July, with advice to go to AN/AE. This article isn't in the BLP AELOG, thus not DS action & AE inappropriate, so I bring this to AN.

David Gerard continues to believe the single violation from a single editor is grounds for indefinite full protection, and suggests permanently requiring all changes to go through as edit requests. He does not believe EC protection, DS, pblocks, or other measures should be considered. Whilst WP:BLPADMINS exists, I don't think it's intended as a blank cheque to indef full any BLP for any reason, especially not without trying other measures, and I would note that this is the only indef full protected BLP across this entire wiki of 1 million BLPs (and 1 of only 3 indef fully protected articles in general). Further, I've seen BLP violations far worse than this get off with a revert, revdel, EC protection at best – this wasn't even eligible for revdel apparently. I see not even a credible indication to believe that disruption would continue at EC, or that it can't be dealt with. This is evidently an abnormal protection based on numbers alone, and imv contrary to founding principles and the protection policy. I feel it should be reduced to EC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• We should never indef full protect articles. This one should at least be reduced to extended confirmed (and possibly for a finite duration); if there is a extended confirmed user knowingly introducing BLP violations they should be dealt with. Protection is not an instrument against such violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I must add however that at the talk page of the article two administrators supported keeping the protection and zero administrators opposed keeping it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'd note both are involved administrators in the protection, which is to be expected since they're watching the talk. One is the protecting admin, the other was involved here. Full protection is a poor substitute for potential action against a single editor imo (not expressing an opinion on whether there should've been or not). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's a bizarre interpretation of "involved", given any involvement was only the precise matter at hand, and it's about a BLP issue - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Good grief. We have a page no one can edit at the behest of the subject? Indefinitely? This seems very wrong. And why are involved admins making these decisions? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Per Ymblanter. reduce to ECP (for 3 months) and see. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I will happily watch the page, revert /revdel any BLP violations, and block the person adding them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have to say, I don't think there is any reason to indefinitely fully protect a page. I would reduce the protection, none of the arguments at the talk are particularly convincing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting the original discussion at BLPN is here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear David Gerard's take on this, perhaps there's more to this story than has been presented above. I don't think it's fair to categorise David's view as believing that a single case of vandalism justifies this protection - he talks on the article talk page about a coordinated off-wiki campaign, but I don't know what evidence there is for that. On the face of it, if the assertion that David received a call from the subject about the article is true, I assume they're personally known to him, and I'm kind of feeling that he probably shouldn't have been the one to protect the article - it's not a case of INVOLVEMENT, more a potential COI which might have had better optics via a request at RfPP for someone else to review. Anyway, I don't see any reason to drag David over the coals for what amounts to no more than a potentially overzealous protection of a BLP, we can simply review the protection here - unless there's more stuff about an ongoing campaign that he's able to expand on here, I'd agree that ECP for a few months would probably be adequate. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Comment ammended GirthSummit _(blether) 18:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate the WP:ADMINACCT concerns being addressed. Ignoring an editor requesting unprotection over the course of a month isn't really OK. I've asked for elaboration of this 'campaign' and received no response, either. If there is such credible evidence, it shouldn't take an AN to have an admin respond to editors' legitimate concerns. No need for coals here, but an explanation and a change in interacting with non-admin editors' concerns would be appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone will agree based on the article history that full protection isn't merited. The real question is why it should take this much effort to get to this point. The ADMINACCT and COI/INVOLVED issues raised above should be addressed by David Gerard before this thread is closed. Lev!vich 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  It is outrageous that this page is fully protected on a permanent basis. It strikes right at the heart of Wikipedia and all that it stands for. As noted above, I tried to discuss this matter with the protecting admin, to no avail. My attempt to engage in meaningful discussions at BLPN were dismissed by another admin. To reiterate what I said there; it seems that Boniface has managed to shut down the article by finding an admin willing to do her bidding. This page should be unprotected forthwith. I'm sure any material contravening BLP policy will be quickly reverted. Please note that I have no wish to edit the page myself, but I find this sort of unnecessary protection, here and elsewhere, quite infuriating; which is why I challenged it in the first place. Arcturus (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The protection request at WP:RFPP was rejected by another admin, on the basis that Arcturus had completely failed to specify what edits he wanted to make. ProcrastinatingReader similarly failed to do so.

ADMINACCT was answered at Talk:Susie Boniface. Though ProcrastinatingReader thought starting his discussion with claims of malfeasance would be a good way to go, and asking questions repeatedly when he didn't like the previous answers from multiple admins.

The claims of COI/INVOLVED are unfounded nonsense. I suggest rereading WP:BLP.

As I said at Talk:Susie Boniface: Should WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN or some other suitable board concur otherwise, that'd be fine with me, but I'm not comfortable with removing it unilaterally. If the consensus of admins here is that extended confirmed protection would do the job fine, then I am absolutely OK with that. I would suggest admins add it to their watchlists, though - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I find this response somewhat unfortunate. I’ve collated every onwiki discussion on the matter in my summary, so people can come up with their own opinions, but I feel your statement dodges all the big questions and is inaccurate on the few points it does make. Again, and I thought per Girth you would have already, are you able to substantiate your concerns: “Can I ask why you think personal targeting hasn't stopped (insofar as it extends to Wikipedia), or why you think EC would be ineffective?” If not, haven’t you been misleading editors for 3mo with wishy-washy nonsense? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I've misled anyone in any way, nor that you've shown it. You're throwing around completely unsubstantiated claims of malfeasance again. If you believe you can actually (a) state a specific claim (b) substantiate it, then that's something you've yet to do.

I note also that your response there doesn't address protection on the article in any manner. Wasn't that the issue you actually wanted to discuss? I do think I've answered that issue in full, and now it's up to consensus to decide - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@DG, frankly that response makes me want to open an arbcom case, because it makes me think you don't know how to use the protection tools and are ignoring ADMINACCT. You haven't explained why you full protected it in the first place (as opposed to a lower level of protection), why you chose indefinite as the duration (as opposed to a limited duration), why you didn't later lift it on your own accord even though you said in June you only thought it should be protected "for a little while", why you ignored messages from editors inquiring about this, and why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests. Asserting that you're not comfortable lifting protection unilaterally is insufficient. (Heck, you imposed it unilaterally.) Also, where in WP:BLP does it say an admin can indef full protect a BLP at the request of the subject? Telling us to reread the policy does not fulfill your obligations to explain your admin actions under ADMINACCT. I am less concerned about what you're comfortable with and more concerned about whether you are using admin tools in line with community consensus. You need to explain your actions, not just share your feelings or draw lines in the sand. Please address these issues in good faith. (That means, in a way in which I and others will understand your thinking behind these actions.) Lev!vich 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you full protected it in the first place I fully protected it because the content - which other editors at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive309#Susie_Boniface, not me, characterised as the editor adding them "was not "misled" by the off-wiki attacks (as suggested above by David Gerard). He was writing them" - was being added by an editor who would have passed ECP. I brought my concerns in full to BLPN, as detailed at that link.

why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests I have answered this also; claiming I haven't suggests you haven't read the links here.

and why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests As already detailed at the links given.

Also, where in WP:BLP does it say an admin can indef full protect a BLP at the request of the subject? The subject can, in fact, alert an admin to a problem, and the admin can decide there's a BLP-level problem there. If you don't understand this, you don't understand WP:BLP. I then brought my concerns to BLPN, as detailed at the link already given. It's a drastic protection level, which is why I promptly brought my concerns to BLPN - where nobody saw fit to remove it.

explain your admin actions under ADMINACCT As already done.

Please address these issues in good faith. Ideally, you'd first need to sound more like you were raising them in good faith. You're asking questions that are already answered. Please read through the BLPN, RFPP and talk page discussions.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

None of those discussions address why you think the full protection needs to be indefinite. You have not addressed why it needs to be protected today; that is, why it still needs to be full protected. This isn't something that multiple editors should have to ask you multiple times before you give a succinct and to-the-point answer. Why the indefinite duration? Why does it still need to be protected today? If the disruption was being added by an editor who would have passed ECP why didn't/don't you just block this editor instead of blocking all non-admin editors from editing the page?

We have over 6 million articles. Only two are indefinitely full protected: Susie Boniface and Kiwi Farms. While we're on the subject, pinging Primefac to ask if Kiwi Farms still needs to be indef full protected and if so why. Lev!vich 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If consensus agrees, then it doesn't, as I've said repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ADMINACCT requires you to justify the duration of the protection; i.e., to justify it being indefinite as opposed to 24 hrs, 1 month, or 1 year. Your response, "If consenus agrees, then it doesn't" is drawing a line in the sand; it's not explaining the decision to make the protection indefinite in the first place. The BLPN and article talk page do not contain any justification for the indefinite duration. To the contrary, you said in the BLPN thread, I'd suggest leaving it a bit for now, and "a bit" doesn't mean "indefinite". So I'll ask you again to explain why you chose "indefinite" as the duration. Lev!vich 18:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite does not necessarily means infinite, and choosing to protect until the disruption is over is a valid choice, even though it does not seem to be the best one in this case. The arbitration case here is a non-starter.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is indefinite a valid choice--why not one month or one year or some other duration? And why full protection as opposed to semi or ECP? Why do we think we need to block all extended-confirmed editors from editing this article for an indefinite duration? This has not been answered. An arbitration case is a non-starter because it seems to be a one-time occurrence, but it shouldn't require multiple editors asking multiple times to get an admin to explain why they chose a particular level or duration of protection. ADMINACCT requires explanations, not instructions for how to appeal. Lev!vich 18:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiwi is fully protected because ECP wasn't cutting it - there were still editors adding in OSable BLP violations. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for the quick response. But why not block those editors instead of indef full protection? How many extended-confirmed editors are out there adding BLP violations? They need to be blocked if that's what they're doing, no? Lev!vich 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The last five violations were by five different users. I'm not going to block everyone violating BLP on this. I do suppose that it's not necessary to indefinitely fully protect. I'll leave it another week or so and then drop back down to ECP. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Better to partially block five users from that article than block all editors, no? I mean, aren't we concerned that those five editors are also adding BLP violations elsewhere? I can see the revdel's, but those editors' talk pages don't appear to have anything about Kiwi Farms. If an (otherwise in good standing, extended-confirmed) editor is adding a BLP violation, shouldn't we address that with the editor, instead of blocking everyone else from editing the article? If the concern is that new accounts will game EC (and I don't see evidence of that with respect to the editors whose edits were revdel'd), wouldn't an edit filter be a better choice? Lev!vich 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may be wondering how someone knew to phone me in particular. The answer is that I'm a listed volunteer media contact for Wikipedia/Wikimedia - and in the 2000s, I was the main UK press guy. So my personal phone number is still in a metric arseload of media contact lists in the UK, even as I haven't done the job very heavily in ages. I still get several calls a year, and the call from Susie Boniface (a journalist) was one of them. That I happen to be an admin, and one who wrote large chunks of WP:BLP way back when we were launching that policy, is a coincidence that meant I could act quickly - but BLP issues coming as calls is also a thing that occasionally happens. Sometimes other Wikimedia/Wikipedia contacts get BLP issues and ping me about them, as an admin who knows the BLP area - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, thanks for explaining that - I wondered if there was more to it than met the eye above. I withdraw the suggestion that there is a COI concern, and will strike it above for the record. Would you be willing to expand on the reason why you believe there is an on-going off-wiki campaign against the subject of the sort that would require indefinite full protection (as opposed to, say, a few months of ECP of semi-)? Feel free to point to somewhere else if you've already been through that of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely state that I'd never had any contact with Ms Boniface before she called me, and in fact I'd never heard of her that I recall.

Per the BLPN thing, it appears there was a targeted attack on the subject being mounted across various "men's rights" forums and blog spaces, and the Wikipedia material was part of that. Given this was going on, I felt full protection was the right move (and promptly brought it to BLPN, as you do.) And that if someone had edits they wanted to make, they could suggest them - and another admin concurred. Given it was clearly a personally targeted attack on the subject, and in attacks like that, the attackers tend to wait patiently until they can act again, I figured keeping the lock was safer on BLP grounds - particularly given nobody had proposed particular edits.

There are conflicting needs here: openness versus a known-targeted BLP. I'm not a fan of excessive protection, and concur that everything Wikipedia got, it got by being as open as possible - but BLP is a big exception. (Hence: if you take a drastic action, you take it straight to BLPN.)

If editors, particularly admins, are aware of this style of misogynist online campaign, and know to watch for that stuff - and reimpose stronger protection as necessary - then ECP would probably suffice, sure - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, what about applying Gamer Gate discretionary sanctions in addition to ECP - would that fly, would ti make it easier to deal with any disruption from established accounts? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do note we have the BLP discretionary sanctions (WP:BLPDS). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this is GG linked, GG is the Godwin example of online misogyny, and I made a point of having nothing to do with the Wikipedia issues over GG and am not familiar with the practical application of those particular sanctions :-) But WP:BLPDS might apply? Certainly if it happens again - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I think this is probably moot, since you're quite right, BLPDS would apply too. Just FWIW, GGDS is interpreted quite broadly - issues don't have to be related to gamer gate directly, they can be applied to "any gender-related dispute or controversy", broadly construed. I'd say any online misogynist campaign would fall squarely within its scope, should you come across something similar at an article that isn't already covered by BLPDS. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the matter was referred to ArbCom, according to the BLPN discussion, assuming the admin followed through with the advice given to them, given the serious assertion they made. Though, ArbCom has yet to take any action, assuming they received an email at all (can we ask for ArbCom's confirmation of receipt?), neither has any uninvolved admin taken action for the onwiki content. No such smear campaign has been evidenced, nor here or at BLPN. The "evidence" at BLPN was solely of one editor, Shakehandsman's, contributions across some other articles. Obviously, said editor's involvement in an offwiki campaign cannot be implied without evidence as was, and cannot be evidenced onwiki due to OUTing. What can and should be evidenced is allegations that there is a general smear campaign going on. Further, it should be evidenced that Wikipedia has multiple EC editors willing to participate in that smear campaign. Neither has been shown.

The facts of the matter are very simple: an editor decided to call cleaning a toilet with a toothbrush as "abuse", that article was indef protected, it remains the only BLP indef protected on wiki. BLP allows for more cautious steps to be taken to prevent defamation, but not wishy-washy statements to lead to indef protection. If none of these assertions can be shown to be credible, with evidence, there is absolutely no reason protection should not be lowered. Even if this was a real smear campaign (and I'm not convinced it is, as it extends to Wikipedia), it wouldn't be close to the first or anywhere near most severe, yet this would be the only one with indef protection. That alone should be evidence that this is not in line with precedent or policy. I've asked this numerous times, but what evidence can be shown here? If, as you say, the stuff at BLPN is all you have, this shouldn't even be a discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

notified said admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, come on. So I'm pretty sure I've found what you two are talking about, and if this is indeed that, then I feel this is an awful reason to indef full an article. We get this stuff all the time and we barely semi-protect for it. Maybe, at a real push, just because BLP, it does give rise to justification to ECP/indef it for a few weeks, but the source article has been deleted for months now and never gained traction in the first place. No evidence it was going to lead to wider disruption. Similar posts from this place about other female BLPs did not lead to disruption on those articles, which (looking at log) we never even protected at all. This is routine disruption, which has anyway been deleted and moved onto the next person. I hope Slp1 sent this to ArbCom if this is the same stuff they found, but in any case further protection is not appropriate and should be lifted. (for clarity, I solely refer to the content here, making no comment about who posted it) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Conceding that Full protection is better than this matter discussed on my talkpage. We need to do better as an encyclopedia. But we can't fully protect all the BLP's(?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Can we just unprotect it and move on? No need for ECP or SP. Any BLP violations can be quickly reversed. I'll watch the article myself. Arcturus (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I see no reason not to reduce the article to ECP immediately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It has been fully protected for three months, I don't think we have to worry that it would be too soon to reduce the protection to ECP. PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: Can you tell us wht edit you'd like to make and the sourcing? That would be simpler/quicker/easier. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I do not want to edit the article. My concern is with unnecessary protection, of which this article is a classic example. Arcturus (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, alrighty then. Given the reason for the FP and the lack of edit requests, I doubt consensus will agree to lower protection. I am an advocate for preventing defamation on Wikipedia, so not terribly enthusiastic. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Deepfriedokra, but I have to disagree. FP should never be employed longer than necessary, regardless of whether there is a need for people to edit. BLP vios are awful, but if we want to start indefinitely full-protecting over a single violation, I want an RfC first. If we drop to ECP and we start seeing BLP violations, then sure, bump it back up, but for now, drop it to ECP. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability:. No, I agree with ECP, it's further up. I feel a lot of frustration right now over a debacle discussed on my talk. Here, we have the opposite extreme from that. Defamation in BLP's is a problem we have not dealt with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, ah, okay, I see it, I think I'm on the same page now. I completely agree that defamation is an area we need to work on (and I saw the incident on your talk page, so I have some understanding of where you're coming from). Heck, I would consider immediate indef for defamation and/or ECPing articles at the first sign of defamatory edits to be reasonable measures. The problem is really going to be finding it. My first thought, as usual, is edit filters. A brief glance gives me 189 (hist · log), 339 (hist · log), 364 (hist · log), and 686 (hist · log) (kinda) as BLP-relevant filters, but I haven't worked with them enough to have a good idea of their signal-to-noise ratio or what is getting through them. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no personal life section in the article at all at the moment. There's should be something. She wrote about her ex-husband in a book and then gave interviews about it, revealing her real name in the process, so there shouldn't be any issue in mentioning it briefly. P-K3 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• In case it isn't clear from my comments above, I also agree the protection should be lowered to ECP or semi (or removed). Lev!vich 14:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• To confirm my view, no protection is necessary, but if others feel some restriction (excepting full protection) should still apply, I would suggest a time limit be placed on it. What is the next step in resolving this issue? Arcturus (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe desyopp, if the admin does not immediately self correct, should be considered. It is clear from the above discussion that David Gerard does not understand how serious a WP:TOOLMISUSE this is. Fully protecting an article that is not a subject of an multi-user edit war shows a lack understanding of alternatives to protection. Indefinite full protection of the page, instead of blocking Shakehandsman, is ridiculous reaction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The above editor came to my talk page as well, and I suggested making well-formed suggested edits just as multiple admins in multiple non-user-talk-page venues have already suggested; the above follows from that suggestion. Apparently unable or unwilling to do so - David Gerard (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    I made an edit request almost 7 HOURS ago! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    • My apologies, I didn't see that! Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • If some other admin goes "yes, ECP will do" that would be fine with me btw - David Gerard (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    @David Gerard: what do you mean "apparently unable or unwilling" to make an edit request? And in this thread I count four (4) admin going "yes, ECP will do". In fact everybody in this discussion other than you seems to think ECP. Lev!vich 06:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    • • I mean actually pressing the button, adding the page to their watchlist, etc - David Gerard (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have lowered the protection to extended confirmed (just in case there is any risk that this problem will recur) and set a conservative expiry of 6 months on this protection. I think it would have been preferable for David to remove his own protection, given the strong consensus that has developed here, that the protection was excessive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hear, hear!! That's a BLP, and I will cheerfully block any ECP user who gives the appearance of having been recruited to defame the subject. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note Coffeeandcrumbs' suggested edit was moved to draft space and then added to the article after ECP. I histmerged the draft into the article. Coffeeandcrumbs has continued to edit the article w/o reintroducing the challenged (and revdel'd by me) content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  I know you were just noting this as an archival note, but the thought of "reintroducing the challenged ... content" never even crossed my mind. I just think the idea of an actual article in article space being indef full protected is morally repugnant.

  Part of the reason this article was so easily attacked in the first place was because it was so badly sourced to begin with. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks, MSGJ, for sorting this out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

@Roxy the dog: Here ya go.DFO

In the hopes of reducing the incidence of contentious discussion closes, I have created Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion as a place for discussion closers to discuss their opinions about how pending discussions should be closed in before actually implementing a close, particularly in difficult cases. This is intended to be distinct from merely requesting the closure of a discussion, or for raising problems with discussions that have already been closed. BD2412 T 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed at the Noticeboard Noticeboard first, or perhaps someone should have filed a Request for Request for Comment. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be against a Request for RfC board. Half-baked RfCs, with no prior discussion to frame the question, are far too frequent. EEng 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we move the talk to Wikipedia:Discussion of discussions for discussion? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

DoRD would be proud. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Guys, come on, this is serious business here! BD2412 T 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I may have to report you to the squad squad. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Or the committee on committees. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think the talk page should be sent to MfD so we can have a discussion for the place we discuss the discussions we're having about discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like a Rolf Harris song I know of. Don't suppose I can chip in some music for discussion whilst we discuss the discussion currently being discussed. Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, is this the correct venue for requesting comments on the request for comments on the potential request for comments on closing requests for comment that I started? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Already discussed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is all too Meta for me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We shall seek consensus about the consensus. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I don't think we have a noticeboard for that. This would be the place to request comments on the proposed close of a request for comments that you didn't start, but only intended to finish. BD2412 T 22:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So can we use that venue to discuss discussions for discussion that failed to be a discussion because editors refused to discuss it, or should we just discuss it on the Talk Page where discussions should be discussed? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Joking aside is there a reason that AN isn't the right place when we need to have a discussion about discussions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, fine, my questions are largely about ensuring there are clear expectations. I think the point is well made that most RfCs do not need admin closure, and I am happy if we clarify that in the relevant rubric. Would that make AN the wrong venue for review? That would be an ecumenical matter. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am skeptical that a new forum is the right place to do it. Just not enough eyes. I don't disagree about the use case, however. It might be easier to morph WP:ANRFC than to create something new. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea. But given the frequency of occurance of "difficult closes", the new forum would not get much traffic. I think creating a subsection at ANRFC for the beginning might be a good idea, then we can split it. I had few more thoughts, but I forgot them because of all the puns above. By the way, has the Cabal of Cabals approved this? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  That is a reasonable approach, though I hesitate to add to the volume of WP:ANRFC. BD2412 T 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Cryptic

I recently closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 5#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil. Closing the DRV was the easy part. The hard part was slogging through all the files that had to be restored, figuring out where they had been linked from, and restoring those links. Cryptic spent the last two days doing just that. I'd like for formally recognize his hard work on this, and this seemed like a good place to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Applause! Well done both. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The part of Wikipedia that *shouldn't* work is that there can be a lot of tedious stuff to do. That volunteers do work like that for hours always impresses and surprises me. Thanks Cryptic. Hobit (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks. Sandstein 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That looks like it would have been both annoying and messy. Nice work! Reyk _YO! 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is unwarranted - it was only a few hours' of tedium, and, while I would have preferred to spread it out into fifteen-minute chunks over a week or so if my hand hadn't been forced, there was still no thought needed. If people really want to thank me, go make some intelligent comments at the ffds that are still open (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14, note the irritatingly-hard-to-see relists). Or renominate some of the restored files for deletion - probably at least a third really should have been deleted, even by my permissive standards for WP:NFCC#8. —Cryptic 14:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars posters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had previously posted about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dancing with the Stars posters, but have gotten no response/help since. Basically, there is a user, Sharkman720, who is uploading posters for the different seasons of DWTS. Each poster they are falsely claiming they hold the copyright for the poster, which they clearly do not (also as per the file description stating they found it on a fan-run Wiki or on DWTS social media such as Facebook). I'm not the best with images, so any help correcting the information for these images is appreciated. Here are the files in question:

• Dwts athletes.jpg
• DWTS Season 27.jpg
• DWTS Season 28 poster.jpg
• DWTS29Poster.jpg
• DWTS29Posterremake.jpg

Again, any help in fixing the information for these photos is appreciated. As for the user, they previously edit-warred on both their user account and as an IP earlier in the month before the cast was revealed. They continued with disruptive editing and edit warring, and as per the most recent poster uploaded today, they are still falsely claiming copyright of images. On their talk page, they claimed they didn't do edits on their account, and said that I am, "taking advantage" of them...? Not sure what they mean by that. Apart from those talk messages, they barely did any communication on any talk page about any issues. Either way, seems like this user doesn't fully understand the guidelines in place or how to properly do things such as images, not sure what should be done about them (No clue, but this could possibly be a WP:CIR case...?). A previous report I filed about them can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#Noncommunicative/disruptive user seemingly edit warring as both IP and user.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magitroopa (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism of Slab City by user: Dana60Cummings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have recently been rolling back repetitive vandalisms by the user going by Dana60Cummings on the article for Slab City, California. Dana continues to remove a section about the risk of COVID-19 in the community, saying that the reference is "propaganda" and "Clickbate" (sic) despite the same news source being considered reliable by plenty of other pages on Wikipedia. She has retaliated by claiming that *I'm* the vandal, and so I have given up on reverting her edits, because she has threatened to take away my editing privileges and I don't want to get into that mess. I told her that I would report her, which she responded to by saying "please do." I am tired of her COVID-19 denial, which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. Please offer some assistance. Regards, Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Dessert Sun is a clickbait hub. There is not a single article or paragraph to reference, let alone a statement, stating Slab City is at risk for Covid 19. (But there is lots of things to buy.) Furthermore Off Grid communities are naturally resistant to pandemics/contagion. Many go off grid for that reason only. So the statement is wrong, and the reference is clickbait. There is no Covid 19 denial. The more robust infrastructure, transportation, etc of a population, the more at risk that population is. Slab City has no bus routes, subways, electricity, water...Feel free to check out Transmission of COVID-19 or just ask questions on Covid on my talk page, I'm well educated on the subject. Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not (yet) an administrator issue; discuss the matter on the talk page. I have fully-protected the article for a week. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification on global ban proposal for a LTA

This is a notification of global ban discussion against Sidowpknbkhihj pursuant to the global ban policy.

My regards. SMB99thx my edits 04:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Posted to the AN for a wider audience. SMB99thx my edits 12:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Functionary applications closing soon

Applications to join the CheckUser and Oversight teams will close September 19 at 2359 UTC. Those interested should contact the Arbitration Committee by sending a request to arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.

Katie^talk 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Functionary applications closing soon

Community sanctions log centralisation

I'm proposing scrapping all the active WP:GS subpages we have (eg Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, etc...) and replacing these with a single community sanctions log, mimicking WP:AELOG. Existing entries for sanctions, up to the last 5 years, will be copied into said log. The current subpages will be changed into redirects, kept to retain their history. Obsolete sanction subpages will not be changed. Thoughts/comments? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I hate to make this assumption, but you do know that WP:AELOG is just the superpage, and all of the logs are transcluded there from subpages, right? I don't necessarily disagree with creating a "master" or "summary" GS page (especially when I can't remember a GS name, or want to see if there is a GS sanction for someone in that subject), but that page would likely just be transcluding the existing subpages (if we really do want to make it like AELOG). Primefac (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be pro a summary page, but a tidy transcluding is probably the way to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Year log pages such as Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 are real (all sanctions, for all topics, are included there, not transcluded), however, I do not see much of a point in having a common page.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, yeah I know, but AELOG transcludes an annual log, but not a per-sanction log. e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, my thought behind centralising log is partially to have a better overview and make it more consistent with AELOG, but the bigger issue is stuff like this. There's so many log pages that the non-log changes (ie remedies, etc) go unnoticed, they're largely inconsistent with each other and (on some of them) the particular wording never had any explicit consensus behind it anyway. Creates a confusion where some see different rules applying to different sanctions. Easiest way to clean it up, and make sure they stay maintained long term, I figured, was to scrap having many pages altogether. But if admins feel it's not an improvement that's fine, just thought I'd raise the idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Patience, the discussion has only been posted for a few hours. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

File upload repeatedly not working

Hello, the file upload is not working atm. In the last few months it has not been working about 1/3 of the time. Please can someone look into this as not only is it incredibly frustrating, it is also actively putting off people uploading files and adding to the encylopedia.WisDom-UK (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@WisDom-UK: Wrong venue, please post at WP:VPT with more details than "it's not working". – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 17:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Article that looks like WP in a TV series episode

In Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir, season 2, episode 4, Adrien Agreste holds a phone whose content resembles a Wikipedia article, with title "Tsurugi (athlete)" and a typical infobox at the right. The subject is fictional (Kagami Tsurugi is a character in the series, and I cannot find that title on the French or English wikipedias), but it was shown very fast and I could not check whether the text is copied verbatim from a random article. I thought you would want to know. Moreover, is Wikipedia's graphical appearance copyrighted (fonts, infobox, whatever)? --62.98.117.187 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, from a copyright standpoint, everyone on Wikipedia itself is under a Creative Commons license, and it can be re-used. From a "wiki" standpoint, same goes for the software and "look"; the code for an infobox can be copied and/or recreated by others.

In other words, my guess is "no" to the question of whether they've done anything illegal or improper from a copyright standpoing. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under CC BY-SA, but my question was due to the lack of attribution (BY clause) and to the episode not being under the same license (SA clause) --62.98.117.187 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's de minimis use. Perfectly fine legally. DrKay (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --62.98.117.187 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Revirvlkodlaku

User:Revirvlkodlaku has been going against WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST in the article of an Indian TV show, Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2. They started by removing the important character description (both Main and recurring) from the article. When I added again the character description, then they removed the character description of only main cast, giving the excuse that the description was already mentioned in the "Plot" section. They say that character description has to made in "Plot" section and not in "Cast" section. Doing so, they are not following the WP:TVCAST, thus making the article not up to Wikipedia's standards. After that they engaged in an edit war with me and kept reverting my edits. After that they claimed a 3O here - User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Inconclusive_edits?. After that, they also started a discussion in Administrator's noticeboard. They kept abusing me claiming my English to be not up to the par. They even made the "Plot" section too lengthy by adding extra unnecessary description of the character. When I removed it they call my edits "disruptive." Abhishek(talk), 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• This mainly appears to be a content dispute to me. A talk page thread was started by Abhishek kasuadhan 123 on talk page but after this report was filed.[1] This should be taken back to talk page and parties should try resolving the issues on article's talk page before coming here.

ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 

This isn't merely a content dispute. If you look at the article's history, you will see that I edited the synopsis in order to make it legible, as it was written quite poorly. Abhishek kasuadhan 123, clearly not a native English speaker, whose grasp of English grammar is subpar, edited the synopsis with poorly structured sentences and now reverts my edits whenever I try to correct the article. I would definitely call this disruptive editing. werewolf (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Revirvlkodlaku keeps making the Plot section lengthy by adding unnecessary character description and also keeps removing character description from the Cast section. This truly shows that you are not aware of WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST, thus, making the article not up to Wikipedia's standards. You don't try to correct the article, rather try to prove that Character description should be added to Plot section and not in Cast section. Your edits seems to be disruptive, not mine. Also, you don't need to worry about whether I am a native English speaker or not. First learn and familiarise yourself with WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• I will notify User: Revirvlkodlaku of this report.— Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 engaging in disruptive edits

User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 has been engaging in disruptive edits on the page Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2. They started by adding lengthy, redundant, and grammatically unsound character descriptions. I have received a third opinion on this topic here: User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Inconclusive_edits?. This was followed by further unnecessary and unexplained excisions within the article, which were replaced by, again, ungrammatical structures. This user seems resistant to admonishments, as seen on their talk page. werewolf (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I responded to the 3O request on Revirvlkodlaku's talk, and I must say I agree with much of what he says above. I wanted to add that Abhishek Kasaudhan 123's use of "unethical" was improper and inflammatory.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that "unethical" could have been the result of the editor's linguistic shortcomings, and was not necessarily intended to be inflammatory. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban review

There is general consensus among various noticeboards regarding reliability of certain sources on Kamrupi language.

1. Removal_of_reliable_sources
2. Kamrupi_Prakrit_and_Kamrupi_dialect

As a sole editor involved in creation and maintenance of Kamrupi and Kamrup articles, i used them. Surprisingly inclusion of above sources led to topic_ban on Kamrupi/Assamese language topics.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 06:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, please provide a link to the actual topic ban notification, take a moment to explain what has happened and clarify if, by "surprisingly", you mean that the topic ban has never been warranted in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is when the ban was imposed by EdJohnston. Number 57 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati is referring to a topic ban I imposed under WP:AC/DS in January 2020 from the languages of Assam, under WP:ARBIPA. Full background can be seen at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 47#Appeal for roll-backing ban. (This was a thread from last January in which I declined to lift their ban). If Bhaskar wants to appeal their ban now, I recommend that they use the appeal steps per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals. The instructions are given at the top of the WP:AE noticeboard. Back in January, my comment on Bhaskar's request was:

This dispute has been running for a long time (said to be eight years) and it seems to be a one-against-many situation where your side lacks support from others. As was stated by User:Aeusoes1 in the 2019 ANI report, "Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned).."

The effort to take the issue to WP:DRN in June 2019 was not successful in ending the dispute. Bhaskar appeared to accept the result, but in fact he did not do so. The DRN got up to twenty-five cycles of comment by the moderator!. The AN3 report from this January includes links to many of the past discussions (see User:Chaipau's comment). Over the last 8 years, Bhaskarbagawati has been afforded plenty of chances to air his viewpoints (on article talk pages, at RSN, at DRN, and on admin boards), but it seems, will never rest until his POV has been inserted into Wikipedia's articles on the languages of Assam. Based on the confidence he expresses at the top of this thread that consensus supports him, it's unlikely that lifting the ban on User:Bhaskarbhagawati would have a good result. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati continues to maintain his position; and he continues to maintain that his position has consensus as evidenced from the top of this thread, as well as the sign-off message at the end of the previous roll-back request [2]. He continues to not hear (WP:IDHT) what the community is saying. Chaipau (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

In my defence, i have long enough experience as editor, i am never been banned or blocked for acting against consensus or for anything else. Although there is general academic_consensus on topic, i accepted the consensus reached here wholeheartedly showing good faith. But if i am not wrong, i have right to implement consensuses fully. In addition, all discussions on the topic are initiated by me to amicably settle the dispute which can acceptable to all. Proposal to insert said sources is accepted in all forums.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot again

• Citation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TLDR: Citation bot is still making unauthorized edits, removing |url= from citation templates and thereby de-linking the citation titles. Examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (these are just some; Citation bot is doing this at a rate of ~25+ times per day it seems to me... look at Citation Bot's contribs and search for "Removed URL" in the edit summaries to find all the instances). These edits do not appear to be authorized by any of the bot's authorizations. To the extent there was any doubt as to whether such de-linking of citation titles has consensus, that doubt was removed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 172#Issues raised by Citation bot, where it is apparent that there is no consensus to de-link citation titles, and no consensus to have |url= removed from citation templates by a bot.

A brief history of the dispute

The bot was previously blocked for this behavior by RexxS. It was unblocked on Aug 16 [8] by Salvio giuliano, with the unblock request noting bot changed to only remove URL if a PMC link will take its place. However, this statement does not seem to be accurate: the bot still removes URLs even where a PMC link does not take its place. (And the bot should no longer be removing URLs even if a PMC link does take its place, per the VPR RFC, which took place after the bot was unblocked.) On github, the line of code $this->forget($url_type); in template.php was commented out (i.e. changed to // $this->forget($url_type);) in August just before the bot was unblocked. It seems this is the fix for stopping the bot from removing the URL. However, this was only done for the s2cid identifier, and not for any other identifiers. I believe it should be done for all identifiers (i.e., stop the bot from removing |url= by commenting out every instance of $this->forget($url_type); in template.php at github, thereby applying to all identifiers). I count 40 such instances total, though there aren't that many identifiers. However I don't have the access to do this myself and I'm not sure if it'll work, I'm just guessing here. (Plus I have no experience running WP bots or writing editing scripts, so I'm really not the best person to do this.) This has been raised many times over the past year. Some examples: User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19#Removes URL for IUCN Red List (Nov 2019), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#URL removal that duplicates DOI (March 2020), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#Citation bot removed a valid URL that was a preview (viewport) from WorldCat when an OCLC # was displayed (April 2020), and User talk:Citation bot/Archive 22#June 2020 (which has the most-recent block and unblock). This has been previously raised at BOTN (Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation bot), and at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033#AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot in March, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Block review of AManWithNoPlan in June, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Citation bot in August).

At the recent UTP discussion this month (User talk:Citation bot#Still removing "duplicate" URL), AManWithNoPlan's final comment was Those are all within the existing authorizations and RFPs and agreements. I have no idea what RFPs and agreements he's referring to, but these edits are not authorized, and should stop. Given that the one person who has the power to do it (AMWNP, as the bot's operator, Smith609, is apparently not currently active) refuses to do it, I don't see a way forward other than blocking the bot until it can be forked and fixed. Lev!vich 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

These edits indeed have approval. They remove URLs pointing to identifiers that don't link to free full versions (like OCLCs and PMIDs), that are redundant (PMCs, DOIs with |doi-access=free, which autolink), or DOIs per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We've thoroughly covered this ground before. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 2, it says The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL. and The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#" - I think this was the one URL manipulation deemed okay. That was referring to a 2008 AN thread about this exact issue: removing existing URLs from citation templates, discussed in the section Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DOI bot 2#Proposal from Wikipedia:AN. Task #2 seems to very clearly approve this only for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#".

We (you and I, Headbomb) have discussed this exact thing at length in previous reports. As a result of that very discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 172#Issues raised by Citation bot was launched, wherein it's clear that there isn't even consensus anymore for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#", nevermind any other removals of URL.

To summarize: Since 2008, there was only consensus for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#". Since September 2020, there is not even consensus for that anymore. All the other stuff, such as the examples at the top of this thread, were never authorized. (Also, in every example above, there is no autolinking: the citation title actually gets de-linked. There are dozens of examples just like those from just the past few days, as the bot seems to do this for all identifiers, not just DOI.) Lev!vich 18:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Super-TLDR version - I know this can make people's eyes glaze over, let me boil it down to: This edit by Citation bot (and many more like it) does not have authorization, and is against consensus, as it de-links the title of a citation ("Machines of youth"). This has been discussed previously a lot, here are links to the most recent UTP, RFC, ANI, and BOTN. Lev!vich 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL. was in the context of the bot making edits like this. That's what the bot wasn't supposed to touch back in 2008. Things have evolved since, and URL conversations similar to the DOI ones were always kosher. See also Template:Cite journal#Identifiers, which clearly states that URLs should not duplicate identifier parameters, mainly because they take the place of free full version links to point to databases entries. For S2CID, it only removes the url when it cannot confirm the copyright-compliant status of the s2cid link. OCLC and PMIDs cannot ever contain free full versions links, because that's not what these databases are for. For the others, were those free full version links? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  The edit I'm highlighting removes a Worldcat link which was never authorized by any of the bot tasks. The recent RFC demonstrates there is no consensus for any bot to remove |url= from a citation template. Period/full stop. All this stuff you're bringing up is irrelevant and clouds the issue, which is: a bot does not have consensus to remove |url= from a citation template under any circumstance, as demonstrated by the RFC. That's it, no more, end of story. Lev!vich 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: not sure what I'm missing - when looking at the reference line both before and after the bot edit you mention, the same URL is presented to the reader. The only difference is that the reader isn't getting 2 identical copies of the URL on the same reference line. I can't see how this would hamper a reader from following up on the reference? That being said other then some sort of "overlinking" styling argument the bot edit didn't really improve anything so seems mostly pointless to me. Am I missing something that would impact how a reader could use the reference line? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:

• Before:

  Cross, Gary S. (2018). Machines of youth : America's car obsession. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-226-34164-4. OCLC 1004264026.

• After:

  Cross, Gary S. (2018). Machines of youth : America's car obsession. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-226-34164-4. OCLC 1004264026.

Removing |url= (diff) removed the hyperlink from the title, "Machines of youth : America's car obsession". As a result, in the "after" citation, the reader must choose whether to click on four possible links: "ISBN" is linked, the ISBN number itself is linked, "OCLC" is linked, and the OCLC number itself is linked. A reader who does not know what those mean will not know which one to click on to get to the source (or the closest we can get them to it). In the "before" link, the title was linked (to the OCLC entry), so the reader would know if they clicked on the title, they'd get to the source (or the closest thing to it, in this case, the OCLC entry). The choice of linking the title to the OCLC entry was (presumably) made by a human, and should not be over-ridden by a bot. Whether titles should be linked, and whether bots should remove the link, is what the recent RFC was about. This edit (and all the others like it) should not have been made, per that RFC. Lev!vich 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, so as a causal reader - I'm not seeing a problem - I can still easily follow a link. That the acronyms for "OCLC" and "ISBN" are linked I think is ridiculous, but others think it is a good idea and isn't really what this post is about anyway. I'm not in the mood to go read another RfC right now - was primarily looking to see if actual reader-facing information was being completely lost, looks like it isn't. (That doesn't mean I think this was a "good edit" - just that I'm not really going to be outraged by it enough to follow up on this). Thanks for the reply, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, X. If you happen upon a more-outraged 'crat, if you could point them this way, I'd appreciate it. Lev!vich 23:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: right now this doesn't need a crat (as any short term fix would likely be "block" not "de-bot") - but with my admin hat on I think the concern is legitimate, but not so much where I was ready to jump on the block button, looks like discussion below is still moving along. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The choice of linking the title to the OCLC entry was (presumably) made by a human ... Maybe. Maybe not. The edit was made by a human who was aided by a machine. It is my understanding that visual editor populates |url= with the worldcat url automatically (T232771?) – pointless, because worldcat does not hold a free-to-read copy of that source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

worldcat URLs dont link to the reference, but generally say "its at a library near you". its worse than an isbn. pmid, bibcode, etc also dont link to the source either. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The point is there is no authorization or consensus to remove the link; your personal opinion on the value of linking is irrelevant. (And I think an OCLC link is better than an ISBN link, but that's not relevant, either.) It seems to me you are refusing to remove this functionality because you, personally, favor de-linking titles. Lev!vich 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is both authorization (BRFA) and consensus for it (template doc) for it. This is not a new function, and has been in the bot since 2011. A worldcat link is not a link to a free full version of the book, and should not be present to mislead the reader into thinking there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if someone with more time and knowledge than I have could collect up those many BRFA's and add them to the Bot's page. I guess no on ever expected 10 years later to have a request for it. Suddenly, my mom's record keeping seems like a stroke of wisdom. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They're already there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please link specifically to the part of the BRFA where it approves these edits, because I dont see it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 8 specifically discussed the matter of identifiers in general, see after "Likewise for URLs such as" the examples for bibcode, jstor, arxiv parameters. The trial edits included several examples of removal of duplicate URLs during the discussion, for instance for JSTOR, bibcode and ASIN. As noted, the function actually existed since at least 2010 and was explicitly documented since 2011, so it was taken for granted and approved of in the previous BRFA as well, otherwise someone would have raised it. Nemo 07:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've unarchived the VPP discussion back to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #Issues raised by Citation bot and requested it be closed with a summary of the consensuses that developed there. I believe User:Citation bot is operating outside of its approval, against the consensus at VPP, and in breach of its unblocking conditions. Either it ceases to unlink citation titles or I will block it again. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd loosely been following this. I'm reading through it now to see if I am an appropriate closer; if I am I will close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That closure is wrong. Link removal has consensus in general, there might be exceptions (like keeping links which may have free full versions of records), but there is longstanding consensus to remove links that do not link to such full free versions of record, and this RFC did not change that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The closure is right and there is no "longstanding consensus" to remove links. Link to the discussion if you claim otherwise. The only agreement was in a BRFA for Citation Bot to remove urls duplicating dois, and that is a local consensus which has no standing in comparison with a centralised consensus at VPP (which has site-wide authority). You had your chance to make your case for removing links that you deemed redundant and the community rejected your stance. Please don't consider editing against that consensus because admins will inevitably take that as disruptive, and I would not like to see you sanctioned over this minor issue. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The community did not reject this. The community objected to a subset of the removals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The community very clearly rejected the removal of citation title links by a bot. That's the only issue here and you need to gracefully accept the community's decision. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It did no such thing. It objected to a subset of those removals. Links that could contain free full version of records of sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the opposite of While some wished to do so only in certain circumstances (e.g. if there was a free version), there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. Lev!vich 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a link: The identifier. URLs should be reserved for free full versions of texts. Not catalog entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. One more time, key words: from the title text. So while some, such as yourself, HB, wished to do so only in certain circumstances (e.g. if there was a free version), there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. The community declined to reserve URLs for free full versions of texts, and I agree that you should accept the community's decision. Lev!vich 01:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Citation bot has no faults here: it's been doing the same thing for ten years now with wide consensus and full authorization. If there was an increase in frequency of such edits it's only because the VisualEditor adds probably thousands of redundant URLs per day into citations without the users having asked for it (see T232771 already linked above). The recent discussions at the village pump only reinforced the consensus for Wikipedia:Citing sources and related pages where they state that the title of a citation should preferably link an open access full text, whether by a convenience link in the URL parameter or by other means, while adding other kinds of links is subject to conditions. Citation bot's edits to URL and identifier parameters do their best to enforce and apply the guideline; the occasional mistake has happened, but the productive way out is to point out specific examples of URLs that should have remained (and why), so that the code can be improved to increase its average utility to users. Asking users to manually perform hundreds of thousands of edits just to counter a VisualEditor bug, on the other hand, is just folly. Nemo 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've asked AManWithNoPlan if he would be kind enough to review the close of the VPP discussion and make any necessary changes to Citation Bot to ensure it complies. He thinks he will be able to do so probably today, so hopefully that will bring to an end this long-running saga for now, and Citation Bot can get back to doing all of the other jobs it does so successfully. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Apart from an update to the bot, there's also the documentation of cite/citation templates that needs updating, taking account of the RfC's close. I don't think such prospective documentation updates need to be discussed here, so I've opened Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 71#Guidance on title-linking: update after RfC for that purpose. Is there a reason to wait for a close of this AN thread (i.e. in order to avoid discussing the same thing in two places concurrently), or is the documentation update a sufficiently separated topic to go ahead with the necessary steps to accomplish that? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• The RFC has been closed (thanks BK) and the bot has been updated to reflect the close (thanks AMWNP), which I think resolves this. Thanks again everyone. Lev!vich 01:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Category:American white supremacist politicians

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:American_white_supremacist_politicians about the appropriateness of the category. As this issue is likely to have strong opinions on it, I thought advertising it here to get wider input might be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrative backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Can an admin take care of it? Thanks.--YerelDahi (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This kind of "give me a permission, and give it to me now" makes me want to deny the application. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No kidding; quick glance makes it look like they don't meet the reqs anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Chaipau

The user named Chaipau is constantly removing sourced information from the "Rebellion" section of the page Chutia Kingdom, calling it irrelevant.([9]). On another previous occasion, he had tried to remove the section, stating that one of the sources is not reliable; when there were two other reliable sources available. Instead of simply removing the non-reliable source, he had tried to remove the entire section, just to push his own POV.([10]).

Besides this, he also randomly throws terms like WP:SYNTHESIS([11]) and WP:PRIMARY([12]) without giving any explanation. He seems to exhibits signs of WP:OWN.

Request the admins to restore the sections and take necessary actions on the user.223.176.7.51 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:BE. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg). Chaipau (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

He has again removed another sourced part of the rebellion section, stating that it is irrelevant and requires translation([13]). The quote clearly has been used as a follow-up reference to the statement above(" After the fall of the Chutia kingdom, many princes fled to the interior hills and lived with hill tribes like Mishmis and Miris. The Darrang Raj Vanshawali records this event.") If the user is so concerned about translation, he should do it himself, rather than making constant disruptive edits. He prevents any user from improving the page. Request the admins to take strict action against this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.230.90 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If the article describes the state which ceased to exist in 1523, then the list of rebellions which starts in 1527 is indeed irrelevant. Given that there is massive sockpuppetry going on in the article, I am inclined to agree that the TS is likely a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Generouswriter

I don't know why, but my gut is telling me this might be one of those payed-for editors to create listing for some company called Existing Conditions. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Generouswriter. I am still learning how to use Wikipedia properly, so apologies in advance if this is replied to incorrectly! I am not a paid editor. I am transparent in my affiliation to the company, Existing Conditions. But I am striving to be as objective and professional as possible. I am still working on the article, but of course will reach out for further objective feedback as the project progresses. Generouswriter (talk)

Hello Generouswriter. Since you say that you are transparent, then please explain the nature of your affiliation with Existing Conditions, and how it does not rise to the level of a paid editing relationship. In brief, if you have any financially beneficial affiliation with the company, then you are a paid editor. Here is what it looks like to me. You set up an account and made your ten routine edits to get autoconfirmed, gaining the power to directly create encyclopedia articles. Your eleventh edit created your user page. You then immediately set out to create an article about this company. Your article was completely unreferenced and therefore violated Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability which says "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." We do this by summarizing what reliable sources independent of the topic have to say about the topic, and we provide references to those reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) describes the basic standards required for an article about a company. The bottom line is that you quickly got yourself qualified and added a completely unacceptable article to the encyclopedia. Clarify your relation to this company, read and study Your first article and use the Articles for Creation process in the future, so that experienced editors can review and approve your article creations before they are added to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete User:Gioguch/sandbox/ccs.js

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request to delete User:Gioguch/sandbox/ccs.js. I cannot place {{db-self}} on the page, it is not in wikitext. Please delete it for me. Gioguch (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. For the record, it does show up as a template being deleted, just not on the page itself. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gioguch, you can still use {{db-self}}. If you place it on a CSS, Lua or JS page, it'll be added to the same category and processed in the same way as any other page, except the template won't be displayed and only the text will. Hope this helps in future :) Ed talk! 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request from LoganBlade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• LoganBlade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• UTRS appeal #34747

Preamble LoganBlade was blocked for two weeks by Gadfium for edit warring and removing an RfD tag. (She had had earlier, short-term blocks for edit warring that had expired.) She then vented her frustration at her situation by adding (understatement of the century) unfortunate, poorly chosen, and regrettable imagery and personal attacks to her unblock request and talk page. (Not adding the dif's. It's stipulated in her unblock request. Really, that content should be revdel'd.) She now acknowledges these poor choices and regrets them. Yamla reverted those edits, and extended the block to indefinite, and removed talk page access. She made an unblock request at UTRS that was sufficient to restore talk page access for her to appeal her block at WP:AN.

• Copied from her talk page--

  I got into an edit war over a redirect page being frozen over a misunderstanding which lead to me being banned for 2 weeks. I then used NSFW images from commons to insult the administrator which lead to me being banned under WP:NOTHERE. Instead of edit warring, if a situation like this happened again I would initiate a discussion on the talk page to allow the other user to tell me that someone creating an AFD means the redirect gets frozen. I would not insult my fellow users again. Blade (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Please note the original request before Deepfriedokra's coaching:

  I was banned for 2 weeks because I didn't know an AFD request freezed the redirect so another edited decided to edit war instead of informing me that AFD meant the redirect was frozen. So when I got banned for 2 weeks I thought I would be in compliance with the NSFW policy when I filled up my page with NSFW pictures. As far as I was aware I had carpe blanch on my talk page. I was blocked under WP:NOTHERE. I think I am here to build an encyclopedia. You can see my track record by having a glance around my contributions history and I ask you to do this before declining the unblock request. If I was just here to troll I would have probably left a long time ago. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia. I understand and acknowledge it was totally unacceptable. With my limited knowledge of the NSFW policy, I believed it to be allowed. The context was a ban which I thought was unfair and could have been solved by telling me that someone starting an AFD discussion meant that the redirect got frozen. The root cause was to insult the administrator I thought was incompetent and assumed I was familiar with the many rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Moving forward I will 1.) Read up on the rules. 2). Not look for loopholes to insult my fellow users. 3). Not edit war and start a dialogue before it escalates. I understand the zero-tolerance policy now. I did not before. My only encounter with NSFW rules on Wikipedia before that was that they were allowed. I had never had an encounter with the rules around using inappropriate imagery as an attack so I just assumed with my knowledge of that combined with what I knew about what I can do to my user page and took it to mean there were no rules around it. I should have used my common sense but I was frustrated with that administrator. And hey. You can always reblock me again. Thanks for taking the time to read this and help me get back to editing. Blade (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• The block I placed on LoganBlade would have expired by now. While she did react strongly on her talk page to the block, we are generally understanding of such initial reactions. I'm happy for the indefinite block to be lifted at this point.-gadfium 09:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (weakly). It was not just NSFW imagery, there was also the matter of changing someone's signature from their name to "BumBoy". Admittedly, that was the least of the offensive behaviour from this user, but I simply don't see a sufficient accounting of any of this. It's borderline-homophobic hatred and has no place here. Fundamentally, LoganBlade's approach to Wikipedia appears incompatible with a collaborative environment. Note, though, that my oppose is weakly held. If other people believe it's worth unblocking to extend WP:ROPE, I'm fine with that. Easy enough to monitor the user and immediately reblock at the slightest sign of problems. --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. That was probably the worst reaction to a justified block I've ever seen. Admittedly if Gadfium is happy with the unblock that does bear significant weight factoring he was the target, but as far as I'm concerned their (over)reaction is a clear indication the user does not have the correct temperament for the project. Glen (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I find it a problem that Deepfriedokra coached the editor on what to say in their unblock request: [14]. --Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, I don't think this is a problem - admins regularly do that kind of thing all of the time. Often it's when they decline an unblock request (along the lines of "This request doesn't address the reason you were blocked - to be unblocked, you will need to blah blah blah..."). I don't see any problem in offering a blocked editor some advice on how they can make the best case possible - but in this case, I don't believe that Cicero, Shakespeare and Voltaire, all working together under Deepfriedokra's careful tutelage, could have crafted an unblock request I would be willing to accept. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Meh, that's what I was thinking. If people could just read and understand WP:GAB, there'd be less blame-shifting and more cogent unblock requests-- or not. The striking difference is she did take in my feedback. Many do not after many declines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose absolutely not. The original 2 week block for edit warring looks OK, the deleted history of Jesse Kempson shows clear edit warring and it came after several other blocks for edit warring. The user reacted to this block by posting a bunch of obscene images mocking the blocking admin, vandalising the block message and inserting a bunch of homophobic slurs. Unsurprisingly they lost talk page access. Then they posted an unblock request [15] in which they said they thought that this was an acceptable thing to do because users have some leeway on their talk page and because Wikipedia doesn't have a blanket ban on the use of explicit images. I don't see how any of that makes any difference at all, and it's not at all reasonable to expect to be allowed to do that sort of thing anywhere. When they were told that approach wasn't going to work they posted the above unblock request four hours later. I think it's pretty clear that they're just saying what they think they need to say to get unblocked and haven't had a genuine change of heart. Indefinite doesn't have to mean infinite but the user does need to remain blocked for some time and the burden is on them to show they can edit constructively before they get unblocked. Hut 8.5 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The user has been here just five months, managing to get three blocks in that time, before getting indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. That's about as clear cut as it can be of someone who isn't going to work collaboratively on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I made the mistake of looking at those talk page diffs. Nope. I'm also skeptical of the sincerity of this new request. DoubleCross (‡) 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As several others have said above, absolutely not. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Posting a stream of grossly offensive homophobic images and slurs in response to a totally justified block (and not the first one either) and claiming as an excuse not knowing that doing so is not allowed. But apparently not seeing much wrong with posting a stream of grossly offensive homophobic images and slurs as such. Thanks, but no thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. When this user was blocked the first time, part of the issue was leaving an inappropriate image on my talk page to express her displeasure (diff). If my memory is correct the user was warned about doing that back then. --Equivamp - talk 13:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, timingwise, that raises the likelihood that this is, indeed, Skiyomi. If a checkuser should happen by . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, no. I like to look for ways that even the most justifiably banned users might find a way back to the project, but a person who posted that level of homophobic garbage directed at another person without it ever seeming to occur to them that it was not the least bit acceptable, not just to have written it on this website but to have published it anywhere at any time, and then defended it in a series of unblock requests (UTRS appeal #34425, UTRS appeal #34534), ought not to have access to the internet at all, let alone edit this project. Goodbye. Frankly, I know Deepfriedokra's heart is in the right place, but it seems like a bad call to have tried to help this trashbag in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment In UTRS appeal #34534, the question was raised as to whether this was the banned user, Skiyomi. I don't see that this was ever answered. The NSFW imagery, along with the surprise at the "discovery" that people think this inappropriate, matches. However, Skiyomi has a rather specific porn fetish which isn't matched here. Still, I think it's worth checking if this is Skiyomi in another guise; if so, we can at least WP:SNOW-close. --Yamla (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I raised that concern, but the times don't match. Pattern does not fit. Would probably be worth a CU's time to nail down this detail. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you did flag one of the UTRS tickets for CU, but I can't tell if anything happened with it. The logs show that LoganBlade was checked back in June - the logs aren't very descriptive but no action was taken. Nonetheless, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LoganBlade. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing borderline about the homophobia evident in their response to their block. Venting, I'm fine with - if someone had said 'fuck all you fucking assholes' in a fit of pique, I'd be more than willing to look past it - but someone who chooses the use homophobic abuse, post obscene imagery and make childish attempts to humiliate other editors by speculating on their sexual proclivities and their genitals because they're pissed off? No, that is not somebody who is compatible with this project. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Any spare time they have in the next year or so needs to be focused on becoming a better human, not editing an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - Homophobic trolling bullshit has no place here and falls under WP:ZT to me. The whole "user page with pro-lgbtq pro-leftist userboxes but engaging in trolling crap" reminds me of a certain sockpuppeter. Deepfriedokra mentioned a possible CU, which I think would be worth running (based on the trolling behavior and similarities to known sockpuppeters) before even entertaining the idea of an unblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A userbox of User:AJP426

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! User @AJP426: has userbox "Homosexuality has no future! It's just a bad idea! This user opposed LBGTQ." Is it ok? Wikisaurus (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest if you think it's an issue to take it to MfD for discussion. We have already had a few threads on userboxes lately, and the best thing to do to get consensus is send it for discussion there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a "handmade" userbox, so unless we're going to delete the entire userpage or {{userbox-2}} MfD probably isn't the right place.GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The userbox should be removed as a clear violation of WP:NPA (Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors) and WP:USERPAGE (What may I not have in my user pages?... Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).) I'd do it myself, but given my recent !vote in the anti-same sex marriage userbox deletion discussion, I'll hold off. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'll do it. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I note that the editor's userpage claims to be a clean start account, as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Helpfully, they admit on their userpage to being User:Armanjarrettp. Sock block is on the way. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged, userpage was blanked in the process. Think we're done here. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC) GeneralNotability (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

anyone else notice the cognitive dissonance in the user boxes on their page?--Jorm (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The timing did seem awfully convenient for someone to add an expressly anti-LGBTQ userbox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zezen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to bring up what I see as a pattern of POV pushing and disruptive editing by User:Zezen. It involves a patternt of anti-LGBT bias, anti-semitic bias, at a minumum.

Zezen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I first run accross Zezen recently at Talk:LGBT history in Germany, where Zezen made the following astonishing suggestion: Let us add Jutta Rüdiger and similar for balance. He then got into a short spat with an SPA editor, who objected, correctly, to this idea. I saw the thread several days later. I was grinding my teeth already but decided to still AGF Zezen's comment and added my own comment [16], explaining that the page was a list of important events in LGBT history in Germany, and that the name of a random Nazi official like Jutta Rüdiger, who happened to be lesbian, had no business being added there, and it had nothing to do with "balance" of the article. Zezen did not pursue the matter further, so far, but the fact that the suggestion was made in the first place is rather telling.

• Then today I saw an edit by Zezen pop up on Boise homosexuality scandal in my watchlist. This was the edit: [17]. Even though the source cited in the paragraph, this NYT article specifically discusses the fact that the "Crush Monster" editorial characterized all homosexuals as a threat to youth, and the phrase "paedophilic homosexuals" was not used anywhere in the source cited, Zezen's edit replaced 'The editors characterized homosexuals as a "scourge" that "ravage our youth"' by 'The editors characterized the paedophilic homosexuals as a "scourge" that "ravage our youth"'. Once again, Zezen added this phrase to the sentence that was referenced to NYT. At that point my AGF definitely had run out and I reverted[18] Zezen's edit.

• At that point I decided to look at little further. There was a dubious edit by Zezen on Sept 8 [19] to Anti-LGBT rhetoric that attempted to add the word "arguments" to the lede. Another editor objected and Zezen's edit was later reverted [20].
• Later, on Sept 12, in the same article, Zezen deleted [21] refertences to anti-LGBT hate crime laws in Norway and Netherlands characterizing some forms of anti-LGBT rhetoric as hate speech. Zezen's edit summary said 'Rm WP:PRIMARY'. Yes, the sources were primary sources to official government websites, but the sources were valid and allowed by WP:PRIMARY under the circumstances.
• A Sept 17 edit [22] by Zezen on Economic antisemitism. "Another aspect of economic antisemitism is the assertion that Jews do do not produce anything of value" is replaced in this edit by "Another aspect is the assertion that Jews do not produce anything of value". The edit removes the phrase "Jews have been the targets of antisemitic criticism for their occupational preferences." As a finishing touch, at the end of the paragraph on this very topic and how the association of the Jews with trade and finance had been used to justify prejudice against them, after the mention of Robert von Mohl's book, Zezen adds: "So did Mark Twain, praising them for this in his essay Concerning the Jews."
• On Sept 15, in this edit [23] to Promiscuity, Zezen adds a 'failed verification' tag on a journal reference for the sentence "A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women". The tag appears to be frivolous. There is a discussion at Talk:Promiscuity#A couple of non-RS and failed VER at homosexual vs heterosexual where a couple of uninvolved editors have indicated that they don't understand Zezen's objection to the source; Zezen did not coomment further in that thread.
• Adding one more LGBT related example. Zezen had been actively editing the article LGBT-free zone. I did not follow this article before and don't really know its edit history well but Zezen's last edit there [24], from Sept 25, is rather telling as well, I think.

I could add a few more examples of this kind but I think the above sample already indicates a pattern of problematic POV pushing disruptive editing, in the past month alone. I believe that some kind of a sanction is needed. At a minimum, I'd say a Topic ban on anything related to LGBT issues. Perhaps something stronger than that if further review uncovers more serious problems. Nsk92 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this analysis.

I will be thus much interested in a third-party review of my work (ranging from format fixing the Talk page of a 1930 film, via these LGBT themes, to ancient Greek history, some technology and a Norwegian MLM company, now that I have self-checked my Contributions only this week) and of the sources employed therein. I love to learn.

Bows

Zezen (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Zezen! What on earth is this!? similar for balance What balance for Christ's Sake!!?? Do you fully understand the term "for balance"? (I think English is their second language) You need to address these issues brought forward by Nsk92, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92's diff just scratch the surface. Zezen does some minor edits wikifying, but most substantial edits are bad:

1. [25] - false use of source that says: "On April 28, 1903, the Times reprinted from the Yiddish Daily News a report smuggled out of Russia which stated that...". Nothing there of "also without fact checking".
2. [26] - stating that Jewish Bolshevism is not an "antisemitic canard" but a "controversial claim" with an oddball source.
3. [27] - adding Aryanization to Affirmative action, and justifying it at Talk:Affirmative action#Aryanization compared to Affirmative action
4. [ [28] - "Was he decapitated because he was a Jew or a thief or smth else, e.g. intra-Jewish strugglesnfor power? ... So it seems they were scheming against one another, and the society at large." - turning an antisemitic incident into Jews scheming against "society at large"
5. [29] - complaining that Wikipedia:No Nazis is "non inclusive" to racists and "pedofiles", and advocating that No Nazis be quickly removed.

This needs to stop.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

In accordance with Wikipedia:No Nazis, that Zezen is opposed to, indefinitely block Zezen.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Good grief! I'd say that's definitely a WP:NOTHERE case rather than somebody who is a little confused and having difficulties with the language. Nsk92 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Someone who holds these types of views and airs them publicly is not going to be able to collaboratively edit on this project. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 10:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia, per the above thread and WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

OK, thank you, Bishonen. Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, got side-tracked and forgot this. I would have blocked, so consider me a support. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Arggh, Zezen, if that's you [30], [31], [32], please stop. Going into sockpuppetry immediately after you have been indeff blocked is not the way to go if you ever want to be unblocked. See WP:OFFER. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked this rather obvious sock. That's not how you go about getting unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion survivors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following files has survived mass deletion of respective maintenance category. Please delete them, If there is deletion error then tag with {{File deletion warning}}:

• File:FerencvarosTClogo.png
• File:Fyter Fest 2020 poster.jpg
• File:IOS 14 Home Screen.png
• File:ITIS Oil.jpeg
• File:Leeds United 2020 Badge.svg
• File:Logo7NEWSAus.png
• File:Melanie C Self Titled Album 2020.png
• File:Padua points fam 4 degree 6.png

Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. For example, File:FerencvarosTClogo.png is in use, has a fair use rationale for the article which it is in use on, and the rationale looks sensible. Why should it be deleted?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

c:File:FerencvárosiTClogó.png is being used, not that image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today's AfD page

Hi. Something odd is going on with today's AfDs. They're grouped together by topic area, rather than just a list of oldest to newest. I thought it was a mis-placed AfD template on that page, but that hasn't fixed it. Any clues? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. I fixed the template, but the transclusion problem comes from several edits like this which I unfortunately do not have time to fix now (and will not have time for at least three more hours). I hope it would be useful for whoever takes this up.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. I thought it would be some weird transclusion issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is/was Cyberbot I transcluding delsort pages? – Joe (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed 3 transclusions. Let's ping cyberpower678 and ask... Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice one - that has fixed the problem. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OK Chlöe, based off the pages it keeps transcluding. It looks like Bennyaha created that nomination incorrectly, so some things were thrown off, most notably the categories on the page. I think I've got it taken care of? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, Thank you for figuring it out while I was doing my beauty sleep. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles

Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Further to a recent report that went unanswered by admins at AN/I, and GiantSnowman's suggestion on this noticeboard's talk page, I'm raising my concerns here about user:Carliertwo's continued POV editing and ownership at Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles. GiantSnowman asked that I state the case here "in brief". I'm afraid I just don't know how to – the problems stretch across almost a dozen articles and have been going on for years.

The same user's behaviour resulted in a 48-hour ban in January 2017. (And there was a second report a couple of months later.) I'm only referring to the past here because, generally speaking, the behaviour seems like a straight replay of what PaleCloudedWhite identified when filing that Jan 2017 report: "This user ensures that all such articles portray their subject in a positive and flattering light, contrary to WP:NPOV. A quick look at any article connected to Siouxsie and the Banshees shows that Wikipedia portrays them as a very highly regarded band that almost nobody has ever said anything negative about, and that all their musical releases have been 'hailed' and received 'critical acclaim' ..." In that same thread, it's pointed out (by JzG) that this reference to albums being "hailed" went against consensus at a recent RfC. Three-and-a-half years later, some of the album articles still use the term.

My tagging with requests for sources and attempts at more neutral wording on 7 September were all reverted by Carliertwo, at 11 album articles. After I undid those reverts, citing policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:PUFFERY, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SAID – eg, at Juju (here) – they were again reverted, often with a rationale stating that Greg Fasolino had "corrected" the text and I was therefore "outnumbered". Carliertwo only stopped this process of returning the articles to the versions they liked once I'd filed the report at AN/I. But it still means that pretty grand POV statements and editorialisation such as at The Scream (here) remain as before. At Tinderbox (the article highlighted by PaleCloudedWhite), critics and musicians seemed to be "hailing" it more than ever; although my revert of Carliertwo's original revert currently stands, it's difficult to believe the situation's anything more than a pause while their approach is under scrutiny yet again. Same also with the tagged "The UK music press was unanimous in its praise" at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse. (FWIW, I notice Greg Fasolino expressed concerns about Carliertwo's POV editing on the talk page for The Scream.)

I'd seen all this a year ago. The breathless reporting and editorialisation stuck/sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb (and the incredulity in some of my comments reflects this, I'm sure). Carliertwo started discussions at Talk:Peepshow (album)#August 2020 and Talk:Hyæna#August 2020. As I stated at the first of these, there is nothing to discuss, only to fix. And again to refer to past form per that 2017 report, it's the user's wikilawyering technique, if not just general, dragging their feet and time-wasting. (It was the same at Talk:Dear Prudence#Unsourced genres for Siouxsie & the Banshees cover last year.) Carliertwo will always outdo any other editor's interest in these album articles simply by wearing them down. I think they need a substantial topic ban, because previous warnings seemed to have achieved little, and it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording.

I'm sure Siouxsie and the Banshees are a fantastic band, incidentally; but it's the extent to which Wikipedia appears to be rejoicing in this that's such an issue. In my second post in the AN/I thread on 8 September, I gave a few examples of how general statements about critical reception for other bands' albums are handled elsewhere on the encyclopedia (in the third paragraph). JG66 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for re-posting and sharing some diffs. From what I can see, Carliertwo has been repeatedly removing valid {{cn}} tags, and has been repeatedly adding POV to articles. As such, I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles. GiantSnowman 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at the talk page of many Satb albums articles like for this album [33].

• First case for The_Scream_(album)#Critical_reception, the user tags these sentences "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen." with {fact needed} whereas the reviewers wrote rave comments such as "landmark" in Record Mirror , "constantly innovative" in Melody Maker, "innovation" in the NME. The record got several contemporary reviews rated 5 out of 5. We've got a total of 8 laudatory reactions written by music journalists from the most famous papers at the time on both sides of the atlantic. Other quotes: Rolling Stone "striking debut album", Sounds (magazine) "the best debut album of the year", ZigZag "magnificent record", music journalist Adam Sweeting "magnificent masterpiece", Record Mirror: "The Scream "points to the future, real music for the new age". So why does this user tag those sentences with "wp:puffery" and "wp:impartial" in their commentary ? the {fact needed} were abusive tags. These two sentences have been present for more than 6 years, no user editing on that article (including professional journalist User:Greg Fasolino, who edited on all those satb albums articles) has said that these two sentences were cases of puffery and impartial.
• Another case for Peepshow_(album)#Critical_reception, this user also tagged this sentence "Peepshow received critical acclaim" whereas the reviews were rated like this; Q (magazine) "5 out of 5 star review" and when there isn't any rate, the reviewers say: Record Mirror "Brimming with confidence [...], Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour", Spin (magazine) "delightful, majestic", Stereo Review, "Best of the Month", NME " best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse". isn't it a critical acclaim ? Again this sentence was a presentation of all the reviews that follow in the section. The album got the best reviews possible from the most important papers We've got 8 reviews/papers praising the album. So the album received critical acclaim. would you write average reviews ? Again why does this user write "puffery" and "impartial" in their comment [34] ?
• the Tinderbox diffs [35] is an instance/story telling with distortion of facts, as a rfc of February 2017 registred one month after the 48 hour ban of January 2017 said that one comment about a singer could be used only if the verb "to hail" was not included for a remark of that artist mentioning this album. The ANI of January 2017 never forbad to use the verb "to hail" in the "critical reception" section for reviews, contrary to what the user advanced above "it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording" which is not true. The reviews and comments of musicians praised that Tinderbox record.
• Last case, for Downside_Up#Reception the user tags "The four-CD box set compilation received critical acclaim upon its release" with {fact needed} whereas the critical eception section is filled with very positive reviews. Quotes: The Times "audacious and uncompromising musical adventurers", Stylus Magazine "a wonderfully eclectic mixture" in a review rated A, Record Collector "remarkable diversity", Uncut (magazine) "fascinating collection from an astonishing group", NME "spellbinding". Is it puffery and impartial to present those reviews, saying that this boxset received critical acclaim ? I'am a 13 year veteran and I wrote a GA. I had also suggested to ask a third opinion for all those satb albums articles [36]... Carliertwo (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Why were you removing valid {{cn}} tags? Why have you been adding POV language? GiantSnowman 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Those tags were abusive and it is explained with instances above. If "Too long didn't read" is your only reply, I'll tell you that the other user wrote a post as long as mine. So why would you not take the same time to read my reply ? Carliertwo (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why were those tags "abusive"? Yes the OP was long, but I was able to skim and ready diffs. GiantSnowman 14:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

not only you replied "too long i didn't read" plus you had previously voted for a topic ban without waiting for a reply from me, and now you said from what I undetstand, that you read posts in diagonals, is it serious ? I prefer to wait for other opinions from people who take time to read posts in full. Carliertwo (talk)

I've seen enough to make a fair review of your editing. You have not presented anything to change my mind. GiantSnowman 15:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I have read the long posts. The problem is not with the positive reviews, but with your characterization of them as "hailing" from the reviewers. Your summaries come off as overly laudatory, raising some valid concerns. The praise seems to be written in Wikipedia's voice, and the apparent unanimity of the acclaim concerns only a hand-full of available sources. In the case of Peepshow (album), the article's Critical reception section summarizes 7 different reviews (a decent number, by the way), but the article speaks of "widespread acclaim" which is not based on any of these sources. That said, I only see two or three suspect sentences in that article, and the argument could be settled with a minor rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, thanks for your input.

Xeno's remark written yesterday at this noticeboard's talk page saying "The incidents thread in question strikes me as something that would be better handled at WP:DRN", was strangely not mentioned by the user who has filled this section and pleaded for a ban. For them, apparently, there isn't any point of pinging an user if they said that this case would have more its place at WP:DRN. Carliertwo (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I was around for the ANI thread in 2017 (that typo, though...), so it is disheartening to see that Carlier didn't take my advice to heart and start exhibiting more neutral point of view tendencies. Carlier needs to start being less flowery, and this is coming from an actual fan of the band. I despise the TL;DR mentality from GiantSnowman above, but everyone here has a point. Darkknight2149 06:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Those sentences reflect the content of each 'critical reception' section; had you read just the following section The_Scream_(album)#Critical_reception for the debut album, you would have realized that these two sentences exactly represent those favourable reviews, faithfully. Where is the 'flowery' in those two sentences when a debut album got such favourable reviews ? Carliertwo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's flowery because it's stating an unnecessary, roseate picture when there's no requirement for a comment in Wikipedia's voice summarising what's to follow. It serves no purpose in encyclopedic terms and it's original research. If another writer states that an album received critical acclaim, then fine (WP:VERIFY). And as mentioned above, in some cases, what does follow the editorialisation is not supported, even implicitly, in the reviews that are cited.

Darkknight2149: might I suggest that GiantSnowman could have been reacting to the user's failure to address the most pertinent points – why cite-needed tags have been removed without any citations being added (contrary to what's required), and why they feel the need to add or retain NPOV statements like "hailed" – rather than GS dismissing the response per se. I've highlighted the time-wasting and disruptive approach that Carliertwo employs; this is borne out in comments in the 2017 reports linked at the start here, as is their wikilawyering.

JzG: pinging you again. You took part in one of the 2017 discussions and you've contributed to discussions on this noticeboard very recently. Perhaps you've no wish to participate in this one; no probs if so, but sending a second ping in case the first got lost with others coming your way. JG66 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I've asked reasonable questions, which remain unanswered. GiantSnowman 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is wikilawyering here ? I have asked DarkKnight a question after their first comment, JG66 interfered to put words in Darkknight's mouth, preventing them to give an untainted reply by JG66's thought. Carliertwo (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The user said: "In my second post in the AN/I thread on 8 September, I gave a few examples of how general statements about critical reception for other bands' albums are handled elsewhere on the encyclopedia" for several GAs (they meant). What about these two GAs then, just a few instances among many ? "Upon release, Dig Me Out received substantial acclaim from music critics. Randall Roberts, writing ..." @ Dig_Me_Out#Critical_reception and "Initial critical reception to Homogenic was overwhelmingly positive. David Browne of ...." @ Homogenic#Critical_reception. They are exactly the same type of presentation. Carliertwo (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, so you can spot examples of original research. No source supports the contentions at those album articles, so the same statements you highlighted should go. I have enough faith in editors on the Music project (and I've been guided by those editors over the years, also) to know that if policies are cited, they can't be argued with. Meaning, editors will go and find a source to support a statement about critical reception. Which is why I cited the well-maintained album articles.

Interfered? I couldn't have been more cautious in my message: "might I suggest ... could have been reacting". I certainly didn't interfere with anyone's previous posts. You did, though: here and here. JG66 (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Those claims/facts are supported by all the sources/reviews that follow at each 'critical reception' section. Otherwise the two reviewers would have not given the GA status to those two albums articles. Assume wp:good faith to those two reviewers too. Carliertwo (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

JG66 you conceded that for those two other instances of GA albums on wiki Dig_Me_Out#Critical_reception and Homogenic#Critical_reception, "No source supports the contentions at those album articles" at the top of those sections. So why five days later, have you still not tagged yet those two other critical receptions with {cn} and dragged the two GA reviewers here and the main users who wrote those articles here, at AN , guilty of WP:NPOV wp:PUFFERY. ? Carliertwo (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As I was pinged at the start of this thread and as it was me who opened previous noticeboard discussions about Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (SATB), I feel I should make a comment. Carliertwo is obviously a fan of the band and it seems to me that Carliertwo's loyalty is more toward the band than Wikipedia, and as such they find it hard to accept edits that don't support a favourable presentation of SATB - for evidence, look at the huge struggle it was for me to insert a sourced negative review in The Scream article (see the article history, my ANI thread, and the thread on Carliertwo's talkpage linked below). In addition, Carliertwo is suspicious and hostile toward editors who try to insert such material, or who make edits seeming to question the talent/significance etc. of SATB - several times Carliertwo said I had "an agenda", and I notice they've said the same thing to JG66. So when Dimadick says that the issue here could be solved with a minor rewrite, well in theory, probably yes, but in practice - we end up here, due to Carliertwo fighting to the last stand to maintain the articles as they are. However, having said that, I believe that Carliertwo means well - they are not any kind of vandal or troll - and they have added a lot of information to all articles connected to Siouxsie Sioux. If only they could be less protective about the band's image on Wikipedia. As Greg Fasolino said here on Carliertwo's talk page, "You don't seem to understand that it's bad form to try to make sure the article promotes how good the album is". It is unfortunate that Greg Fasolino no longer seems to be active on WP, as Carliertwo seemed to listen to him. (Actually that whole thread - it has since been removed/archived - is worth reading to give an idea of the issue here). I do not know if a topic ban is the best option. It seems a shame. Carliertwo does seem capable of adjusting their approach when dealing with an editor they view favourably - maybe that is where the change needs to be made, i.e. for Carliertwo to cease regarding editors as having "agendas" etc. But then this has been brought up twice before, and here we are again. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"when Dimadick says that the issue here could be solved with a minor rewrite, well in theory, probably yes, but in practice - we end up here" I specifically addressed that the claims of wide acclaim were not supported by the present sources. This could be dealt with either removing the unsourced claims or toning down the laudatory language. That the sources were cherry-picked specifically to give a favorable image to an album is a wholly different problem, and a more serious one. Is Carliertwo actually against using any negative reviews on the albums? Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick If you take a look at the ANI thread I started here, you will see Carliertwo was very resistant to including a negative review by Julie Burchill. Carliertwo initially removed the review, then countered it by including criticism of the review. There followed a discussion on Carliertwo's talkpage (linked to in my comment above), in which Carliertwo conceded - after intervention by another editor - that the review should be included without the criticism of it, but they still resisted including the reviewer's description of the album as being like "suet pudding". Eventually they seemed to even concede that that should be included, and I hoped that maybe that was the end of the matter. But then after this recent thread, I looked at the article again and saw that Carliertwo had changed not the review, but how it was introduced, from "Julie Burchill was unimpressed...." to "Julie Burchill expressed reservations..." (see here). If you look at how Burchill described the album, it's an awfully large stretch of the imagination to say that Burchill was expressing 'reservations', yet that is obviously what Carliertwo preferred to see, and it is disappointing to say the least that they quietly made that change many months after the initial disagreements. I have wanted to not push for severe restrictions on Carliertwo's editing, but am also concerned that they simply cannot edit neutrally in this area. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, you said "Carliertwo had changed not the review", and three lines of Julie Burchill's review are indeed still present. Then you're mentioning your initial reviewer's description "was unimpressed" which was also at the basis original research with no secondary source. Any reviewer's description and to go further in the present issue, any critical reception's description, is original research, according to the OP. "expressed reservations" is also an OR. The result of the previous March 2017 ANI that you filled, was that several lines of Burchill's review were to appear in the article [see here], no matter she was 19-years old when writing at the time, no matter that her own review was heavily criticized by peers Paul Morley and John Peel who both respectively wrote long columns in NME and Sounds. Is it correct ? Do we agree ? You have to accept that this was 3 years ago. You can't still battle on the same ground for a minor change of words in the description now, Carlier changed my OR "was unimpressed" to their OR "expressed reservations". This is cherry picking as Burchill's thoughts are still included with large quotes of her review. Now that you're back in this AN after a 4 day absence, you must have noticed that I have pinged you four days ago. If you haven't, I ask you once again to reply specifically to these points. Where do you see in the Tinderbox album article something that is not conformed to the rfc/ani of 2017 ? Can you show the diffs ? Can you have the honesty to say to JG66 that the result of the ANI of March 2017[see here] had never been to remove any critical reception's description. There wasn't any demand for what JG66 asked [see here] last week. And for proof, here is the diff between the version of 28 March 2017 and the version of 14 September 2020 [37] for the scream album. Since then, I have removed the critical reception's description at all the articles when it was based only on the claims on the reviews. JG66 said that when there isn't any specific source supporting a critical reception's description, the description has to be removed. It was a few days ago see here. Carliertwo (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

JG66 I was advised by a neutral administrator to contact you, to work on the wording of those sentences. So, when no citation is included, removing the presentations at the top of each critical reception section is the right thing to do. I had found out one source for The Scream but I don't think that it is necessary to mention "critical year alod19 acclaim" in that section. I found a quote for the first sentence at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, it's added. And then as you already removed several sentences, at Through the Looking Glass and at other articles, I let this as it is. Will take a look at it later. There were recent articles published for the Juju album, mentioning a critical acclaim. Will try to locate the right source, if not no more presentation for the critical reception of that album either. Carliertwo (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC).

See, this is where I'm eternally confused with you and with how you're constantly able to get away with this behaviour. You have no choice but to work with other editors, all the time on Wikipedia. Every administrator is "neutral" unless they've been involved in disputes on the relevant articles, which means every administrator who's participated in this thread is neutral. No editor has an "agenda" if they're just insisting that policies be adhered to on the encyclopedia. I'm neutral – everyone here and in the cited AN/I reports is neutral – insofar as everyone just wants to see NPOV removed from the SATB articles.

Once a spotlight shines on your activities, you're miraculously cooperative ... eventually. Yet as in previous AN or AN/I threads, you've consistently ignored policy-related rationales and an RfC (on the "hailed" matter), and that's why we've ended up here. But, as much as it is a relief, this isn't the time to start behaving liking a collegial and non-biased editor; that should have been the case all along, way before 2017. We're here because you've repeatedly failed to behave like a non-biased editor.

I still see a lengthy topic ban as the only means to get a message across. As others have mentioned, no lessons appear to have been learned from 2017. In fact, once everyone's back was turned, even what had been established in 2017 appears to have been undone or ignored in the ensuing years. I wouldn't expect to get away with a fraction of what this user has got away with, and I've seen editors banned for comparatively trivial behaviour (disruptive editing, but not an ongoing campaign to circumvent key Wikipedia policies like WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV). Also, it takes a whole load of effort and frustration to even get this issue addressed, or try to, and before Carliertwo decides, "Oh, I'm going to be a responsible editor now." JG66 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit mixed on a topic ban (despite their lack of neutrality, s/he does make valuable edits to the topic area), but I would not be opposed to some sort of leash, such as a 1RR. As you said, this is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports like this if no preventive measure is put in place. Darkknight2149 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"but I would not be opposed to some sort of leash, such as a 1RR" Not a particularly effective leash in this case. The primary issue is the insertion of overly laudatory language in music album articles over a number of years. Not a brief edit war in 2020. What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles? Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"this isn't the time to start behaving liking a collegial and non-biased editor; that should have been the case all along" Carliertwo has already conceded on the POV matter, offered to rewrite the problematic sentences, and to search for additional sources. What more do you hope to accomplish here? Your insistence on a topic ban sounds vindictive. Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the {{cn}} tags were removed. GiantSnowman 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, hang on, Dimadick (in reply to both your last posts). As you say, "What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?" Precisely – and as I've said on that idea: in repetition of what appears to have already ensued since 2017. So, I don't get your other statement: "Carliertwo has already conceded on the POV matter, offered to rewrite the problematic sentences, and to search for additional sources. What more do you hope to accomplish here? Your insistence on a topic ban sounds vindictive." What more? "vindictive"? ...
• It's for the very same reasons you've pointed out, that they can just return to typical (it seems) behaviour, and that I've pointed out: that it concerns what sort of message is to be sent out on serial violation of core policies, and whether it's sufficient that an editor who gets reported here or elsewhere can suddenly agree to toe a line that is the only way to behave on Wikipedia, anyway. Apart from everything else I've cited policy-wise, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, specifically: If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. I can't see how that doesn't tie in with your point [with my emphasis added]: "As you said, this is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports like this if no preventive measure is put in place." JG66 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case, Carliertwo has indeed received some education on Wikipedia-wide policies on NPOV language, and in response he/she offered changes in their favorite articles. Which I find a decent enough result for the discussion, an actual change in the editor's behavior. On the other hand, I find the idea of 1RR as a leash to be entirely ineffective. Articles with few watchers can often get controversial changes without an edit war. Because there is simply nobody interested enough to object to the changes. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what user:JG66 advances, the first rfc about "hailing" was registred by PaleCloudedWhite in 2017 on this ground: an album article couldn't mention that Suede's singer Brett Anderson hailed the recordTinderbox on his official website because the artist only mentioned it in a page called "current fascinations". So, another rfc was filled by Carliertwo and this time I asked if it was possible to just include that Suede's singer Brett Anderson namechecked Tinderbox on the basis of the same source. The result of the rfc was yes; I could. Nowhere you'll find a verdict of a rfc or a ANI saying that Carliertwo can't used the verb "hailing" anymore. An ANI was filled by PaleCloudedWhite: the issue was about the notorious review (of the then 19 year old Julie Burchill) which has been included on wiki in 2017. I was told that it was not necessary to mention the criticism and harsh comments that the likes of legendary John Peel and music historian Paul Morley made about her "scathing review" as they said . PaleCloudedWhite, is it correct and if no, where do you see in the Tinderbox article something that is not conformed to the rfc/ani of 2017 ? Carliertwo (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, please keep in mind that the neutral point of view is a core content policy, and therefore it is mandatory for you to follow it scrupulously. Quite a few editors have expressed concern that your writing is often not neutral and that you frequently write like a fan and not like an encyclopedia editor. Please take these concerns on board and recommit yourself to neutrality. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I haven't changed anything at any critical reception section since the March 2017 ANI filled by PaleCloudedwhite whom had already demanded twice a topic ban. In this thread, the only one user tagging carlier with the pejorative word fan, is the same person who didn't have their demand fulfilled three years ago after already dubbing me a spa. For your information, the present thread was discussed with one of your peers a few days ago at their personal talk's page and here is what they said. see here. Carliertwo (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, you said What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?. Can you supply the diffs showing that there was (were) changes in the critical receptions sections of those articles since the 2017 March ANI ? Carliertwo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 you wrote This is now a 3 year issue. Can you supply the diffs showing that there was (were) changes in the critical receptions sections of those articles since the 2017 March ANI ? Carliertwo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I removed the {cn} tags for these several reasons. 1) When all these descriptions of the press reviews were written around 2013-2015 at each satb album article far before the two 2017 ANIs, the reference points for the wording were the FAs and GAs which were edited like this without secondary source. User:Greg Fasolino (a professionnal journalist in real life who worked for Trouser Press [38] and I and many reviewers of FAs and GAs thought that it was accepted. The Scream (satb album) 's [39] was based on GAs like Homogenic (Bjork album) 's [40] by reviewer Andrzejbanas [41]: both albums got similar rave reviews by famous papers. When the reaction was just positive like for Dig Me Out 'Sleater-Kinney album) 's [42], something similar was written for Kaleidoscope (satb album) [43]. 2) I noticed each time I edited at Beatles' article "Dear Prudence (song)", main user JG66 directly reacted targetting the satb albums articles in which I edited, tagging them with patronizing comments in their edit summaries such as this one [44]. So as many critical receptions of FAs and GAs started with the same type of editorialisation without any secondary source, only depending on the reviews present in the section, I took this tagging campaign as just free retaliate. 3) Had JG66 just started to tag only one article The Scream (album), and opened a discussion at the Scream talk page [as it is the most critically acclaimed satb album], instead of taking all the satb articles in a row to discredit the content/work by several users for new readers like they did, I would have perceived their demand otherwise. Carliertwo (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note to the community and specifically to the two administrators who posted in this thread

• The OP included several false facts. The OP affirms "it's pointed out (by JzG) that this reference to albums being "hailed" went against consensus at a recent RfC". False. JzG/Guy wrote "Stop Wikilawyering. Remove the statement now, please, that is the clear consensus of the RfC"[see January 2017 ANI link]. And btw the result of the first rfc mentioned by JzG was about another thing: "The consensus is against including "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" in the article."[see rfc link]. Consequently, the January 2017 ANI was closed with this remark User:Carliertwo blocked 48 hours for edit warring and textbook battleground behaviour[see January 2017 ANI link] .
• The OP carried on advancing "Three-and-a-half years later, some of the album articles still use the term" "hailing". False. As the consensus of the first rfc was against including this sentence "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website", there wasn't any verdict nowhere of an rfc and ANI making a demand to remove the terms "critical acclaim" and "this album was hailed" at each satb album article. See the conclusion of the second ANI was quite different, asking Carlier if they agreed to include large quotes of Burchill's review on The Scream (article) without mentioning any criticism of her peers. [45]
• The OP kept on lying saying "previous warnings seemed to have achieved little, and it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording". False. Which text crept back since the 31 March 2017 ANI, where are the diffs claiming this? Only three "critical reception" sections were discussed in this second ANI [see March 2017 ANI link]: The Scream (album) 's, Kaleidoscope (satb album) 's and Tinderbox (satb album). So here are the versions of April 2017 and September 2020 for each article; for The Scream (album) see [April 2017 version link] and Early September 2020's], for Kaleidoscope (album) [May 2017 version link] and [early September 2017's], and for Tinderbox (album) April 2017 version and [early September 2020"s]

• The result of the March 2017 ANI (the second filled by PaleCloudedWhite) was given by administrator and mediator user:SilkTork, who wrote: "the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one [for Tinderbox] and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, [...] there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called." Indeed the second rfc was accepted [see link second rfc March 2017 here]. User Greg Fasolino's comment was, "on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient". to which Carliertwo replied "I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing").Carliertwo (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Then what about this unlimitless list of Featured Articles albums articles from other singers containing the same type of editorialisation not supported by any secondary source, Isn't a more serious issue as these albums articles all received a FA status

• Adore (The_Smashing_Pumpkins_album) and the editorialisation "Critical reception to Adore was generally positive" not supported by any secondary source
• Blood sugar Sex Magic (Red Hot Chili Peppers album) with the editorialisation "Blood Sugar Sex Magik was well received by critics, who praised the Chili Peppers for not overpowering the listener with heavy metal guitar riffs as their previous album had" not supported by any secondary source
• The Basement Tapes (Bob Dylan Album) and its editorialisation "It was acclaimed by critics" supported by no secondary source]
• Control (Janet Jackson album) and its claim "Upon its release, the album garnered general acclaim from critics" not supported by any secondary source]
• Blonde on Blonde (Bob Dylan album), the claim "The album received generally favorable reviews" isn't suported by any secondary source
• the well apt for this thread Cut The Crap (The Clash album) and its editorialisation Cut the Crap has been favourably reevaluated in some retrospective reviews, many praising Strummer's songwriting and vocal performance" again supported no secondary source
• Dookie (Green Day album), and its editorialisation "Dookie was released to critical acclaim" with no secondary source.
• Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (Wu-Tang Clan album) including the claim "was received positively by contemporary critics" with no secondary source
• the Extra-Terrestrial (album) including "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was also well-received critically. with no secondary source
• Ho Ho Ho (Ru Paul album) including "Upon its release, Ho Ho Ho received primarily positive reviews from music critics" with any support of a secondary source.
• House of Music (Tony! Toni! Toné! album) and its editorialisation "House of Music was met with positive reviews" with no secondary source.
• Kill 'Em All (Metallica album) and its claim "Kill 'Em All received critical acclaim" not supported by a secondary source
• Pod (The Breeders album) and its editorialisation "The album was generally well received" with no secondary source.
• Reign in Blood (Slayer album) with its claim "Reign in Blood was critically acclaimed by the underground and mainstream music press." without any secondary source
• Ride the Lightning (Metallica album) including the claim "Ride the Lightning received widespread acclaim from music critics." without any secondary source
• Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall (album) and the editorialisation "Overall, reception of the album was positive" not supported by any secondary source
• Rumours (Fleetwood Mac album) and the claim "Rumours has been acclaimed by music critics since its release" written with no secondary source
• Slay Tracks (Pavement album) "Slay Tracks received generally positive reviews"
• Surfer Rosa (Pixies album) with the inclusion "UK music press reviews of Surfer Rosa were generally positive" with no secondary source
• Tragic Kingdom (No Doubt album) and the editorialisation "The album received mostly positive reviews from critics" with no secondary source.
• Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) (Slipknot album) and its claim "Critical reception to Vol. 3: The Subliminal Verses was generally positive" with no secondary source.

And according to JG66/the OP which was entirely supported by GiantSnowman, this last one Romances (Luis Miguel album) should be tagged too due to this editorialisation "Upon its release, Romances was met with mostly positive reviews by music critics.". Thanks to GiantSnowman for asking and thanking JG66 for reposting an ANI which was closed last week.

Can anyone understand why haven't JG66 targetted any one of these FAs from other artists with the {cn} tags?

Before the vote of a topic ban, may I also add that User:Greg Fasolino commented about this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles[46]. GA reviewer J Milburn commented good work for Join Hands receiving a GA status and administrator SilkTork commented The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. Here, JG66 didn't want to compromise, he did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage apart saying no discussion possible. or You're a time waster see here but isn't it JG66's refusal to compromise that leads us to the surreal demand of topic ban.

So, I demand two things to the community 1) a serious warning and sanction has to be sent to JG66, for lying in their OP to obtain their topic ban demand (it almost worked as administrator GiantSnowman claimed "I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles" from day 1 while saying later "WP:TLDR" and then "but I was able to skim and ready diffs" 2) I also demand a serious warning and sanction to User:PaleCloudedWhite for begging once again for a topic ban in this thread twice see here, three years after already filling two ANIs which also demanded a topic ban for Carliertwo. This is harassement. 3) As the aim of this thread was to discredit me even more for further future ANIs, because there wasn't any 3RR this time by anyone , I ask specifically to GiantSnowman to add to their first comment above has been repeatedly adding POV to articles. As such, I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles. This is to protect me in anticipation of further ANs that PaleCloudedWhite and JG66 will surely fill, if no serious warning and sanction for lies, distorted facts and harassments are not taken against them this time. Carliertwo (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, your demands will not be met. Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Go edit neutrally and stop this. If you persist, you will be blocked for disruptive editing and topic banned from anything to do with your favorite band, broadly construed. This is a warning that you need to take seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, Demands? really? With out reading through this mish-mash (that's why we have Cullen328), probably the best advice around is offered by User:Cullen328. I suggest you heed it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have been pinged in this discussion, so here I am. It appears I commented in a RfC in 2017, though I did not close it as implied above. However, I was fairly temperate and understanding in my remarks, which may explain why Carliertwo approached me for advice a few days ago: User_talk:SilkTork#AN or ANI. I recommended that Carliertwo discuss the issue with JG66, and pinged JG66 into the conversation. I couldn't see evidence that either of them have taken that advice, so I am not so sympathetic as I was in 2017, especially as I said back then that: "The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern". We resolve matters in a more long lasting way when we talk to each other rather than reverting.

Having said that I not that sympathetic to Carliertwo's situation, I will repeat what I said on my talkpage - this is an editorial dispute not a policy or behaviour issue. Neither JG66 nor Carliertwo have handled this well. Escalating a minor editorial disagreement to AN or ANI is not the best way of handling this. And calling for a Siouxsie and the Banshees topic ban for Wikipedia's most productive writer of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles is like shooting off your head with a shotgun to get rid of a pimple. Carliertwo is responsible for at least 50% of the content of those articles, and has taken one to GA status. We should instead look at the issue and deal with it appropriately.

JG66 mentions this edit as problematic because the statement "Juju received critical acclaim" needs citing. Well, let's cite it: "Juju...attracted reams of critical acclaim and cemented its creators’ reputation as one of the most exhilarating and distinctive rock acts of the early 80s" (I spent ten seconds finding that with a simple "Siouxsie and the Banshees Juju received critical acclaim" Google search. I didn't look any further, so there may well be more. That's just an example. It's often not that much harder to look for a cite than it is to tag that a cite is needed, or to revert the tag.) Next is this edit regarding this statement "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim" which we can cite with "Released to rave reviews, the Banshees’ 1978 debut, The Scream, remains one of the stone tablets of post-punk" (another ten second search). So there are sources to support Carliertwo's editing. The removing of the tags was not best practice, but nor is edit warring to restore the tags: [47]. The two editors have made a minimal effort at talking through the issue on the article talkpages. On the other hand, neither editor has done anything manifestly wrong. There has been some reverts, but not to the level of an edit war, and both are involved in the reverting. I don't see any other behavioural or editorial issues, certainly none that require admin involvement. This is a very minor editing dispute that can be resolved fairly quickly and easily by a bit of collaborative editing.

My offer here is to work with User:JG66 and User:Carliertwo to resolve JG66's concerns regarding puffery and unsourced statements in the Banshees albums, and to give both of them some guidance on the best way to handle such disputes in future. Carliertwo, in particular, needs to take on board that it is unusual for an editor to be brought to AN, and to be brought here several times leaves a stain which it can be difficult to remove. So, working on better ways to handle disagreements would be beneficial to themselves and to Wikipedia as a whole. If someone tags that a statement needs a cite, then provide that cite before removing the tag. SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork: You pinged me from your talk page and I'm sorry for ignoring that. It was for the same reason I'll keep my reply here brief: as I've said above, I don't consider that violations, or reverts that seek to support examples of violation, of WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. are issues to be discussed; they're beyond that, they're just to be eradicated from the encyclopedia. And I find the continued indulgence afforded Carliertwo on these points quite surprising, as if they're being afforded cotton-wool treatment. Again: WP:NOTGETTINGIT – "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines", etc. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we are not that far apart in our views on this issue, JG66. I think where we differ is in how to deal with it. I have long felt that Wikipedia's main concern should not be with paid (or professional) writers, as they often do write OK articles. Our main concern should be with the amateur writers who write out of passion. Be it political, ethnic, or music articles. We know there is a bias in many of our articles on albums and bands, because most of the editing is done by fans who will be rather enthusiastic. We have a choice in how we deal with these editors. We can either constantly fight them. Bring them to AN/I and get them banned or blocked. Or we can guide them as to the most appropriate way of doing things. You're an experienced music article editor. You know how to do it. You could give good advice. The upside of giving advice rather than seeking a ban, is that we get a productive editor who will not only continue to help write good articles, but we get another person on board with the appropriate way of doing things who then be able to offer advice to others. The more we do this, the better the quality of the articles overall. Of course, there's another way, other than whack a mole, or give a helping hand, we could just pass on by and let someone else do it. Essentially there are three approaches. To be honest, mostly these days I just pass on by. I don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to. But now and again I'm willing to help as as I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to help out here. You're a good editor. But I doubt you knew it all when you started, and you made mistakes. Perhaps the same mistake more than once. But your heart was in the right place, and you learned, and you moved forward. Perhaps someone helped you out in the early days. Perhaps a kind word. Perhaps pointed you toward the appropriate guideline or policy. I think that's what is needed here. Just a little bit of guidance. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Very nice sentiments from you, SilkTork (as always). Funnily enough, it was you who guided me, years ago, on writing article lead sections.

So yes, we all live and learn, and hopefully improve along the way. I'm afraid I just see too much history here and an unwillingness to change unless the heat is on ... But then I'm not a decision-maker on these matters, which is why we're here. JG66 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, I have unpinged you sunday afternoon, [48] I'm sorry that the ping hasn't disappeared from your inbox.

I followed your advice point by point after reading your post 7 days ago and on 15 September I did this. I've added sources on two articles and worked on the wording. [49], [50]. When I haven't found any secondary source, I removed the contentions of critical acclaim. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. And right after improving everything, I've informed JG66 of the changes [56] and told them I would seek for other sources still on the same day of your post. What more should have I done ?

But the result was not what was expected: more "Consistently ignored policy-related rationales and an RfC (on the "hailed" matter)", "A lengthy topic ban as the only means to get a message across". "No lessons appear to have been learned from 2017". "Frustration" JG66 17:16, 15 September / "The primary issue is the insertion of overly laudatory language in music album articles over a number of years" "What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?" Dimadick -15:11, 16 September, I ask them to provide diffs to support this? No reply. / "This is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports" Darkknight 10:13, 16 September / "I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the {cn} tags were removed". administrator GiantSnowman 15:07, 16 September / "They simply cannot edit neutrally in this area". PaleCloudedWhite 09:54, 19 September.

I shouldn't have been astonished by JG66's refusal because on 14 September, I had told them that all those assessments had been written around 2015, after taking "well maintained" GAs articles such as Homogenic and Dig Me out as instances. I'm still wondering why after learning those two cases, JG66 has still not yet rushed to Homogenic and Dig Me Out albums articles to add {cn} with comments like this in the summaries "Oh Boy" for the Ga Reviewer of Homogenic, or other choice, this patronizing comment "it is a fan-fest".

Now, how is wikipedia going to handle those "examples of violation" of POV editing with "insertion of overly laudatory language" at Featured articles such as [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] and on... a total of 21 FAs albums, I mentioned them two days ago but no one seems to care as they were not written by Carliertwo.

When at the very end of a long discussion due to "a minor editorial dispute" as SilkTork said, you wonder why it has lasted so long, a new line arrives out of the blue. "WP:NOTGETTINGIT – "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines", and they had this reply from an administrator "I think we are not that far apart in our views on this issue, JG66"; you have an answer. And they had written earlier "No editor has an "agenda". Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith; it may be difficult to assume from certain people.

Cullen had asked me to stop editing here on sunday. I did it immediately and followed their advice and I removed a request. Today I had to reply to SilkTork because he pinged me and took time to write his view. I thank him a lot. Carliertwo (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I assist Carliertwo to address the issues raised by JG66, urge upon them the importance of not removing cite needed tags unless the material is appropriately cited, and ensure they understand WP:PUFFERY, can we close this thread? SilkTork (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that Carliertwo's repeated misrepresentation of other editors - characterising them as 'having agendas' etc. - also needs addressing. In my first post in this thread - which I made because I was pinged - I said (in response to GiantSnowman's suggestion of a topic ban), "I do not know if a topic ban is the best option. It seems a shame", and then Carliertwo responds to this by going to your talkpage and saying, "user PaleCloudedWhite is back and they suggest a topic ban, it is not said as such but their call is obvious". This kind of misrepresentation - which I believe they do to drum up sympathy from other editors - is extremely aggravating. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, may I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Carliertwo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Had Carliertwo wanted "to get "sympathy" from previous fellow editors of 2017, Carliertwo would have directly pinged them from day one from this AN to take part at this present discussion. And so from day one, all the other users of this thread would have read this SilkTork comment: Taking a minor editorial dispute to AN or ANI is too strong. The tone in many posts from certain users would have been different. Carliertwo (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• PaleCloudedWhite, you make a good point, so I will also discuss with Carliertwo the harm that can arise from casting aspersions and assuming bad faith, and the benefits of remaining calm and neutral in any incident. I want to make clear, though, that I am not taking on a mentoring role. I will give Carliertwo some assistance in clearing up the Banshees' albums, and pass on some advice in how to avoid conflict in editing and in relationships with fellow editors, and then I will leave Carliertwo alone. If they inappropriately revert, insert obvious unsourced puffery, or attack other users in future, and are legitimately brought to AN/I I will support a sanction. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

At whatever timescale is seen fit, could we have a group of admins to close this debate? I think a group would help. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 23:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can't see why it should be a group close; consensus on the issue seems clear. And even if it wasn't, one competent admin seems sufficient for that particular deletion. Though, the community may want to discuss the underlying issues raised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably just worried. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of the subject and the rather one sided nature of the nominations I think this needs to be allowed to run its course for the full seven days. We may need to have a broader discussion within the community about where we draw the line with userboxes that promote or advocate for one side or another in hot button subjects of social/political debate. Depending on how this is closed I may open that discussion at the Village Pump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I agree. Things like User:Charlie Smith FDTB/Userboxes/bluelives✔ seem like a bad idea to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor point, but wouldn't that name run afoul of some sort of naming convention? Other than copy/paste I have no idea how I'd add that to a page. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• FYI I have opened a discussion on this matter at The Village Pump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am an involved party to the discussion. When I first commented on the MfD 2 days ago, there was near unanimous consensus that those userboxes should all be deleted, and I was one of the first to hold an opposing view. Now, with the extended participation, many more users have also voiced their opposing views, to the point I feel consensus is no longer clearly in favour of outright deletion. In terms of headcount, I believe "delete all" still has the absolute advantage (haven't done the counting), but since consensus is not to be determined solely by counting heads, the arguments from both sides deserve to be looked into in details. I think a group close would help in this instance, especially in light of the sensitive political issues that underline much of the debate. --Dps04 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• I've closed the MfD. Sandstein 07:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's bad enough this site allows users like Fram, Kass and their ilk to chase women off this site without consquence, we don't need to drive away LGBT editors too. Those far right homophobc userboxes need to stay deleted and be salted less we become like 8chan. It's so sad this was even up for delete, those one man one woman userboxes should have been speedily deleted and the creators of those ubx should have been banned ,no questions asked. But no, once again enabling alt righters to get away with things. We need to make all users feel welcome (even trans users despite them trying to bring down the feminist movement but i digress). I fought for years to bring this site politically into the 21st century, I don't want to have to do so again. Many of my friends are LGBT and i could never look them in the eye with a straight face and tell them this site is inclusive if we allow anti lgbt userboxes.

Kevin Gumran (one time admin and former Wiki professor)

ArbCom 2020 election RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 will close in a few days. One proposal that might pass is to require a minimum of 15 supports for a proposal to pass, but there are several proposals mutually exclusive proposals that have not had that level of engagement (i.e. "Do X" and "Do not do X" both have fewer than 15 supports). To avoid any complications from this it would be very useful if more editors could express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following users have edited in 2020, are not blocked or locked, are not bots, and yet have indefinitely protected user talk pages, some for as long as 13 years so far:

• User_talk:Collounsbury
• User_talk:CruiserBob
• User_talk:DHN
• User_talk:Modernist
• User_talk:Asc85 (unprotected)
• User_talk:TPIRFanSteve
• User_talk:Nug
• User_talk:Dan_Murphy
• User_talk:Bastique (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Deiz
• User_talk:Ra'ike
• User_talk:Sargoth
• User_talk:Tewapack
• User_talk:Plrk
• User_talk:Gwen_Gale
• User_talk:Ed_Poor
• User_talk:Gigogag
• User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise
• User_talk:MGodwin
• User_talk:Avraham
• User_talk:Nishkid64
• User_talk:Rossdegenstein
• User_talk:Zhanzhao
• User_talk:Cookiefonster
• User_talk:Anirudh_Emani
• User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness
• User_talk:IZAK
• User_talk:Buffs (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Jonny2x4
• User_talk:Skyerise (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:AmandaNP
• User_talk:AssociateAffiliate
• User_talk:Andrew_nixon
• User_talk:Daniel_Case
• User_talk:Evanh2008 (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Fæ
• User_talk:War
• User_talk:Raul654
• User_talk:Kurykh
• User_talk:ChrisP2K5
• User_talk:Jenova20
• User_talk:ArcAngel
• User_talk:Marine_69-71
• User_talk:Jehochman
• User_talk:Huldra (unprotected)
• User_talk:Otberg
• User_talk:Zero0000
• User_talk:TZLNCTV
• User_talk:Mathsci
• User_talk:Bishapod
• User_talk:Darwinbish
• User_talk:GregJackP
• User_talk:TreasuryTag
• User_talk:Davidmwilliams
• User_talk:Gamaliel
• User_talk:FlightTime_Phone (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Nableezy
• User_talk:172.58.46.169
• User_talk:Huji
• User_talk:Drmies
• User_talk:StanProg
• User_talk:Adam9007
• User_talk:Wojciech_Pędzich
• User_talk:Pkbwcgs
• User_talk:Iggy_the_Swan
• User_talk:علاء
• User_talk:Coltsfan
• User_talk:Nightstallion
• User_talk:No1lovesu
• User_talk:-revi (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Miki_Filigranski
• User_talk:Indigenous_girl
• User_talk:Mardetanha
• User_talk:Garchy
• User_talk:Adavyd
• User_talk:Logograph
• User_talk:Sakura_Cartelet
• User_talk:SilentResident
• User_talk:MelbourneStar
• User_talk:Baseball_Bugs (links to an unprotected subpage)
• User_talk:Peacemaker67
• User_talk:Lomita
• User_talk:Kudpung
• User_talk:Puduḫepa
• User_talk:MarcoAurelio
• User_talk:WikiBayer
• User_talk:Rxy
• User_talk:IanDBeacon
• User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury
• User_talk:El_C (unprotected)
• User_talk:Abc10
• User_talk:Fylindfotberserk

Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages, specifically User talk pages are rarely protected, and are protected for short durations only in severe cases of vandalism or abuse, this seems improper to me. Should we mass-unprotect these, or at least put expirations on them? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

In my case, the log shows various arbitrators and administrators protecting my user talk page. There were many problems with LTAs such as User:Echigo mole and User:Mikemikev with their many sockpuppets. Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just for information Lomita/Harassment - Thanks --Lomita (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I had my talk page protected several years ago due to frequent trolling. I set up a separate, unprotected "talk page" per the guidelines. I would prefer to keep things the way they are. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am being constantly pestered by Wikinger, a well-known LTA, therefore the talkpage is protected. Wojciech Pędzich (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Same, a consistent troll with erratic behaviour. Sometimes he vandalised thrice in a week, sometimes there were months between bouts of vandalism. —Nightstallion 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass unprotection or mass protection is never a good idea, so please consider each on an individual basis. I recognise quite a lot of these as active targets of various sorts. However I think the IP's talk can be unprotected without further ado. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I have no idea when and why my User Talk Page was protected. I didn't even know it was protected! It seems like you're creating a problem where none existed. But if it'll make you feel so much better to unprotect me, then go right ahead. I really don't care. Wow! Asc85 (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You apparently requested it back in the mists of time in 2008, which I guess does provide one example of why indef protection isn't always a good idea! Zzuuzz has now lifted it. ~ mazca ^talk 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow again! Thank you for that link! I must be getting old. I barely remember that situation, but I am grateful for the help at that time!Asc85 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

TreasuryTag's, which happened to still be on my watchlist after a very long time even though he's not edited much since 2011, is also a persistent vandalism target for some reason. It was getting a lot of IP attention before it was protected in 2015 and the edit that he actually made in 2020 was reverting what appears to be the same editor that had gained autoconfirmed just for the sake of saying an unwanted hello. Strange but still seems valid. ~ mazca ^talk 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin here, I see no reason to unprotect these - Most if not all protections above have been done due to trolls and some users talkpages are targeted almost on a daily basis so IMHO unprotecting would be pointless as would be setting expiry dates. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a nice idea and all, but I've already unprotected Asc85's talk page, which was protected 12 years ago as "user request" after a couple of IP edits. The reasons for keeping a T-Mobile IP's talk protected at this time are probably zero. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

zzuuzz I had missed the IP being listed so agree with the unprotecting there. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a non-admin as well, and have had persistant harassment from the Denver Dodo, My Royal Young. and various other LTA's, hence why my talk page is indefinitely semi-protected. IanDBeacon (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

So there are <100 of these and compared to all active users it sounds well within IAR limits for any policy, this seems like a big make-work waste of time, especially considering you just summoned 92 users to WP:AN, based on that alone I think at large {{trout}} is in order for Jackmcbarn... — xaosflux ^Talk 20:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I suppose I could have brought up this general matter at WT:PP rather than somewhere where I'd have to notify everyone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Jackmcbarn, I'm surprised to see me listed in here. Do you not remember what happened a week ago? Did you not read what all was written up on my talk page under that Notice of yours, when a similar request was made by a sock of Hotline? Hmm. But now that you have admin glasses, feel free to look in the history of my talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have it protected because I regularly deal with socks that hold a grudge. Unprotection would mean regular emails on the go for with "**** you, you stupid ****" and related. Repeated harassment is draining, and I have an IP subpage that is on my watchlist. Please don't consider this idea. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to protect my talk page indefinitely years ago when I was doing a lot of anti-vandal work as I paid the price in vandalism of my own pages to the point that I stopped keeping count, and, realizing it was just creating unnecessary work for other admins to revert said vandalism, decided instead to semi-protect both my user and talk pages indefinitely.

Personally I believe that, to further prevent the Wikipedia user experience from being similar to the online drive-by anonymob hate that Twitter's management would have us believe constitutes the Internet at its highest and best, all users, not just admins, should have the right to protect their user and talk pages, even indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I too had troll problems. It's been ten years though so I guess it has passed. Unprotect or don't, I don't think it matters. I am curious to why you'd bring 100 users here instead of just asking "Hey, is it OK if we unlock your talk page?". Plrk (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing the policy to allow this would certainly be fine, if there's consensus for it. My concern here is that this sort of protection is currently out-of-policy. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: policy on Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. If it turns out that in practice, user talk pages are protected more often than "rarely", and are sometimes protected for lengthy durations in severe cases of vandalism or abuse for valid, unchanging reasons, then the policy needs to change to document the reality. That might be a better use of your time. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: My original concern was that these were done "under the radar" rather than with consensus. Although given the outcome of this thread so far, it seems that it was actually the latter (especially given the change made as a result of this thread, which has stuck so far). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I got my user-page protected a few years ago, and if anyone thinks that was for fun, please look at the logs for my user-page. Anyway; this last year I believe was the first in this last decade that I haven't gotten a rape or a death threat (I edit in the Israel/Palestine area; do I need to say more?) ....so, I was actually thinking of asking an admin to "lift" the protection from user-page (with some trepidation, I do admit..). So, I hearby ask: could some some admin please lift the protection from my user-page (But please be ready to re-insert it if I ask: I really don't care for dealing with people enumerating all the ways they are going to have me killed..) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I took care of it for you. If it starts up again, let me know and I'll re-apply it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, I have seen some of the filth directed at you and I am really sorry there are people who do stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies thankfully, our excellent admins have mostly cleaned up my page before I have even seen it, Hope those people doing that have been getting the help they need, and are gone from wp forever, Eternally optimistic, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As a year has passed since the start of protection. I am fine if is removed but reactivated if am again a target of abuse.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:  Done. Please drop a note on my talk page if you ever need it re-applied. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a long-time administrator and editor I have had my talk page semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. This is due to some of the reasons mentioned above such as frequent trolling and harassment by unconfirmed users in the past. I have even been called a "Baby-Killer" which I consider as a disrespectful insult. My main mission in Wikipedia is to write educational articles and to share what ever knowledge I may have with everyone and therefore I do not see my talk page as a place for insults nor do I have the time to deal with the nonsense with some non-registered users may post. Every registered user is more then welcomed to my talk page as long as their messages are civil and well intentioned. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Break

Having read the replies here, I definitely recognize that just mass-unprotecting all of these right now would be a mistake. It seems like quite a few of these are stopping very long-term disruption. One thing that was brought up to me was that some of these users have unprotected subpages linked from their main talk page. I went through all of them on my list and struck the ones that do. The protection policy does say Users whose talk pages are protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from, so it's somewhat concerning that I was able to strike as few as I was. How about rather than unprotecting, we just get the rest of these users to set that up (or do it for them if they're inactive)? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already set it up, you just haven't reflected it on the list. See User talk:AmandaNP/Editnotice which links to User talk:AmandaNP/IP. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have one of those, and I don't care to have one. I don't need any more Wikinger or Hotline or MRY socks. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to tweak the policy to update it to match the existing consensus that this isn’t a big deal. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and updated, based on what seems to be the consensus above. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can still give guidance to editors who wish to communicate with a user whose talk page is protected? This could be quite a challenging situation for a newer user not familiar with how to overcome it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Having a conspicuous link would invite the long term disruption to move to the unprotected talk subpage. Such a page is unlikely to be as well watched (especially when its new) so problematic edits will likely take longer to deal with. Yes, for recognition purposes, a troll may find a subpage less rewarding, but it only shifts the problem. If the abuse has been so long term that indefinite protection was used, I find it very likely that the subpage will only attract the abuse. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

However, I do think that we shouldn't disallow good faith editors making good faith comments. Perhaps what might be a good idea is that there is a link to a central place somewhere clearly visible on the user talk page where good faith editors can make good faith comments. Such a place would ensure that good faith editors can make comments, but also not be in the userspace of the user receiving the long term abuse. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how helpful this would be, but I am getting my share of LTA editors on my talk page as well. I certainly do not enjoy them, but I just remove their comments, and only protect my talk page short-term if they really become too frequent (hourly). I feel that good-faith users should have a chance to reach me (even if the share of non-LTA non-confirmed users posting on my page is relatively low).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yeah, that's basically the same position I have, and why I was concerned about this in the first place. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I forgot to lift the protection from my talk page (for a while). Now  Done. El_C 21:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." This is exactly the kind of protection I want. I am opposed to editing talk pages, especially mine, by anonymous sources. War (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm late to the conversation, but my page was protected because many admins did not care to take care of the trash that was being left there when I retired. If the admins would focus on taking care of the content-creators instead of protecting the riff-raff, this wouldn't even be a necessary discussion. As it is now, I edit on a very limited basis, and I don't want to have to deal with the a-holes. I would prefer that you don't screw with my talk page, as all one has to do to post there is to be autoconfirmed. If they don't want to do that, they can pound sand. BTW, instead of looking for technical BS, you should look at creating some content. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• My tp was protected because there were a lot of Balkans IPs driving me insane. Given the number of POV-pushing IPs that I continue to deal with on Balkans articles, I would much prefer to keep the protection in place so the IPs don’t spill onto my tp as well. I really don’t see the need for this thread, there are plenty of editors and admins with very good reasons for having tp protection (per above), and it seems like we’re looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The "problem" was that the language at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_talk_pages didn't reflect current practice, and it's now been updated. P-K3 (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The protection on my talk page has been a god send. It has helped me edit diligently all these years; my tp protection has enormously aided my work here, and more than 100,000 edits later. I will greatly appreciate it if continues, thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I originally left it on my talk but now realized it's MMS notif so probably left unattended; I still get my talk pages loved (by LTA) on various mid-size/small wikis, so feel free to unprotect if, and ONLY IF you pledge to take care of the vandals whenever they pop up. (Read: pls no.) — regards, Revi 23:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I asked for TonyBallioni to protect my tp following trolling after I was desysoped. And let's face it, semi-protection is absolutely no big deal and there is no reason why non autoconfirmed users would want to leave a message for me. With exception of very minor edits on the fly when reading the encyclopedia and perhaps voting on RfA or occasionally on other major RfC, I am retired and unless someone has something friendly to say to me, I would appreciate being left in peace now that I have given up my 14-year dedication to this circus. Per Peacemaker67, this is a solution looking for a problem and if this is how Jackmcbarn is using his time now after being totally absent for years then coming back and being almost immediately re-sysoped (which I did not support), he might be doing this in GF, but WADR, I politely suggest he find something more constructive to do and use the tools he was given. For example, there are still massively ridiculous backlogs at NPP and AfC that don't even need admin access. As GregJackP says: Instead of looking for technical BS, you should look at creating some content. - or improving it, or helping to combat COI/UPE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Thanks for pointing out. In principle, I'm more in favor of allowing free editing and don't feel particularly disturbed by trolling and harassment, as long as it is online only. You are welcome to remove the page protection. Regards --−Sargoth 07:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Questionable site

I recently found a site called qwe.wiki. It is, effectively, wikipedia pages google translated from the english wikipedia page and copy-pasted into the site without any editing as far as i can tell. The site is also plastered with ads. Does wikipedia allow this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:73:12AF:1:2924:B0DD:4D48:C284 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/PQR#Qwe. It's also been reported to Google AdSense as well for possibly copyright violations. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This was previously "qwerty.wiki"; a normal Wikipedia mirror with the twist that they machine-translate, which usually makes a mess of things. Kuru (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Q

Can one of you look at my block log, and identify whose socks I've been blocking? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, your finger must be tired! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but who is it? Drmies (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • From a technical viewpoint, it'll be hard to determine with any certainty for...reasons. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whorra/Archive may be related. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks. What a nice person. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Fully-protected and salted pages

Mainly out of curiosity (because someone will know and reply faster than I can find it) do we have a database/set of pages that are fully-protected and salted? A minor part of this is also thinking about acceptable drafts that are held up by existing salts, with the possibility of maybe dropping those pages down to ECP to allow draft approval sans admin. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would guess that a query can take care of finding all full-protected non-existing pages. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:ProtectedTitles displays fully salted drafts. Lev!vich 18:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sad that Draft:Shit was deleted. Lot of potential in that one. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can that be a redirect to 2020? RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's hope we will be able to confine it to a single year and it doesn't ultimately redirect to 2020s.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think you'd struggle to sort the wheat from the chaff. In article space, 99% of the fully salted titles will be either vandalism (the majority) or repeatedly created non-notable things. As demostrated quite well here. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Of the 50 salted titles in the above link, I can see seven that can perfectly acceptably be created as redirects:

  • Durka durka --> Celeb Jihad (fictitious name of owner)
  • Steffan Todorović -> Stefan Todorović (plausible alternative spelling)
  • List of dead baby jokes‏‎ -> Dead baby jokes (yep, there is a list there)
  • Sexplosion -> Sexplosion! (no, it's not what you think)
  • Psychogenes -> either Psychopathy#Genetic or a misspelling of Psychogenesis (I wouldn't create any of these two though)
  • Poohead -> Shithead (card game) (to match Poo head)
  • Turd burglar‏‎ -> Turd Burglars

  With so many of the protecting admins either no longer active or no longer admins, imagine how much red tape I'd have to go through to create any of these. – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I imagine a lot of the bio names are UPE/promo salts - ECP would be neat for these. eg stuff like Draft:Suman K Mallick or Draft:Shamsuddin Patel -- EC should've been tried first for most. creator was a 3 edit sock. Master had 10 edits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Extended-confirmed protection didn't exist to be tried first for most of them, and policy forbade using it until the very end of 2016. Less than one in seven fully-creation-protected titles date from after that. —Cryptic 00:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • The use of salting is a bit less common nowadays, but it's common nevertheless. I find that puzzling. I've shared my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#The use of salting. – Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• FYI, there are over 1000 pages in article space semi-protected against creation, which seems unnecessary now. Many are obvious vandalism targets (George W. Bush on Wheels) that probably don't need to be touched. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Whoa, over 40,000 salted mainspace titles! Plenty of odd ones (my favourites are This smells very nice and A whale's vagina), but a very large number of alright-looking titles too (like Isotelesis, which appears to be a rare synonym for equifinality (at least according to that article), or T.B.J, which you would expect should be a redirect to TBJ, or Tonage, which should redirect to Tonnage). Doing something about the ludicrously high protections of so many anodyne pages is definitely a good idea. In the past, I've sometimes come across similar titles, where typically a minor vandalism incident from 15 years ago had prompted full protection in perpetuo. It's felt like a horrible drag to have to go around explaining myself to people and asking for unprotection, all for a silly little redirect. Now that EC protection exists as an option, it's really really difficult to see why so much still remains salted. – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What have we become when the Category:Motherfuckers‏‎ has been fully protected from creation. A sad, sad day for society! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would be willing to create or contribute to a mini-taskforce that would essentially just go through the entire list of salted articles and find which ones should be opened up for redirects. From a cursory glance it seems that a lot of them are obvious non-articles. My only concern is that once we would have a tentative list, there would be no mechanism for reviewing them and generating community consensus on this might be difficult. Acebulf (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's great, thanks. I think the two main things that should be checked are a) could it be a redirect (in which case... make it?) or b) is there a draft with the same name (in which case, drop to ECP). Primefac (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  This may be an insane idea... but why not drop to ECP anything that has 'G11'/'A7' in the deletion log? All I checked fitting this description were salted for promo by barely autoconfirmed accounts, so ECP seems appropriate. That alone would drop the numbers quite a lot and make easier to review the G3 "vandalism" cases? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I have looked it over and Marikina Church should redirect to Our Lady of the Abandoned Parish Church (Marikina), and it seems that it did before the article was deleted in 2007? I'm not sure why this is. A lot of these articles don't make sense as to why they are protected. Acebulf (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the last time someone tried mass-unprotecting salted pages was in late 2011. That was more indiscriminate than what's proposed here, but it ended really badly, and most of the reasons why are still relevant today. —Cryptic 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  At a very quick skim, some of it seems indiscriminate and without very clear consensus. Also, ECP didn't exist then. I think with consensus it wouldn't be improper at all to unprotect these. Plus if it's targeted I think it'd be smoother, e.g. lowering G7/A7s using a bot as above seems safe; probably < 0.1% of the G7/A7 titles should be sysop create protected. That discussion includes unprotection of ones with deletion reason of "harassment" etc, which is of course not a good idea to do indiscriminately. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you opened up a lot of those salted articles as redirects you'd have to fully protect the redirects anyway, so given that most of them are semantic issues (Turd burglar vs Turd Burglars, which a search would find anyway, and the target article is utterly irrelevant to the meaning in British English as well) I'm not entirely sure what you'd be gaining. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • They'd need to be fully protected if created? That would be odd, given that articles like Fuck, Cock, Cunt, which are only semi-protected. Titles like Fucking (a dab page) and Sucking off (a redirect) have never been protected. If titles like Turd burglar were to be fully protected, then that would be a significant departure from current practice. Yes, it is true that without some of those redirects readers will be able to get to the targets using the search engine, but that's not the case for all of them, and it's beside the point. All of the redirects I've listed above are appropriate as redirects, if requested at AfC/R they'd be created, if nominated for deletion at RfD they'd be snow kept, if they were to get created now they wouldn't be protected, and if they got vandalised they'd be only temporarily semi-protected. You see no discrepancy there? – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm not seeing anything hugely necessary in the examples quoted so far... Turd burglar and T.B.J could possibly be redirects, but we don't usually provide such a thing from every possible punctuation and capitalisation/grammar variant. I'd have thought a mass exercise in unsalting would be more hassle than any benefit it would gain, and could well cause problematic edits to return in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  a mass exercise in unsalting... Even for drafts? I came at this question from the perspective of allowing AFC reviewers to accept salted drafts, which not only saves time on the reviewers side, it also avoids the possibility that the G6'd page will be overwritten in between deletion by the admin and acceptance by the reviewer. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've been looking into narrowing the list of articles in the mainspace that are salted for reviewal purposes. I am down to 32k from 41k, and am hopeful that I will be able to reduce it to 25k without even looking at any of them. I've tried posting a list on my userspace, but have triggered the BLP filter so many times, I think I might get blocked if I keep going. The spam filter too, but that one is at least helpful enough to tell you which items to remove, lol. Acebulf (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  To the points above. As I've been looking at the list getting progressively smaller and smaller, I don't think there would be a problem with moving older stuff to extended confirmed protection. A lot of the permanently salted articles are queries like "How to make an article", that could perhaps be better served by protected cross-namespace redirects. The biggest problem, however, is that it really looks like the tool was used quite strongly in the early days. Some of the banned articles were salted because of edit wars, or banned accounts recreating deleted stuff. For example Admiral of the Fleet of the Russian Federation‏‎ should be a redirect to Admiral of the Fleet (Russia). What happened for that one is that the article was AFDed, and a user kept recreating it. Ergo, it has sat salted since 2008. A lot of high schools were salted on (seemingly) notability grounds before the current policy of allowing schools was born. The vast majority of the articles are nonsense, but there are some in there that definitely need some review, and currently there isn't a consensus process in place to do that. (other than RPP) Acebulf (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  And a further result is that sometimes articles would get created at sub-optimal titles. For example, Akshay (given name), a long index article created in 2015 and currently more or less lost down the avalanche of search results for anyone looking for it, is at this unnecessarily disambiguated title because Akshay was salted in 2008. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Moves to such titles are handled at WP:RM#TR all the time. Even in cases where it turns out the "new" article is a recreation of the salted one, moving it to the original title tends to alert the protecting admin if they're still around, and in any case leaves us in no worse position than we were before the move. I've moved Akshay. (And I'll see about building a query to find similarly-dismabiguated cases.) —Cryptic 01:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, I think a lot of these venues are daunting, especially to new or casual editors, and really just not worth the effort for many. If we're requiring someone to show up at a venue to get something done, and showing error messages when they try to do it themselves, it's pretty likely it won't get done at all (e.g. the case of Akshay until today). That they can request it be done isn't really a good reason to keep protections which shouldn't exist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Global ban RFC for Nrcprm2026

Nrcprm2026, better known as James Salsman, has an active discussion regarding a possible global ban. This is the formal notice for enwiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

HISTMERGE advice needed at Talk:Roman diocese

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, we're nearly done tidying up a draft article, and in a short while we intend to replace the article Roman diocese in a TNT operation with this draft. I know there's such a thing as HISTMERGE, but not much else about it. Any advice would be appreciated. Please see Talk:Roman diocese#HISTMERGE issue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Just list it at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge and move on. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 7, 2020.

Katie^talk 19:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

Improper editing caused by disruptive user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Within the page https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Digital the user Danigold77 made changes to the history section, being directly involved with the facts stated (Daniel Goldman is his name) not supporting the changes with any reference. The changes made should be reverted and the user reported as disruptive with the proper consequences. The actual reference for facts that occurred are available at the official page at https://partidodigital.org.uy/transparencia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.156.223.229 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see this is for the Spanish Wikipedia, unfortunately, this is the English Wikipedia, and we do not have any say as to what is done there. You would need to speak to the administrators there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, welcome to the English Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with the policies of interwiki, but I believe you need to talk to the Spanish admins to rectify this situation. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Heart ^(talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supervote at Move Review

Over the past month or so, the move review for the page currently at Grace O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been looking for an admin to close it, and I'm happy that Vanjagenije attempted to clear that specific backlog. However, I don't think the close that he made accurately reflected the discussion. In particular, his comments about the move didn't seem to be about the discussion at all, but his own views on the move. With the way the discussion was going, I can't see any consensus to reverse the move, and his closing comment seems to be more of a comment he should've made in the discussion itself (as it was, of course, still open at that point). I'm also a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have that much experience in move discussions, and it's a rather controversial subject to dip your toes in!

However, there isn't a "move review review", so any discussion about the process falls here by default. I've attempted to bring it up at his his talk page but I'm not really satisfied with the response. Hence, I'm bringing it here to get some more input. Sceptre (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree, this clearly looks like a supervote. The very first sentence of the close ("After reading the original discussion, I came to the conclusion that the closure was wrong and in violation of Wikipedia policies.") is a big red flag; the RM discussion is irrelevant; what matters is what editors have said in the MR discussion and the MR itself was a no consensus outcome, tending towards Endorse. Number 57 21:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Sceptre wants to present this as if I didn't read the move review, or that I did not take the arguments presented in the move review into account. That is obviously false. If you read my closing comment, you'll see that I actually summarized what MR participants (those who supported overturning) already said in the MR discussion. Move review is a process of reviewing the move discussion, so no surprise I had to read carefully the move discussion itself. @Number 57:'s idea that RM discussion is irrelevant in the process of reviewing that discussion seams absurd. All the comments in the move review are based on the original discussion, so how can we judge their validity if we don't take the original discussion into account? In this particular case, a minority of MR participants correctly pointed out that the original move discussion was wrongly closed as "move" because those who opposed the move, although in minority, correctly cited Wikipedia policies, while those who supported the move had weak arguments not based in the policies. How could I decide whether that's true or not without analyzing the original discussion? Saying that the RM discussion is irrelevant is akin to saying that Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant, and that it's only relevant what participants in a discussion say about those policies. After reading the RM, I concluded that those who supported overrule are indeed correct in saying that there was no consensus for moving the article. This case is somewhat peculiar because in both the original discussion and the review discussion, those who correctly assessed the proposal were in minority. But, if you really take into account their arguments, it is not hard to see that the move was wrong. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Those who correct assessed the proposal were in minority" in your opinion. "It is not hard to see the move was wrong" in your opinion. Personally, despite the sockpuppetry at the original RM, I would have closed it the same way as Sceptre. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, there was clearly a bit of axe-grinding on both sides in the move discussion; like a lot of Irish article naming discussions, the discussions tend to be less about following what the evidence says and more using it as an proxy argument over the/an Irish Language Act. ("British imperialism!" vs. "terrorist sympathisers!", to wit.) Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Number 57: said "the RM discussion is irrelevant" because Move Review (and Deletion Review) is about whether the process has been done correctly or not. As much as a closer of an RM has to weigh up consensus in the RM discussion, the closer of a MRV has to weight up consensus in the MRV discussion. In both circumstances, closing with their own opinion is inappropriate. Your comment would've been fine in the review itself; it's just as a closure I'm not too pleased with. Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  The process was incorrectly followed as the original close did not take into account of the relative weight of arguments based on actual policy-backed points. Vanjagenije could have just said 'close incorrect as original closer failed to assess consensus correctly' and left it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, but the whole point of MRV/DRV is that it discusses and formulates a consensus whether the procedure was followed or not. You can assert whether it was in the discussion, but closing a move review unilaterally like this defeats the entire purpose of the review process. The closing instructions at MRV state that a consensus at MRV is needed to overturn a closure, which clearly does not exist in this case. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just like you, Sceptre, I'm rather heavily biased in this case, but in the other direction. And I disagree that the consensus at MRV, which is needed to overturn your closure, "clearly does not exist in this case". I think it clearly does exist, and the MRV closing admin made the same kind of decision you made in the RM – a difficult one. I disagreed with your RM closure, and I agree with Vanjagenije's MRV closure. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the move review was wrongly closed and should be reopened. The closer did not even attempt to assess consensus in the review discussion but merely expressed their own view about the merits of the original move proposal. The place to do that would have been in the original move discussion, not in the move review and much less in closing it. Vanjagenije should not close any more discussions until they are confident that they understand the procedures we use to establish consensus. Sandstein 07:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was clearly a supervote. Reyk _YO! 07:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Vanjagenije makes a valid point about the impossibility to judge the comments' validity without taking the original discussion into account. How else are they meant to assign due weight to the arguments? While their closing statement could be construed as a supervote, the same could be said about Sceptre's, which would make this a case of a supervote (presumably based on policy) overruling another supervote (presumably based on the closer's opinion about what name is appropriate). Going back to the drawing board (reopening the original move request) might not be a bad idea. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is the right place to say this; however, since I did not participate in the RM I would like to point out that I've read a lot about Grace O'Malley and have even seen documentaries that included her. An actor who portrayed a warrior princess in a TV series was asked to host one of those documentaries about real-life, historical warrior princesses that included Grace O'Malley. She wasn't called "Gráinne Ní Mháille", nor "Ofgjdfjgdfjg", nor "Mr. Mxyzptlk", her name was spelled and pronounced "Grace O'Malley". That is her common name and the name to be searched the most by readers. End of story (or should be). The present title should stand... tall! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this was a supervote, but also agree with M.Bitton that the better resolution would be to go back to square one and have a new move request, in which proponents of both views can square off with their best arguments and evidence. I would wait for at least a few weeks from the end of this discussion before initiating such a thing, though. BD2412 T 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bah. I think the original close was brave. The strength of numbers went one way, the guidelines pretty strongly in the other. no consensus to move would have been the better close IMO. The question is, was the close of the original move discussion within discretion? I'd say no--the folks wanting the move just didn't make a strong policy-based set of arguments. You'd need a stronger numeric consensus to overcome the strength of arguments--even accounting for IPs etc. But then the move review didn't find consensus that the close should be overturned. I think we default back to the policy-compliant version and the previous status quo. So move back to Grace O'Malley and suggest folks debate the policy changes needed to do make Gráinne Ní Mháille the right name per polices. I think some good arguments were made in the original discussion that indicate our policy needs updating. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes this was a supervote and it should be overturned. Assessing WP:CONSENSUS is our policy which should never be disregarded. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yet another irregular verb, "to close a discussion":

  First person: I assess discussions based on policy, not on a votecount.

  Second person: You see a consensus when there actually was none.

  Third person: They supervote.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:, Bernard Woolley would be proud of your Emotive conjugation. Nthep (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, fair - but also standard for all Wikipedia discussions. Especially those that centre on stylistic preferences.

My view on this kind of thing is that in cases of doubt, we should probably go back to (or maintain) the status quo ante, effectively sending it back for further discussion if people still feel so motivated. What's your feeling? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I can give you my opinion, since you asked, but I really don't think it's 100% clear where it "should" be in the general situation we have here, so it's only an opinion. I think it was a very difficult, evenly-divided evenly-argued discussion. I think User:Sceptre was a little aggressive in closing it the way they did, rather than no consensus to move, but not unreasonably so. I think the move review discussion was a very difficult, evenly-divided discussion. I think User:Vanjagenije was a little aggressive in closing it the way they did, rather than no consensus to overturn, but not unreasonably so. But I think this "move review review" here does have a consensus that the move review was in error, albeit with too many people using the pointless "supervote" snark for Sceptre's decision and/or for Vanjagenije's decision. So it seems like maybe the best thing to do is respect the only clear consensus there is, and reopen the move review. I don't see a need to go thru the anger-causing step of moving the article yet again until the move review is concluded. Which has the benefit of also meeting your suggested "status quo" argument. However, that would mean if the reopened move review resulted in "no consensus to overturn Sceptre's close", it should be moved. Good luck, by the way, finding a masochist willing to close it now... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did get a small chuckle out of your Appeal to Fowlds. :p Sceptre (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I find this discussion quite ironic considering the original highly contentious and debatable close of the original move request. Had the original close been done right and in line with Wikipedia policy and not simply supervoting the whole thing based on personal views then there would have been no problems.

Thus overturning Sceptre's supervote was the right action to restore some sense of credibility and respect to the core principles of Wikipedia. Proper procedure and policy must be adhered too. Not the will of a slight majority, in this case cultural nationalists and cultural feminists, whose arguments are based entirely on personal opinion over sources and policy.

The suggestion to reopen the move review due to a supervote is a non starter and only a slap in the face to those that called for the original discussion to be reopened for similar reasons. Why should the highly flawed and problematic move not be overturned and done right? At least the closer of the review took the evidence and policy into account!

What should be done as I have said from the start is that a proper discussion with all possible options provided and a thorough discussion on each to see where a compromise or a happy middle can be found. That is the most common sense thing to do. A neutral closer would help too. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Curious categories by User:IslamMyLoveMyLife

This user's curious predilection for non-sequitur categories has been discussed before, somewhere, but I haven't been able to locate it. In any case, this single-purpose account is again single-mindedly adding any and all Biblical/Koranic/Islamic characters to idiosyncratic categories created for the purpose, apparently with a misguided but well-intentioned attempt at balancing the Judaeo-Christian slant in the encyclopaedia's treatment of named figures in Abrahamic religion. Unfortunately, strange results have obtained, like Adam and Eve being put into "Islamic preachers" categories. Later we had things like "Muslim Saints in the New Testament". Now we have a category "Islamic Jews", which though potentially a bona fide description of a limited demographic of notable persons, definitely should not include everyone with a passing mention in ancient near eastern scripture(s). Something needs to be done, both about the user's odd behaviour and about the sorting of "Biblical" "people" into categories suitable for their position in Islamic tradition and/or scripture. GPinkerton (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you people please, suggest me a forum where i can know more about Wikipedia Rules and guidelines and What is wrong with the Category:Islamic Jews it's name is fair? IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's an odd phrasing of a category. Several of the mythical individuals aren't even Jewish: Noah, Enoch (ancestor of Noah), Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Balaam is complex to define.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was here [67]. Yes, now IslamMyLoveMyLife is going through all people or characters from the Hebrew Bible or New Testament with any connection to the Quran or Islamic traditions and categorising them as "Islamic Jews". What sense does it make to call Adam and Eve "Islamic Jews" [68]? Or Balaam a figure from the Hebrew Bible, as the article says he is a dvinier...Every ancient reference to Balaam considers him a non-Israelite...he is reviled as a "wicked man" in both the Torah and the New Testament... no clear reference is made to Balaam in the Qur'an. However, the commentators argue that he is the one to whom the following text is referring:....His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. IslamMyLoveMyLife has put this villainous non Jewish character into catergories "Muslim Saints from the Old Testament" [69] "Early Islamic Preachers" [70] and others and now into his category "Islamic Jews" [71]. Utterly absurd and I have to wonder if he even looks at what the articles about these figures say. He tried to put Goliath and Og, villainous giants, into categories including "Early Islamic preachers" [72] and "Muslim saints" [73]. He has been advised on his talk page several times by sympathetic editors to discuss changes first but after coming off a block he immediately resumes the same behaviour. I propose a topic ban from categories and from dealing in any way with people or characters from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament as he is laughably ignorant on those subjects.Smeat75 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You explain the category "Islamic Jews" as "This category refers to the various Jews whose worships and traditions were in line with Islamic beliefs, even before the establishment of Islam."

• Does the term "Islamic Jews" generally exist or did you coin it?
• Does it have this meaning or is this a categorization of your own conception?
• Are there reliable sources that classify these figures in this manner, or are you judging them to meet your stated criterion?
• Why did you add non-Jews to this category?
• Is it significant that at least two people that you added to the category, Noah and Isaac, were drinkers of alcohol and therefore not living in line with Islamic beliefs?

Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this categorization counts as original research, and suggest reverting on sight unless the editor can provide evidence otherwise. I've also speedy-deleted the category, as it is (a) empty, and (b) unlikely ever to have any valid entries until a case can be made that this is no longer WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are all being reverted on sight but we have had to do this over and over and over and it is severely disruptive. It shows no sign of stopping and the editor shows no sign of listening. Johnuniq can you look at this and take some action please?.Smeat75 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the categorisations which is an issue here (although I think that categorising Jesus as an Islamic Jew is a bit of an odd thing to do). IslamMyLoveMyLife was blocked on 23 September for disruptive editing and adding unsourced content to Seth. Today when their block expired, they went straight back to Seth and started adding more dubious content - these edits make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice which go beyond what the source added can reasonably be said to support. Combined with their categorisation shenanigans, I'm not confident that their continued contributions would be a net positive to the project. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning on their talk page. I suggest a lengthy block (a month or more) if they ignore it. They've now been warned enough times. If they continue after that, we may want to consider whether they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that as well as being WP:OR these cats also violate WP:CATVER as there is no sourced infoi in the articles to support them. MarnetteD|Talk 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the 72 hour block for creating categories like Category talk:Islamic prophets from the Hebrew Bible wasn't enough. Blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Great. The issue now remains of how to categorize: 1.) Old Testament people that are

a.) venerated in Islamic tradition, and/or

b.) appear in the Koran or other early Islamic scripture; and

2.) New Testament people that are

a.) venerated in Islamic tradition, and/or

b.) appear in the Koran or other early Islamic scripture.

Adam and Eve, Noah, the sons of Noah and their wives, Abraham, Isaac, David, Solomon, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and an unspecified selection of the (more than-)twelve apostles are all Muslims according to righteous tradition, as well as Jews and/or Christians according to those religions. (Yes, ever since Eusebius (at latest) the Garden of Eden has been considered by Christians to be populated by Christians who were rescued – along with all the "Christian" (i.e. Jewish) patriarchs, from hell on Easter morning – viz. 1 Peter, the Gospel of Nicodemus, etc.) The Cave of the Patriarchs has been a predictably furious point of contention for a good many centuries. Some kind of neutral system of categories is needful, but it is also true that the pages themselves ought to discuss the persons' relevance in each of these religious traditions. GPinkerton (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, I suggest the creation of Category:Figures venerated in Islamic tradition to resolve this. This deliberately avoids the issue of whether people were "Islamic" prior to Mohammed or creation of the Quran, which, since devout Muslims who believe that Islam is the one true religion that has existed from the beginning of time clearly believe this, and everyone else clearly does not, risks an eternal edit war on the issue. The use of the term "figures" also side-steps the issue of whether these were actual historic people, or mythical figures. However, since Islamic tradition is not monolithic, even this might be controversial: to avoid conflict, we might need to break this down further into sectarian subsets, for example Category:Figures venerated in Sunni Islam, Category:Figures venerated in Shia Islam etc. We could perhaps also have a category Category:Figures mentioned in the Quran, since I think the text of the Quran is (I believe) not controversial between sects.

WT:CAT and WT:ISLAM seem to be the best places to discuss this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

What about Category:New Testament figures venerated in Islam? I'd suggest the same for the "Old Testament", but I recall someone (Debresser?) argued using the term "Old Testament" to describe the Hebrew Bible has a Christian bias. Maybe M Imtiaz has ideas. AFAIK, there is no difference between Sunnis and Shias when it comes to venerating OT and NT figures.VR _talk 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. That could very well have been me. The term "Old Testament" is indeed a Christian term, which is why Category:Old Testament is a subcategory of Category:Christian Bible, which is a subcategory of Category:Bible alongside Category:Hebrew Bible . I am not sure how it can be avoided, though. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Community general sanctions for beauty pageant articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Related discussions:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The latest chapter in beauty pageant socking
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 151#Can you help with COI sockfarm investigation?
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sasha Boudville
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69

For a long time now our articles on beauty pageants and pageant contestants have been under attack from a number of sockfarms which are very likely paid promotional campaigns, and there is probably coordination between them. The three above are currently active and have been confirmed by checkuser to be different individuals (each is located in a different country), and the oldest of these has been active since early 2016. User Bri has listed even more at the top COIN thread in that list above, with cases dating back over a decade. Each one also engages in logged-out socking when their accounts are blocked. Using temporary page protection on their current targets is very ineffective because there are so many articles, they just move on to different ones, and we end up chasing them all around the project.

I'm proposing a general sanction for this topic area, drafted below.

Any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, may be semiprotected indefinitely by any administrator, citing this general sanction in the protection log.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Query are these not reasonably within the scope of the BLP discretionary sanctions? any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, there are a number of existing sanction schemes which might apply, which can be said about many of the areas under discretionary/general sanctions. We can already protect articles, socking is already not allowed, etcetera. I'm more looking for a specific community endorsement of indefinitely semiprotecting articles in these topics specifically, in response to this specific problem. It is skipping a few steps in the usual escalating protection process (which has been shown to be ineffective here) after all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Articles about the pageants themselves may not fall under BLPDS. It's also a different problem - the intention behind BLPDS is to stop badly sourced negative information being added, whereas this is about spamming. MER-C 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As the proposer mentioned, I've been trying all the usual channels to limit the damage in this area, which after all is covered by worthy initiatives like greater representation of women, LGBTQ issues and events, and related sociology. Reports to SPI, COIN, ANI and WPOP are individually acted on, and a WikiProject-level effort to improve sourcing has gained a little bit of traction, but the cumulative effect of this much incoming crud needs a more coordinated and more effective response. A general sanction could help. As for the question of whether existing BLP protocols are sufficient, I think not; they do not cover the central pageant articles like Miss Earth, annual spin-offs like Miss Earth 2020 and national-level articles like Miss Earth Malaysia and their annual spin-offs; I'd estimate we have several hundred of these being actively targeted presently. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with up to two modifications: (1) the protection level should be ECP, not semi and (2) please also consider an ECP article creation restriction. MER-C 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think we should only pass the minimum restriction necessary to alleviate the problem. One can always come back to AN and seek a bump up to ECP / article creation restrictions if semi is unable to resolve the issues, or bring them sufficiently under control. We must remember all restrictions will have an unintended side effect on legitimate, good faith contributions - that side effect must be minimised. The cure can never be worse than the problem itself.

  I think existing powers are probably sufficient to deal with disruption here, and certainly nobody would complain about these very reasonable semis compared to all the actual problematic protections we've got going around the wiki, but this is a very reasonable and limited proposal, and I suppose it provides extra support/encouragement to admins in the area, so I'm happy to support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is a perception that existing methods can deal with the problem, I'm not sure it's backed by evidence. Look at the response (by the proposer of this GS) at RFPP to my request last week for semi protection on a specifically targeted pageant article for example. Perplexingly the answer was it was too badly targeted to remedy with protection: This socking is so widespread that protecting one page is unlikely to have much effect. That's exactly why we need either a collective change in perception about what is/is not effective and how to apply the existing tools, or a change in authority to effectively employ the tools. - Bri.public (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bri paraphrases my intent there pretty accurately, and I was thinking about this since working on those two cases a few days ago. I did a mass-revert on one of the sockfarms' IPs after dropping a few range blocks I thought would help, and then closed my work laptop for the weekend. When I opened it again this morning and refreshed my contribs, all of those reverts had been restored by a different IP, which I also mass-reverted. That was something like 60 articles. Current policy would support me going through and semiprotecting all of them temporarily, with escalating protection if (when) disruption resumes, but why bother doing all that work for a temporary fix? They'll just be back when protection expires. IMO indefinite semiprotection of affected articles is a justified response, but it's somewhat beyond the protection policy, so I would like to hear that the community agrees. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Very strong support I have been digging in that issue years ago, only to get a rap on my fingers as being annoying. But Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova/Archive might be connected too. The Banner talk 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Banner thanks for your ongoing efforts in this area. One of those two sockfarms you listed is indexed in "the latest chapter", link at the top of this section. The other is not; feel free to add it. - Bri.public (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, after that rap I used some non-priest-approved language and promised myself not to edit in that field again, knowing that the community would regret that in the long run. So, no. Here ends my involvement. The Banner talk 17:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

One last breach of my promise: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove The Banner talk 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure what area needed this more, this one or pro wrestling (which got its own sanctions). This is going to hopefully help exhausted editors like The Banner here keep their sanity. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, a long-term problematic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am pleased to report that this is now the second time I've suggested a GS and someone actually proposed it shortly after. I'm not bitter, you're bitter!. Support, I would also support stronger sanctions. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I’m persuaded. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, convincing report. Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC).
• Support, per Ivanvector's reasoning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It needs doing. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC).
• Oppose Any page protection should be temporary, even if it is for a long time. Benjamin (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Indefinite is not infinite. Any administrator will be able to remove the semi-protection if they believe it will no longer be necessary, non-administrators can request this at WP:RFP. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

    Thryduulf, if this is enacted any administrator could not reverse the restriction. It would take AN or the original administrator to reverse the protection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Personally I would prefer ECP too however as noted above we can always revisit this if Semi doesn't work. –Davey2010^Talk 11:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, though I'd rather start with Semi and we can move to ECP if that proves ineffective. ECP is strong stuff for a reason, and in my opinion should only be used in pretty extreme circumstances - we don't want to drive new editors with a legitimate reason to be here away because they can't edit their desired subject area. That being said, the nomination is convincing and I'm all for semi-protection to prevent paid editing sockpuppets in an area where that's a bad problem. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Based on the nomination and linked pages I'm convinced that this is, unfortunately, a necessary and proportionate step. Thryduulf (talk)
• Support with gusto. This is probably the worst cesspit on Wikipedia. Pageants, FFS. What century is this? Delete the lot, I say. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible to protect Miss Earth 2020 now? The IP block evasion is a daily occurrence. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Bri: I've put a 1-week semi-protection on it, just as a normal admin action. That should hopefully hold back the disruption until this discussion is closed and sanctions applied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support I have a number of these on my watchlist and it's a constant source of frustration (so much so that I am ashamed to admit I've almost given up). This would be of great benefit. Glen (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per JzG/Guy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4

Naleksuh (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Should paid editors from national public health agencies be topic banned from COVID-19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This DYK hook is why I started editing from a very very long hiatus. Please see this thread in regard to my allegations around the CDC. In fairness, I think that any paid editor from any national public health agency should not be editing COVID-19 related articles. I'll let the editor know here. No fault to him personally. --Investigatory (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be encouraged as they have expertise and access to sources. The attempt to assert that they have a conflict of interest is similar to attempts by creationists to demand equal cover to science - something we reject. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also ... "Why I started editing from a very very long hiatus". According to the OPs contribs, they had never edited before 12 September this year, unless it was as an IP. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism, Fancruft and Puffery on Ariana Grande.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, the Ariana Grande article has been taken in control by a vandalistic editor user:Mirrored7, who has broken the 3RR rule multiple times, despite several warnings. They have also been blocked once for their disruptive edits. No admin is looking into this, and it's worrying, because the entire article is infested with puffery and fancruft (+ unsourced, misleading, false info, and stuff with no consensus), especially the lead and short description. Please look into this. BawinV (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

BawinV, I've given them a block -- their second for this exact thing -- but be careful, I think if I'd wanted to check closely, I might have found you'd also edit-warred there. —valereee (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I just did check, and I see six reverts in a 24-hour period by BawinV at Taylor Swift, including one with an edit summary inappropriately calling Mirrored7's editing vandalism, which is widely regarded as a personal attack. BawinV obviously knows about 3RR, I'd be interested to hear why they chose to do that - it looks to me like an edit war with two equally enthusiastic protagonists. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, yeah, I decided to be less lazy and went and checked their talk, too, and they've been warned before. Gave them a short block, too. —valereee (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I think that's fair - I've offered them some advice on their talk about the vandalism accusations. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Project Veritas Wiki Page.

re Project Veritas

Legal threat against editors and admins collapsed

It's opening paragraph has been edited and is full of outright false and misleading information. They do not deceptively edit anything, they are not right wing, they work against wrong doing no matter where it lays, and they are not tied to the Trump campaign in anyway. Getting a donation from someone is not tied to a campaign. The rest of the bio is misleading in the way that it describes lawsuits against Project Veritas but does not go on to detail how Project Veritas won all of them. It is very clear that a lot of this was lifted from left leaning news articles that have since been retracted for libel. This wiki is full of libel and I have reported it with screen shots to Project Veritas's legal team, along with the 2 usernames who edited it today. It is also concerning that it is a locked from edit to all but a select few, and those select few are filling it with libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSTLewis (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The above editor has been locked due to the clear legal threat issued here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CSTLewis blocked indefinitely for the comment above, which is an obvious legal threat. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And he went on to say, on his talk page, that what he said here wasn't a legal threat - then went on to make a VERY explicit legal threat, for which he lost TPA. Crocodile Dundee's famous "That's not a knife" scene comes to mind. WaltCip-(talk) 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, his complaint that the lede is plagiarised seems to be without merit. Thus far, none of the sources I've examined via Earwig's copyvio checker have hit on anything in the lede, and the "most likely to be a violation" source seems to be a blog post that uses a Wikipedia article almost wholesale. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, they have tried this exact same trick before. It's basically an attempt to remove the accusations made against PV by news sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Thanks! I was wondering about that. Couldn't be bothered looking into it after the silly legal threats and other statements. Especially finding out that they warned [74] an editor (and so I guess probably "reported" them) even though this editor had done nothing (for all time [75]) other than fix a missing word that didn't change what was being said [76], and therefore couldn't reasonably be held responsible for any of this alleged slander even if there was some. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Rollbacker, Vandal template, etc

I was wondering...recently I noticed that there is no vandalism or rollback features on my editing choices. Yet, I still seem to be a Rollbacker. Were some editing abilities altered wiki-wide since 2019, or were these rights that were removed from me in 2019, and not yet reinstated? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, you appear to still be a rollbacker. The vandalism templates are usually a Twinkle thing, and Twinkle appeared to be working for you two weeks ago - has something changed with your Twinkle setup? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, I am not sure. I don't use the tools a lot; I have the tools in case I need them. I was just noticing that, when undoing an edit, there is typically a vandalism undo text in red, which automates a lot of that, and it was missing. Was there a change in how that editing is done? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: in your preferences make sure the "Twinkle" box is checked. You might have to clear your browser's cache if you haven't already. – Frood (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice; its was very helpful and I meant to stop by to say thanks earlier. Better late than never, I suppose. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandalism

Can someone please indef semi-protect my user talk page both here and on Wikidata? The latter is getting hit really hard with vandalism from a User:Jack Gaines sock. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been using the same signature since 2016, but one user, SmokeyJoe, in insistent that it doesn't comply eoth WP:SIGAPP, despite the fact I was told in 2016 it was fine here, according to the same policy. And in 4 years, no one else has complained about it, and many people have similar double coloured signatures. And the link to my talkpage is clear, so I don't see an issue, because the colour differences do not affect ability to navigate to the blue (talk) link. Therefore I want admins to decide whether my signature is fine. If not, then I want proper guidance on what colours can be used to fix it (the external link on that page is using old versions of a guideline)- rather than an unhelpful "change it" followed by a user badly changing it "for me" and screwing up the text as in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2044 Summer Olympics, when they changed username displayed to User:Joseph23022302. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302, I don't have a problem reading it, but on the face of it, the yellow is probably insufficiently contrasty against a white background. It's got a 1.51:1 contrast, whereas the guideline suggests at least 4.5:1. I believe that guideline is quite widely flouted, and I wouldn't personally have prodded you about it, but since you've asked, I think that number is unusually low. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Hypocrite alert - the green in my own sig is non-compliant, with a contrast of 3.6 - if anyone wants me to darken it, say the word... GirthSummit _(blether) 09:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

I don't think ruling on signatures is an admin function. I find your "Joseph" barely legible, which means that someone with vision problems might not be able to read it. That's why SIGAPP suggests the WCAG-specified minimum contrast. See MOS:ONWHITE (also linked from SIGAPP) for a list of colors that meet the minimum.

And in 4 years, no one else has complained about it - Well, not exactly. Maybe you meant complained about it at your UTP? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

...and you were not told that your current signature was fine. When you were told that in 2016 the colour was #E6CF01, but it is now #ffcc00. There is a very quick and easy way to make sure that your signature is compliant: just use the default signature. You can then find a compliant colour at your leisure, or preferably just get on with building an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up here was so I could get it sorted, and get on with building the encyclopedia. Which considering I have an article on the front page today, I seem to be doing quite well at... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 (talk) <---Sufficiently sorted? I spent every bit of one minute on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, this is going to be challenging for editors with a number of common visual problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Weirdly no one has ever complained about mine even tho the orange fails WCAG AA and WCAG AAA, Anyway your signature is a pain to read but wouldn't say it was enough to bring here tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 09:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Spots on the retina cause a shimmering to occur away from the focal spot. Very pale (bright) colours exacerbate this, the colours pulsating with time. Davey’s doesn’t cause me any problem, I guess it could be the bracketing, the pale colour is in the middle, and it is not really so pale. No, this should not be at WP:AN, the policy section WP:SIGAPP should be sufficient. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have a hard time reading the yellow. Just like I had a hard time reading the yellow in the signature of HeartGlow30797 (see username at top of their page), who apparently recently changed their signature to eliminate the yellow altogether. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's a Norwich City thing, you could consider using their away strip colour, which according to our article is #005772, which looks like this: Joseph2302 That would give a contrast of >8:1, so would be fine. FWIW, I've decided to update my own sig to use standard colours recommended by MOS:ONWHITE. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OMG, what's next? Davey compliance? This may get out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed this is out of control, I've been using the blue and orange theme for the best part of 9 years here and honestly I don't ever recall anyone ever complaining over it so I shall not be changing mine any time soon. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, I'm quite glad I changed mine - I never thought mine was difficult to read before, but looking at it now it looks crisper. I feel like I'm wearing a newly ironed shirt, or a pair of freshly polished shoes - you should try it out! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Check this out -------->Davey2010^Talk <-------- it looks so natty. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The change looks good on you, GirthSummit! GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• My 2¢: sometimes automatic contrast rules for accessibility don't work as well as they should. There's a good article on the topic that I read a while back, "The Myths of Color Contrast Accessibility". However I think in this case, they have accurately detected a potential accessibility issue. I have decent vision (I wear glasses sometimes but get by just fine without them) and no color perception problems that I know of, and the yellow is a bit tough to read for me. I imagine it would be more the case for folks who do have some visual problems. I don't know if anyone needs to force you to change it, but I think if I knew my signature could be tough for some folks to read I would try to fix it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Gone for a different theme- Sussex County Cricket Club colours of dark blue and black. I assume that this is much better for everyone. And although it maybe didn't need admin attention, I think bringing focus to the widespread issue (some users above have checked and changed their own sigs) was a good thing. MOS:ONWHITE was the most helpful advice, as I hadn't seen that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Joseph2302, looking good! Thanks for doing that, while I didn't have big problem reading your old one, that one is definitely easier on the eye. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we seriously arguing about the colours an otherwise compliant signature is displayed in, where 'hovering over' gives you a clear display of the username? I would have way more difficulties if Davey2010 would be on the same talkpage as Davey0210 or when Joseph2302 is on the same page as Joseph2032 or Josef2302 (or imagine any of two consecutive usernames from these 400 arguing). I can see that 'Joseph' is less readable and that it is not optimal, but I have more problem with User:Guy's, User GorillaWarfare's and my own signatures than with Joseph (hint: I have a script enabled that, standard, puts a light-blue background under the bluelinked usernames of unaltered signatures), but I know that all of you have more interesting things to write than just their signature, Joseph2302 is that guy with the yellow wriggles and a green '2302' behind it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I don't think anyone's arguing Dirk - this has been one of the more congenial discussions I've been involved in recently, and I think everyone has come out of it pretty well. I've got a new sig that I like, the OP seems pretty happy with his new cricket theme - it's all good. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the more congenial? We can't have that...if you're not struggling under pressure over a user name, or wearing full armor combatting drama at ANI/AN, you're not a knight of the round table. ^[stretch] (<--Just checking out a new template I created) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra people who can't see the signature don't know to hover over the signature. Accessibility is not about you. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, that is something different than ‘... visually very disturbing ...’ and ‘..policy non-compliant..’ I do not disagree that it could be colored better, but there are, as I mention, way worse problems with our signatures than a (partially) low-visible signature. We have editors (admins) that use signatures that do not represent (just link) usernames, or usernames that are not (easily) distinguishable from others. This was certainly not worth becoming all aggressive over. The issue here is not the signature! Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I agree there are worse signatures. It doesn't mean it's okay for us to say fuck you to people who have vision problems which make the signature difficult or impossible to read though, which is how you are coming across. I have said before that I find such attitudes disgusting, and I'll say it again. Wikipedia should be as welcoming as possible to people with various levels of accessibility, especially when there are no good reasons for us to be unwelcoming, and someone wanting a specific colour combination is not a "good reason". Signatures have certain requirements, and ensuring people can actually read them so they have a way to refer to the person other than as 'that person who just seems to have white space for their name' or 'the person who forced me to use tools so I could work out how to refer to them', is one of them. Note that this isn't even the worst accessibility problem, the WMF continually ignoring the CAPTCHA problem is probably one of those, and I say this as someone who is often not so criticial of the WMF. But again, the fact that the are worse problems doesn't mean we should ignore the other problems that do exist. Note also that this is nothing to do with the OP who did more or less the right thing. When someone complained but they weren't sure, they brought it here and took on board the feedback. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I am sorry if I come across like that, that was not what I meant. That still does not need a ‘... visually very disturbing ...’ and ‘... policy non-compliant ...’, (it is a guideline) which is a similar ... disgusting attitude. I am sure hat J would have been more compliant when addressed with another attitude. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow weekend, folks?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Today we learned that editors with a signature in blue and black are clearly better than the ones with white and gold. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with the others here that you probably ought to change it but that you shouldn't be forced to. Looking at the issue from the perspective of building the encyclopedia, there are benefits both for and against custom signatures, but it's hard to come up with any good argument for why a particular custom signature is beneficial when you could switch to a more accessible one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure of the merger proposal

Earlier this year, six-year-old ATK (football club) (competing in the Indian super league) owner Sanjiv Goenka announced that he bought an 80% stake of 131 years old Mohun Bagan A.C. which is competing in the I-League; a new entity will be formed by the merger of both clubs, and the new entity will compete in the Indian super league starting from the 2020-2021 season. He announced the name of the new entity as ATK Mohun Bagan. The new entity has retained the players and the head coach of ATK and adopted the same jersey and logo of Mohun Bagan with a small modification. A few weeks ago, it was decided that ATK Mohun Bagan would merge into Mohun Bagan A. C. I do not think that decision to be an accurate reflection of the discussion that was held in that regard; I think it was affected by the votes of multiple new editors and IPs. While checking these accounts (M Kariyappa, Rajarshi Mondal, Aarul Chandekar, SoumyaEAST, Figoitjodfj), I found the account creation time and edit history of most of the editors who supported the merger to be similar in nature; thus, my suppositions that these accounts are SPAs working as meatpuppets/sockpuppets of an experienced editor. There are lots of tweets and FB posts that can be seen as canvassing attempts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. After the closure of the merger, there were many attempts to rename the current article as well 1, 2, 3. Pinging the closer and other established users who participated in the RFC related to this subject on the article's talk page for their comments (@GenQuest:, @ArsenalFan700:, @ArnabSaha:, @GiantSnowman:, @Drat8sub: @Ludost Mlačani:, @Paine Ellsworth:, @Coderdaddy1369:) and inviting others' opinions about the closure of the merger proposal.-- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Agree. The discussion was closed abruptly without clear consensus. Also, someone says in one of the tweets, "As a Wikipedia admin". off-wiki canvassing by the admin? Who is this admin? ❯❯❯   S A H A 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• What are you asking for here? For uninvolved administrators to assess whether the closer interpreted the consensus correctly? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• My interpretation is they are asking for assessment on whether the discussion was unfairly disrupted by SPAs, canvassing, socking etc, and whether that would warrant a different close. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• So I am going to put forward my thoughts-

As we all know that ATK Mohun Bagan is a new club which came into existence after the merger of ATK FC and Mohun Bagan's football team on June. (Atleast that is what the officials & owners said), so we should have a new page for the new team. But interestingly all the official social media pages and websites have done a common change. They have just put ATKMB in place of ATK, & all the records which belonged to ATK now belongs to ATKMB. For eg: https://www.indiansuperleague.com/standings Moreover the owners are more or less the same. So as far my views the ATK page should be moved to ATK Mohun Bagan, (as all the official websites and social media pages have done the same) and the official address of the team is same as of ATK, so I don't think there is any much doubt here. The page will have 2 foundation dates i.e. 1) 2014 as Atletico de Kolkata and 2) 2020 as ATK Mohun Bagan. Will appreciate your views! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Coderdaddy1369 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We are not going to have a replay of the merge discussion here, we are only going to consider the close, if that is what is being asked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

All I will say as an editor of long-standing is that it is well established that when two existing football clubs merge, a new article is created for the new entity - e.g. Dagenham F.C. + Redbridge Forest F.C. = Dagenham & Redbridge F.C.. I believe that the merge discussion (and subsequent other discussions) was hijacked by fans with new accounts with an agenda, hence why that long established consvention was ignored. GiantSnowman 11:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the first step in disputing a close is to take it up with the closer. I had a quick look and didn't see where this has happened although it's been a while since the close so maybe I missed it. If no discussion has been attempted with the closer, most of this seems premature. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, a discussion with the closer was started, but nothing happened User talk:GenQuest#ATK Mohun Bagan ❯❯❯   S A H A 08:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• I already said, either create a new article or rename and move ATK (football club) to ATK Mohun Bagan Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! As the user who pretty much started these discussions, I think I should say something here. First, I did go and ask the closer about this decision and said that this should have been left as “no consensus” and thus both pages remain not merged for now. That did not happen though.

Right now there is just a lot of confusion mainly due to a few factors. 1) The club has been very tightlipped and quiet over what they actually are. Whether this is because they don’t want to alienate Mohun Bagan fans is up for debate but they haven’t been the most clear. The clearest thing we have from the club is from its facebook page, where they say “this is a new, merged club that was formed as part of the merger between the football section of multi-sport club Mohun Bagan AC and former ISL side ATK”. Keep in mind, no one brought this description up until a week ago when I did. Also 2) What didn't help was the brigading and canvassing from new users that most likely came from social media fan pages. Each discussion, whether it was about merging articles or renaming, had a bunch of new users all of a sudden show up and skew the discussion. As noted above, a lot of these users still have not edited other pages that have nothing to do with the subject or haven’t been used at all since. There was also one anon user who would message a bunch of users and abuse and harass users. Thankfully that anon was dealt with and blocked.

However, I also want to bring up a 3rd factor which is lack of reliable sourcing and reasoning. One thing I didn’t like about these discussions when closed were the reasons. None of the closers ever really provided a reason for why the pages were merged or names were unchanged and it left me feeling as if we just wanted the discussion closed for the sake of it. For example, I thought closing the above linked discussion because the team wished the club congrats on their birthday was premature. I re-read these discussions to make sure but I felt like I always tried to provide a least some sources for assertions, both primary and independent, while others kept using emotion reasoning such as “we have never done this before” or “this would ruin the history of the club” which are not good reasons to bring up in a wikipedia discussion. What I would like to see moving forward is a proper discussion done, using sources, to see what should be done. I personally believe now that we should have a separate page for ATK Mohun Bagan FC and have outlined my reason and sources here. This would essentially follow what GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) outlined above. If we can move forward, that would be great. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like an uninvolved administrator’s assessment on whether or not the closer interpreted the consensus correctly or if it was hijacked by SPAs, canvassing, socking, etc. and that would warrant a different close.-- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use your mop for editorial advantage (ATK-MB footy rivalry)

This tweet (As a wikipedia admin i hv been fighting the last few days to have a separate ATK-MB Page deleted or merged with the original MB Page) was noted in a recent SPI report. I'm not trying to out anybody, but on the hopes that whatever admin owns that twitter account reads it, I'm posting here. Please folks, if you're an admin, you need to keep your editorial and your administrative lives separate. If you're using your admin status to push your personal point of view about a topic, you really need to go read WP:INVOLVED. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That user participated in the discussion linked above (also linked here). As you said, we don't want to out anyone but he is not an admin on wikipedia. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I really doubt they are an admin. Its like paid editors claiming they're an admin to get business, they're just doing it to try to sway people's opinion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Sigh. OK, what am I supposed to do now? Should I be pissed that people are impersonating admins, or just ashamed that I'm so naïve I got suckered by it? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Those options aren't mutually exclusive . I think we've all been there or someplace very close. You've helped educate our editing and administrative team, and so just move on with that knowledge. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that was tweeted in JUly. Perhaps any off-wiki evidence connecting them here should go to ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to put up my point here since the validity of my user account has been questioned at the start of the discussion. I have been keeping a close look on Indian football for years. (In fact, I am quite senior by age than many of the users here as per the information provided by them in the user pages but junior by experience at wikipedia.) When I looked at what was happening in social media regarding a simple business takeover and looked at what was happening on wikipedia as a result of those fan fights spilling onto the wikipedia I could not stay away. In order to keep wikipedia pages free from being affected by a group of East Bengal fans trying to malign Mohun Bagan, I provided necessary information to show that ATK Mohun Bagan FC is a continuation of Mohun Bagan football division. I showed AFC entry criteria to prove that participation of a so called new club at AFC tournaments in it's first year is impossible. The fact that Mohun Bagan A.C. changed their name registered at IFA (WB) to ATK Mohun Bagan FC and ATK got disbanded proved strongly that the page merger decision was right. If my user account is new, does that nullify my points or contributions? M Kariyappa (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Block review

I have partial hardblocked 62.202.7.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from MDPI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for three years. This IP address has been stable since 2017, only editing to promote MDPI, a constant target of promotional editing. Anyone is free to undo or change the block, there are articles on MDPI journals this IP has edited. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Good block from my view. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Good block. From Special:Diff/916766840, it looks like that IP address has been used by an "MDPI employee" and the IP editor is speaking on behalf of MDPI with the word "we". — Newslinger talk 04:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Broad area issue - Armenia/Azerbaijan

Hello,

If we could get a few (more) admins specifically taking a look at some of the related pages to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

I've just spent a fair while cleaning out Ilham Aliyev's article (and my thanks to the 4 accounts and 5 IP editors who made no fewer than 25 reversions in the last 2 days), including a significant number requiring rev-delling. I'm confident this is not the only page that would be affected, and it wasn't on protection until 25 minutes ago. Some extra glances through RFPP to prioritise ultra-rapid vandalism would also be useful. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Had a bit of the same at Presidency of Ilham Aliyev as well, and had to semi-protect it. I'll try and keep my eye out a bit more tonight. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My vandalism-fighting account has a bunch of reverts on related articles. If it can be of any use, and there might have to be some sorting, the uname is User:AcebulfALT. Ping me and I'll even do the sorting if it's a good idea. Acebulf (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• Azerbaijani Armed Forces probably needs RPP.
• Nikol Pashinyan many reverts
• Leyla Aliyeva many reverts
• Mehriban Aliyeva, many reverts, already RPP.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebulf (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added discretionary sanctions notices to the talk pages of all of the articles mentioned above. I've also semi-protected Azerbaijani Armed Forces, and all of the articles here are currently semi-protected. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, after I protected Shusha yesterday and logged it in, I noticed that in the 2020 log for Armenia - Azerbaijan conflict at that moment we only had three articles, all protected by me, and no users. DSs can be and probably should be applied more broadly, especially since we have extensive sock activity in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, I can't even begin to imagine how azwiki and hywiki are dealing with this right now... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Both are ultranationalist projects, so you can imagine what they write (and what they have written five years ago) about Nagorno-Karabakh.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has been heavily disrupted by sockpuppetry, as you can see in Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict § Article under attack by MASSIVE sock puppeting since the last hour! and the rest of the discussions on the page. — Newslinger talk 07:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and I earlier semi-protected it as arbitration enforcement; it was later extended-confirmed protected since the socks were growing to confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

IP disruption at my talk page

I start getting strange messages at my user talk page. Already for some time, I have IPs correcting typos in my responses like this, I do not like it but they make no harm so I just let it go. But yesterday they started to ask really strange questions ([77]: the correct answer is that it is written on my user page, and otherwise the correct answer would be that this is not their fucking business; this: they can check it as well as I can), and they get unhappy if I do not reply [78] or suggest they are evading the block [79]. Does anybody understand what the hell is going on? May be a known LTA? I can of course semi-protect my talk page, but I would really prefer not to, because sometimes I get real requests from IPs and new users.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Come on, Ymblanter, please admit they were trying to help and they asked what they asked because they were interested. They didn't intend on any offences at all. They don't have any connection with a known LTA on the English Wikipedia. If any offences, sorry about this. --94.73.36.20 (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, your behavior is clearly harassment. Knock it off, now. One more unsolicited post to Ymblanter's page and you'll be blocked. Consider yourself interaction-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

user:Havsjö

he keeps vandalising wikipedia and has alot of warnings on his talkpage, which he keeps ignoring, he just blanked and vandalised Greater Germanic Reich without giving an explanation (which i righfully reverted and warned him), and whats worse that admin user:DrKay told me to "discuss" his blatant blanking on the talkpage Gooduserdude (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify for passers-by, Havsjö did not blank the article, he removed the infobox added by Gooduserdude. Moreover, Gooduserdude, your adding and removing of the IB is confusing:

After adding an IB to the article, you removed it here with the summary: removing the country infobox i inserted, am sorry but i realised it did not meet the WP:OR and WP:RS policy requirements.

Then re-added it the next day with the summary: am really sorry for all the reverting back and forth, but the real reason i deleted was NOT because of WP:OR and WP:RS, as i have provided realible sources, the infobox and the other parts are based what is already is on wikipedia, also i LIED when i said "that little infobox i inserted broke tons of other wp policy" the reality is if your read wp policy the infobox is actually recommended as it is in fact very helpfull (sic [a lot of sic]).

Que? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

meybe you should included all my edit summaries before adding that "Que?" comment,

edit summary the very same day: ok the real reason i deleted was because i thought the greater germanic reich was just post ww2 propaganda, as it was a secret and NOT mentioned in mein kampf, but it is real, i should stop reading conspiracy theories on the internet again am very sorry, you see in fact hitler never mentions "germanic state" is such a way, in mein kampf "germanic state of the german nation" is not in the eastern europe expansion chapter and there is no evidence he is refering to any greater germanic reich, he secretly introduced the idea in 1921 and kept it a secret from the public, alternative ww2 axis victory books such as fatherland or the man in the high castle never mention any greater germanic reich, more than "nazi germany" or "greater GERMAN reich" nevertheless the greater germanic reich is real althought it was a secret from the public under whole hitler's life (1889-1945)

also the latest edit summary (before this with user:Havsjö) is the correct desription, i was at first confused myself(see above) but if you still dont belive me please read the mentioned wikipolicy and all other wikipolicies, i apologize for this whole misunderstanding, i will try to be more clear in the future user:Havsjö and user:DrKay, thank you and good day Gooduserdude (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Gooduserdude (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)(corrections)

What to do with an editor who has the key principle "I don't discuss "history" with Persians and Turks" - & another calling an editor a fascist - all in the same dispute

This is a new editor, User:Key Mîrza, see User talk:Key Mîrza#October 2020 where I told him it was unacceptable to say that to User:HistoryofIran at Talk:Medes#Kurds and Medes referring to another new user, User:Armanqur who yet another new user, User:Resource sharing, has been busy calling a vandal although this is clearly a heated content dispute. Ah, while writing this I had a notification from User:Austronesier that Resource Sharing has called Armanqur a fascist.[80] I think at least two topic bans might be in order. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• The earlier parts make me inclined to think TBAN, coupled with the facist reference, I'm not sure TBANs stop you stating other editors are facists Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• I support topic bans for both editors. Personal attacks can be prevented with blocks on top of the topic bans, and comments like Special:Diff/981378594 are not promising. — Newslinger talk 08:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Topic ban is not enough for them. Another new user Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi has joined them with similar nationalistic rants.[81][82][83] All of them use the talk page like a forum plus ignoring WP rules. Also look at this. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND case in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Dirokakurdi is  Technically indistinguishable from Armanqur. For the moment, I have blocked Armanqur for a week for sock puppetry. However, I am tempted to indef the lot of them for violating WP:BATTLE. Key Mirza, certainly, needs be to indeffed. Salvio 09:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait... Armanqur created Dirokakurdi? Why? They hold opposite POVs. Who creates a sockpuppet to argue with? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, it surprised me as well, as I was expecting the sock to belong to someone else, but they cannot be distinguished technically. Salvio 09:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some sockmasters and LTA cases use WP:GHBH and friend and foe tactics; debating, arguing, and edit warring with their own sockpuppets. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I do not see any benefit for us of continued possibility for Key Mirza to edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'm not sure about Resource Sharing either, among other things they seem pretty clueless, and their claim here "you do not have the right to delete a resource previously accepted by admins and staff." is dubious and they haven't explained it to me. They also made a bad report of User:TU-nor to AIV[84] that was declined[85] by User:EdJohnston. Also note there the comment by User:OhNoitsJamie about them possibly creating an account to get around sp at Medes. In fact the whole section on block evasion. That must refer to the edits made by user:178.241.138.115 as Resource sharing implicitly admits it on User:Oshwah's talk page.[86]
  • While writing this Key Mirza has posted to my talk page saying "Who do you think you are? My father? Stop acting me like a child. I do NOT talk history issues with Persians and Turks. Rather you or Wikipedia like it, or not. What's your problem? Are you okay? Key Mîrza (talk) 11:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Key Mirza for treating Wikipedia as a vehicle for sharing their aggressive nationalism and general bad attitude. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC).
• Resource Sharing continues to call other editors "vandals"[87]. The pattern of personal attacks already started even before they had registered an account, cf. this edit summary[88] by an IP which obviously links to Resource Sharing. Resource Sharing admitted previous editing in their very first registered edit[89]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Looking closer at their edits, I would say that in addition to personal attacks and edit warring, there is a fair amount of WP:CIR problems. --T*U (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  After reviewing his edits, I have just indeffed Resource Sharing for tendentious editing. Salvio 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ECP for draft space admin-create articles

Just as a followup to this thread, now archived, I've been given a list of sysop create-protected articles that have a corresponding draft. If there is no opposition, I am going to p-batch these down to ECP from full protection so that if/when the drafts are accepted at WP:AFC the reviewers can actually move them without waiting for an admin's approval. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, makes sense. Glen (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I use full salting because I want to be asked when someone wants to move a draft into mainspace for WP:BEANS reasons. MER-C 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, I can see both sides of this, but my gut feeling is we can trust the AfC reviewers to exercise good judgement. Can you provide some specific examples of pages on this list where ECP would be inadequate, so I can understand the issue better?

More generally, WP:ECPP2 (overwhelmingly) allowed use of ECP for salting, noting that administrators should choose the appropriate one at their discretion. I suspect most admins just instinctively go for full protection because that's what they're used to, but the general principle is that the least intrusive level of protection required to prevent disruption is what we should be using. So, ECP should be the default for salting unless there's specific reason to believe it won't be (or hasn't been) effective. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not with individual pages. I am more concerned about UPE spammers, such as Mar11, ImSonyR9, Isingness, Lihaas, Ceethekreator, Meeanaya, Siddiqsazzad001, Mgbo120, Mredidiongekong and TheImaCow reviewing pages for undisclosed payments. Getting EC is a prerequisite for getting an admin to hand over patrolling rights. MER-C 16:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, OK, thanks for the deeper explanation. I'm going to go with being opposed to this. In practice, this isn't that big a deal. I still suspect that many (of not most) of the admin-only protects could be reduced to ECP with no harm, but doing them all en-masse without review is sub-optimal and the effort to review them all would outweigh the benefits.

I'd encourage all admins going forward to be more selective about which level of protection they use (and maybe we could socialize concept more widely), but for the ones that currently exist, we can live with a day's delay to unprotect after an AfC reviewer makes a request. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support. Most of that list are bad protections. Some likely won't make it through AfC, yes, e.g. Draft:ConnectPay, but that's a bad reason to sysop create-prot ConnectPay. Per protection policy: Administrators should choose the appropriate level of create protection—autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed,[2] or full. Spam/promo articles created by new editors is almost never a good reason to sysop create protect. Protection policy should be amended to make this even more explicit. If an ECP editor is intentionally creating spam, we can deal with that through various venues. No reason "permission" should be required for them to create, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect a significant fraction of those have been salted before ECP was introduced, so I would not call them bad, but indeed in most cases ECP does the job. Accidentally, the above example of Theresa Greenfield shows that the situation is more complicated and probably should be treated on case-by-case basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

250 were after ECP was introduced and supported for create protection. At a spotcheck of 15, all were for notability/promo reasons, created by non-ECP editors, some with AfDs, some not. No evidence of LTA abuse or anything, not that it would matter as much when the bar to creation is ECP. I suspect the reason is just unfamiliarity / conservative views towards protection. I recall a few articles where editors have created articles with improper titles (e.g. dashes, or slightly awkward names) to get around the salting (in these cases, articles later kept). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also uneasy about this. Of course we can trust AfC reviewers in normal circumstances, but if someone decided to salt them with full protection rather than ECP, there was probably a good reason. E.g. the title is associated with a long-term abuse account that a regular editor might not necessarily spot. It could be that many of them are from before ECP was introduced, but that seems an unsteady assumption for a mass-downgrade of the protection level. Wouldn't it be better to check through them manually first? There aren't so many. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• I second or third the caution against mass-downgrading. Looking through the list, I see a number that were self-promotional or otherwise repeatedly deleted for complete lack of notability, (e.g., Aayush Sharma, Adam Dahlberg, BiglyBT and those just three that I'm familiar with from the first page of listings). These should remain sysop-salted to prevent further disruption. The mass-downgrading of these to any level of protection that is achievable through gaming will just encourage bad-faith editors who have already proven their persistence. Downgrading without examining these individually is asking for future disruption. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Video depicts Wikipedia sometimes and a user seeking help from admin

Sometimes talk pages and conflicts can turn realy nasty in Wikipedia, and sometimes people seek help from an administrator, which may not be around. (Redacted) Thinker78 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed part of your post as it does not seem necessary and has strong BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Kinda makes the whole post even more confusingly useless. Is there a point to this? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RevisionDelete Misuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking at the history of the Katie Hill (politician) article, and noticed that quite a few of the edits made when her scandal broke(and a few since) have had their text and edit summary censored. From the looks of it, almost all were edits that Muboshgu reverted, and Muboshgu is a Wikipedia admin, so I assume that Muboshgu is the one who deleted those details.

From the rules at WP:REVDEL, this is an inappropriate use of revision deletion. The edits were basically true, and the spirit of them is included in the current article. Even at the time it didn't meet any of the listed criteria.

Full disclosure, I made one of the original edits that's been censored, on October 19th 2019. (I was curious about how I'd phrased it, hence me finding this a year later.) I can understand reversion of the edit, but revision deletion seems quite excessive.

Thanks. Alsadius (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Incorrect and way over-the-top. First, there are only a few revision deletions in the last 250 edits (which go back to October 2019‎). Second, the diffs, which can be seen by admins, are blatant BLP violations that should be revision deleted. One might argue about that but the four revision deletions that I checked were very defensible. The edit summary reverting the 19 October 2019 edit was pretty clear and any doubt about whether redstate.com should be used to attack a living person could be asked at WP:BLPN. Finally, concerns should be discussed with the admin on their talk before bringing it to a noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies if the noticeboard approach was wrong. The guidelines for this stuff were really not clear, and it seemed like this was the correct place to bring this up. But yes, a message to the admin in question would likely have been a better approach, now that you mention it. Sorry. Alsadius (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• It was not INVOLVED editing because Muboshgu was removing a BLPVIO. The fact that it has since been reported on by reliable sources doesn't mean that the revdel was misued or improper when it was performed. I see no misconduct by Muboshgu. However, given what we know now I do think some of the edits/edit summaries which have been revdeled, including the one by Alsadius, no longer qualify as a BLPVIO and could be restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Johnuniq and Barkeep49. I responded to this user on my own talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• For the benefit of non-admins, Alsadius' edit [90] inserts the allegations currently described in the article's resignation section, except it doesn't discuss them as allegations (they are presented as undisputed facts) and it doesn't cite any source other than RedState, a conservative political blog. This is a serious BLP violation, it's certainly not the case that the current article says the same thing, and RedState is not an acceptable source for highly contentious information about living people. Hut 8.5 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • RedState was the only primary source at the time. (I'm not even a fan of them, ironically, because they're too partisan for my tastes.) I'm sure my phrasing was imperfect, and edits are to be expected on Wikipedia, so I don't mind that part. But even taking all of that as granted, it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:REVDEL. That policy only mentions BLP violations as a valid use in the case of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", and specifically excludes factual statements. It also says "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove 'ordinary' offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users". Thanks. Alsadius (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    • If you want to add this type of material to an article about a living person you must cite a high quality reliable source. This isn't complicated or subtle, it's one of the first things the BLP policy says. If you haven't got a high quality reliable source for something like that then don't add it to the article. These statements are not facts, even the RedState source you cited describes them as allegations, and even now the article describes them as allegations. This is a lot more serious than "imperfect phrasing", and frankly you should be apologising for adding it to a BLP. Hut 8.5 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

      Hut 8.5, to piggyback on that being about more than "imperfect phrasing", the RedState source that we're talking about included the text messages and a nude image of Katie Hill. They published the revenge porn. I still have that image seared into my memory and cannot rid myself of it. I wish I hadn't clicked on that link and didn't see that image. It was absolutely necessary to use RevDel to keep revenge porn out of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

      • I think your characterization is kind of ridiculous, but I'll grant the principle that keeping revenge porn out of the edit history is a valid reason for RevDel. If you think that's what it is, and most other admins posting agree, then I might as well withdraw this request, to save everyone some time. (I'll leave the section up in case there's some formal process to close it, but if there isn't, just delete this with my blessings).

Have a good day, all. Stay safe. Alsadius (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that the rev deletions here were proper. The deleted material stated allegations as facts in Wikipedia's voice, using an inadequate partisan source, and that was a clear BLP violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review closure of ITN nomination on Trump's COVID-19 infection

Kindly review the closure of this "In the News" nomination. The thread was closed after only an hour and a half of discussion, so several editors requested it be reopened in the related talk thread. I requested a reopening with the closer, but have not heard back. Qono (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's already been closed by two different admins. If the linked talk page discussion develops a consensus to re-open it, it would make sense to, but edit warring over the close would not. Certainly at the time, the close was obvious, though as the situation progresses, it might change. WilyD 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Slightly misleading. The second admin who closed it was "neutral" on closure and on re-opening. I was asked to build a consensus to re-open. I believe that there is a consensus.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM

There are a few dozen pages that have been in the "backlog" section for two weeks (so, open for 3 weeks without relisting). While you don't have to be an admin to close RM discussions, it doesn't hurt. Can admins take a look? power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tackled a few of these, which I feel are obvious moves (or not). I've tagged them all with the NAC status. If anyone thinks I've made a mess of any of them, please drop me a note. There were several others I was going to close too, but noted I'd voted in them, so I've left those. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput again

Just a heads up but the Indian CBI is due to announce tomorrow (Saturday) whether or not they are treating the death as a murder case. Doubtless there will be a flood of edit requests that we change the article forthwith. Nthep (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking. Fair enough, and hopefully if they do NOT declare it a murder case, this can be done with once and for all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Think I'm gonna go back to sniffing glue if they do. Btw, due to the semiprotection, probably won't be too many edit requests that get through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To quote Dr Phlox: "OPTIMISM, CAPTAIN!" (I'd link a YT-clip, but the last time I did that I got a COPYVIO-template on my talkpage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is calming down anytime soon [91] Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Understandably some people are going to want to look into how on earth conspiracy peddling was promoted for months. But that shouldn't necessarily cause continued page disruption on Wikipedia; I think it should calm down, after this report just released, or after the police report that should shortly follow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Having seen how articles and their talk pages like the 2020 Delhi riots have been treated, since this seems to becoming even more political and a point of pride for extreme Hindu nationalists, I'm not personally hopeful of that. Would glad top be wrong though. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:FerrousTigrus/ub/non-bias_hitler

I am aware of the need to set out points neutrally here, so if my words are a bit stilted, forgive me.

This is an oddly heated MFD, so I think it might benefit from a few extra admin eyes on the closure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing the link in the header so it will work properly when the discussion is off the main MFD page (by changing a "#" to a "/"). I am not getting involved in this discussion any further. Graham87 05:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have closed it. I looked at all the arguments, but in the end there isn't really any doubt about where consensus lies in this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, good close. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

MR close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I closed the move review for Parasite at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September. Since this is my first use of the move review close process as documented, I'd be grateful if someone could look and make sure I did things correctly. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed your title as you closed a move review, not a requested move. This closure however is a clear vote count that goes against the 2019 RFC that explicitly allows for PDABS in certain circumstances. As I said in the move review, most of the Opposers in the RM were re-litigating that RFC instead of arguing why the standard hadn't been met in this case, and thus the RM closer was correct to give them little to no weight. Iffy★Chat -- 08:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Moved my earlier comment at JzG's talk): Not that the underlying matter is gravely important (really, who gives a fuck whether a disambiguator contains a year?), but I think that it's ironical to close a complex, divided, 20-participants Move Review discussion with a supervote of your own. FWIW, the headcount in that MR was 12:9 for overturning by my count, making it dangerously close to "no consensus". I don't think that anyone in that MR was re-litigating the RM, on the contrary, it was all about merits of policy vs. practice, and principles of NOTAVOTE. I'm not really requesting that you reverse that close, but I find it... lacking. No such user (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No such user, so you want me to expand on my reasoning. Happy to do that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: you used an uppercase for Result meaning the template didn't work [92], I've fixed it for you [93]. You may want to check either a preview or the final save to ensure it produces the desired result to reduce the risk of such errors. BTW, are move reviewers supposed to modify the close in any way when overturning and not relisting? The text of Wikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews doesn't seem to mention anything. But the table does say "close RM" for cases when the page wasn't originally moved (which doesn't apply here) although in such cases the RM was already closed albeit incorrectly. It doesn't say that for cases like this where the page was originally moved but it's also seems a bit ambigious since it's partly referring to cases when you relist. I had a look and found this no consensus overturned to moved where the closer only noted the result in the template (and carried out the necessary moves) and this move overturned to not moved where the closer did amend the close to note the change. Which is sort of the opposite of the table. The second one was highly contentious so that could be one reason. The MR does provide the rationale so maybe it's not considered necessary to amend the move? But at a minimum, I think it may be helpful to note what overturn means in the template i.e. overturn to not moved/moved. P.S. I haven't notified either of the other MR closers since this isn't about them and I'm not suggesting they did anything wrong. If people do start to discuss such things please notify them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Thanks - I did wonder why it didn't change visually. I honestly don't know about the original close - the instructions only mention adding a parameter, not amending the close. The instructions also don't mention courtesy-notifying the original closer of the MR close, which I did anyway. I feel bad for Sceptre as this was a valiant effort. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• So discussion are just votes now? -- Calidum 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Suppose I'd better put my two-penneth in: I don't begrudge Guy for making the close at all; as long as you're taking the mission seriously, I've always found him to be one of fairest admins on the encyclopedia (sure, he's abrasive at times, but don't confuse not suffering bullshit with bad behaviour). I think that his closure of the move review is fine, and whilst I still maintain my closure was correct, I also accept that, at least, there wasn't a consensus to endorse; it's not like the other controversial MR close of a move I made, because I can tell Guy has the humility to admit he's new to the process. That said, I hope he won't mind me slightly refactoring the close template so the longer rationale is above the hide button, as we normally do for contentious MRs. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Sceptre, please feel free. And no disrespect at all to you, this is certainly not an indefensible close. I feel bad about it, and I hope you are not offended. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The MR was closed too soon. While MRs with a clear consensus can be closed after one week, most remain open much longer. The August ones, for example, were all open 3-5 weeks each. This one in particular was still very active and evolving when it was abruptly closed after the bare technical minimum of a week. One editor weighed in just nine minutes before it was abruptly closed. Knowing how long MRs stay open I usually only check MR once or twice a month, so I, for one, didn’t even get a chance to participate in this one at all. I suggest the community would be best served by reverting the premature close of this MR and letting nature take its course. —-В²C ☎ 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, it was closed after a week. Per the guidance. I would remind you that the status quo ante is not the move but the previous title. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The written guideline is one thing, which, btw, says at least seven days, reflecting the fact that MRs often are open much longer, especially when consensus is not clear after only seven days. I’m pointing out the unwritten conventions to usually allow much more than the minimum seven days before closing, conventions that have been followed for years at MR. I can’t recall a close/active MR ever being closed so abruptly, so it’s likely to rarely be an issue, hence no need to clarify actual convention in the guideline any further. Until now, apparently. But it really shouldn’t be necessary since you can revert your premature close. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, at least a week, and a close against overwhelming numbers. Reverting to status quo ante seems reasonable to me. As to what next, see below. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether that particular close “against overwhelming numbers” needed to be reverted to status quo ante was of course the topic of the discussion (and not for you to decide in a super vote close of the MR) which you closed abruptly and prematurely, before consensus could develop on that question either way. Please revert your close and let it progress where it’s supposed to continue, at MR, not in some obscure subsection of this AN. —В²C ☎ 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see both the RM and the MR as a local-consensus-v-global-consensus issue. In the RM, local consensus to not have pdabs cannot override the global consensus that pdabs are OK. Thus, Sceptre's discounting of !votes that did not apply global consensus was proper. Similarly in the MR, many people said it was a supervote based on the numbers, but global consensus is that we don't count heads. The close of the MR should have discounted overturn votes based on numbers. Also, I think involved/uninvolved !votes should have been taken into account. Given that the consensus at the time of close wasn't overwhelmingly clear and it had been open a week, probably the easiest/best solution is to reopen the MR and let more people !vote in it; give it 2-4 weeks total or until participation dries up. Lev!vich 06:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

On the underlying issue...

The original RM is unfinished business. Experience indicates that move requests rarely go away, and IMO Sceptre may well have been right on the merits. I'd like to suggest we reset the RM to "closing" and invite Sceptre to lead a panel close, to remove any appearance of supervoting. Does that seem equitable? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Good idea. Overturning this close does not mean that the Sceptre's result when applied to the RM itself was wrong. The arguments in favour of moving do appear stronger, and opposition is mainly from those who don't believe in partial disambiguation under any circumstances, despite the fact that the community has repeatedly said it's OK on occasion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, Yes. I focus here also on a specific comment from the MR: "The conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". I think that is correct, and the lack of any single objective standard clouds the issue here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, the policy page at WP:PRECISION shows examples of Wikipedia projects setting naming conventions to follow. Leeds North West and M-185 are primary topics yet have parenthetical disambiguation per the related naming conventions. Since these exist through an endorsement of policy, the general guideline of WP:DAB cannot be applied to strip these of their parenthetical disambiguation. In the same vein, WP:INCDAB is part of WP:DAB and cannot be applied to override naming conventions for films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: - thanks for your reply, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. WikiProjects and their regular contributors do not have a privileged status when it comes to determining article titles, and furthermore a particular naming convention guideline is only useful as long as it is supported by arguments made in RMs and Wikipedia's overarching policies. And the community decided through a sitewide RFC that primary topic has higher priority than INCDAB, in this RFC (albeit that the bar for determining such a PTOPIC is higher than it usually would be). There is no special carve-out for films, which means we are allowed to use the name Thriller (album) but not allowed to use the name Parasite (film). The Leeds North West example isn't really the same as this one, because it wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer what "Leeds North West" referred to - it might just be an area of the city. Whereas "Parasite (film)" would overwhelmingly refer to just one topic as primary. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they are not the same thing, but they are similar. Policy at WP:PRECISION is indisputable that there can be "exceptions... by Wikipedia projects". If these are exceptions for UK Parliament constituencies and highways as examples, then such exceptions are not limited to these instances. The casual-observer argument cannot apply because these are not particularly special sets of topics than other ones on Wikipedia. At this time, we are not an encyclopedia that disambiguates every title to make sure even casual observers understand. Furthermore, even the "Leeds North West" example arguably has an overly detailed parenthetical disambiguation term where it could easily be Leeds North West (constituency). If policy has tolerance for this kind of lengthy detail for this specific subject matter, then disambiguating by release year is relatively minimalist. Furthermore, release years are key grounding details throughout film resources, databases, and articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That is conflating WP:PRECISION with the following subsection, WP:ATDAB. PRECISION allows for exceptions to the general naming conventions, such as for settlements in the U.S., for parliamentary constituencies or for highways. But Bothell, Leeds North West and M-185 are all WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs; the parenthetical is not for dab purposes. WP:ATDAB (which references WP:D, which includes WP:INCDAB) governs disambiguation and cannot be overruled by incompatible narrower guidelines. Station1 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If we're rolling things back, the RM should be opened for a time for further comments. The interpretation of the new guidance in INCDAB is an area where consensus is still evolving, and its clear that the issues on which the move will be decided did not get an airing in the move discussion.--Trystan (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been asking Guy to revert or reverse the MR, but I don’t think reopening the RM is appropriate or would be useful at this point. No one in the MR even suggested that, which I think is telling. It’s the MR that was closed abruptly and prematurely, not the RM. —В²C ☎ 20:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, no, not the MR, the RM. We don't default to whichever process gave the preferred outcome of the minority of participants. I have no objection to reopening the RM or re-running the close with Sceptre leading a panel, to protect her from accusations of supervoting. Either is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The only issue is at your premature and abrupt close of the MR which prevented me and countless others from participating. If you won’t reopen the MR to let more of the community weigh in, we can take this to ANI, if that’s your preference. Up to you. —В²C ☎ 14:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding not defaulting “to whichever process gave the preferred outcome of the minority”, that’s completely irrelevant because majority/minority is irrelevant since we don’t count !votes when evaluating consensus. That’s a key policy issue you ignored when you closed the MR and continue to do so here. So, JzG, I’m done with your obstinacy. AN/I? —В²C ☎ 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful. When all else fails, go argumentum ad hominem (“a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself”). LOL. —В²C ☎ 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you misspelled "track record". --Calton | Talk 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s just another ad hominem argument. One’s “track record” has nothing to do with the veracity of their independently-verifiable argument, and name-calling them as “obsessive page-mover” or referring to their “track record” while not even acknowledging the argument, much less addressing it, is just a cheap disruptive dodge. I know you two can do better. —-В²C ☎ 05:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Is "ad hominem" the only counter-phrase you know? Your history as a long long long long-time edit warrior regarding page naming is the OPPOSITE of "ad hominem" -- being, you know, evidence of the accuracy of JzG's description as "obsessive" -- your attempt to rationalize your (sadly common) behavior notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem. It has nothing to do with whether the accusation about the person making an argument is accurate or false. It’s about the fact that accusations about the person are irrelevant to the strength of their arguments. My history - for better or worse - is irrelevant to the validity (or lack thereof) of my argument, which is that JzG closed an active and contentious MR prematurely, not allowing consensus to develop one way or another, and therefore they should reopen it. That has nothing to do with my behavior or history. I, like countless others, didn’t even get a chance to weigh in at the MR. Bringing up my history or behavior as a rebuttal to this argument is the epitome of an ad hominem fallacy, by definition. —-В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC) I should add that there may very well be valid counters to my argument, and I’m open and welcoming to that possibility, but attacking me, my history or my behavior are not that, and when only such ad hominem attacks are presented in rebuttal, it suggests there are no valid counters. —В²C ☎ 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so what is to be done here? Want to thank Guy for coming here to question what happened. Guess I'm also an "obsessive page-mover" because I agree with В²C that the MR was closed way too early for its own good. I have removed the headers, but that can be easily reverted to reopen the MR, which I believe should be the ultimate outcome at the present time. Can we please have a decision, preferably a closure withdrawal by Guy so that the MR can be revisited in order to give other reviewers a chance to participate? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Closure of this discussion has been requested at Wikipedia:AN/C. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CFD backlog

Could use some heads, as it's up to 200 nominations backlogged. I would try to help but I can't make heads or tails of the closing procedure (by contrast, WP:TFD is streamlined, especially with XFD closer). --Izno (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Convenience links: WP:CFD and CFD admin instructions — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Interracial marriage

This article needs admin eyes. The talk page is almost unreadable, with accusations of vandalism, socking, racism, outing, and threats, some of them possibly needing permanent redactions. I have used hatting and redacting to improve the page in the meantime. I see that this page is no stranger to admin boards. Most recently (that I can find), there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Repeated racism against ethnic Chinese. I would request an admin volunteer to keep this article on their watchlist, as this is a high-profile topic and what's happening on the article and the talk page doesn't reflect well on the project (I intend to watch too, but an admin would surely be more effective). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've watched the page and will read through the talk page. I'll probably hand out some NPA warnings or DS alerts, and then we can see how things go from there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, though the discussion needed some clean-up, Toby Mitches seems to be trying to mediate the dispute in the last few days. I think the best course is to let Toby do what he can, and just keep an eye on things in case those efforts break down. Looking through the talk pages, Liz left a level-1 NPA warning on User talk:Bablos939 yesterday, and Jorm left an AP2 sanctions alert on User talk:Vamlos a few hours ago. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I dropped it b/c they left a (confusing? meaningless?) comment on Talk:Black Lives Matter. It wasn't overtly racist but it was confusing b/c it wasn't clear what they were referring to or agreeing with. My expectation is that they meant "I agree that this article should talk about the 'violence' perpetrated by members of BLM" but I can't know for sure. Asking for the BLM page to focus on supposed violent incidents is a common tactic for the white supremacy/MAGA crowd.--Jorm (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wugapodes! Toby Mitches is new and isn't really sure about what they are doing or should do next. They are the one who sought help as they are afraid to make administrative reports without knowing the ins and outs of how it works here (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hello,_I_need_help_from_an_admin/someone_who_knows_how_to_help or one of the many other messages they seem to have left seeking help from everywhere, short of making a direct complaint to admins). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, unrelated, I do think that the movement and the non-profit should be different pages, as the page in its current state, seems to be talking about both. as for what Jorm is saying, I believe that stuff about any violence done by them/the groups/etc should go on a different page about what is being protested/the topic. e.g. ones about race, might go in 2020 United States racial unrest. but thats just my two cents. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO on RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was started on 12 August and the version during that time said "Indian victory" on result parameter since February 2020.[94]

RfC was closed as "no consensus".[95]

Per WP:STATUSQUO shouldn't we restore the version before RfC? Also see this discussion on talk page. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The article has never been stable with "Indian victory" and has always been subject to edit-wars and disputes before the RfC began, [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. The 12 August version had Indian victory just because the pro-"Indian victory" editors were more aggressive in the edit-wars. The most stable version has been "Bangladeshi-allied victory" before all these disputes started and would be the original statusquo, as explained by Slatersteven. During the RfC, an uninvolved admin Buckshot06 changed the result into "Pakistani defeat" after considering the discussion by neutral editors from WP:MILITARY which was also the version at the closure of the RfC on 30 September. This could also be deemed as a statusquo. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POTUS and FLOTUS test positive for COVID19

I'm requesting extra eyes on COVID19 and Trump-related pages. My current concern is the unsupported suggestions that Hope Hicks is the source of the infection, despite RS only saying that she tested positive and prompted the Trumps to get tested and quarentine because they traveled and worked together. The Trumps' tests then came back positive. Super duper BLP concerns there. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep...this will go sideways soon. I recommend a temporary page protection.--MONGO (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: already did go sideways it seems! I semi protected for 4 days and revdelled an ip edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the situation we have COVID GS and AP2 and BLP DS sanctions for (plus source restrictions like MEDRS), and thanks in advance to all the admin helping to keep the relevant articles as stable and policy-compliant as possible. Lev!vich 06:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, will? Soon? Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'll have some! ;-) Guy (help! - typo?) 22:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No clue what you mean at all.--MONGO (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a light-hearted way to say that covid in the White House is bound to be a magnet for trolls and other misguided contributors, and the topic will immediately go sideways. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit, when I read "Yep...this will go sideways soon" I immediately thought "everything about this went sideways a long time ago; this is just more of the same". I hear^{[Citation Needed]} that the international league of dumpster fires is demanding an apology for being compared to US politics. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For those admins watching for disruption in this area, here are some areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yeah, that's what I meant, but I phrased the humour badly. Apologies to MONGO for any offence caused or taken. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of List of Indian child actors

This article have repeatedly been used for self promotion. --Trade (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Next time, if you do not mind, please leave such requests at WP:RFPP, they are typically being dealt with swiftly, 24h delay is considered as a serious backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of 'Polygenism'

Hi, Uygur Brother (talk) has been adding the same uncited content to Polygenism which has been reverted by me and another editor. I was patrolling recent edits when I first came across this page. Some of the language used in the article appears to be offensive. There has been six warnings given on their talk page.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from editing mainspace for a week. Will go to indef if there's no constructive talkpage engagement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT global ban discussion

Due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 and m:Meta:Requests for CheckUser information#James Salsman, I have to make a correction to my previous notice. Nrcprm2026 would be better recognised here as EllenCT who still has an ongoing active global ban discussion. Apologies for the inconvience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, EllenCT was a sockpuppet? She/He had 1600 edits to Jimbo's talk page. I am out of the loop these days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

_{Also shocked. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)}

You see, it all began to end after a redditor made a post about Scots Wikipedia.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

They are clearly a contender in the nomination "an individual which created the most harm to Wikipedia ever". Not the only one though.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

And one of the main issues is that this significantly devaluates AGF. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with problematic users when significant chances are they are just a banned user evading the ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat surprised by this as well. I found some of EllenCT's comments etc a bit odd and did I think at the back of my mind wonder once or twice if they were a returning editor. Didn't expect it to be a prolific sockmaster though, although I don't particularly recognise any of their accounts other than EllenCT. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't find it at all surprising. Anyone who makes 1600 edits to Jimbo's talk page is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I suppose we have to start a new competition to find Wikipedia's wokest editor now. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it’s a dead Cirt that’s gotta be someone.... Qwirkle (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

MJL, well, I did not expect that. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: This place just gets weirder and weirder. Just when you accept the new normal, someome like Salsman is ready to turn this whole thing upside down. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting this. That editor was a genuine problem and I'm glad it is being solved. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Disappointed to see this, It's a shame people have to repeatedly sock and it's a shame people want to knowingly mislead the community ..... –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Holy moly!! 😳 Excellent work, TonyB...quite impressive! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Yunshui for his long service as a functionary.

Katie^talk 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to functionary team

User edit warring photos

A user continues to edit war with photos on List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. The user is User talk:Sthacker21 and they have been warned several times not to do this. Their edit summaries also show the intent to continue to edit war. I believe an indefinite block is in place or else they will continue to edit war. Please look into this. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I left the user a firmly worded warning, and plan to block if the edit war continues. Izno left a DS notice a couple hours prior. Sthacker21 doesn't seem to have edited since this report, so hopefully this will be the end of it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Yankees

On the page information for "New York Yankees", in one of the descriptions, there is "b*ttheads, cheaters who have won too many World Series". While I agree with that, is there a way to remove that stuff? Can someone take a look? I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's coming from Wikidata (and has been there since March). I've fixed it there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, another example of easy vandalism that Wikidata should have fixed instantly if they'd had a working ClueBot. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do we still transclude content from there at all? Most of it is complete garbage. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Normally, we should not be transcluding Wikidata descriptions in any situation. I assume this is this issue which is hopefully in the process of being fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing

This page is protected, but when I looked up the protection log for it, it says "No matching items in log". Can someone deal with this please. --94.73.36.20 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It was protected without comment by Raul654 in 2008 with this edit. Something must have happened to the log entry in the last 12 years. I'm inclined to leave the protection as is, but I also don't really care if someone else decides otherwise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It was this log entry when the page used to be User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. I also don't really see the need to unprotect but I'm not averse to anyone else doing it. Woody (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did this page get protected without a comment? --94.73.36.20 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The specific section on user pages in the protection policy allow user subpages to be protected by request. This was a user subpage (ie someone's personal essay in their own space) that was protected. It has since been moved to the project space where the protection has remained. Given the content it has stayed protected presumably to prevent civil POV pushing. Woody (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently, when a page with any protection is moved, a protection log entry for the target is created. However, this wasn't always the case. I guess the page was moved to its current location before this feature was implemented. 93.173.239.14 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic Edit

I'm posting about this edit. Synthwave.94 deleted the archived edit-warring-discussion entitled, "User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik". The discussion went stale, but the edit warring continues. I would revert the edit to the archive, but am leery of doing so as this appears to be an extension of the long simmering edit war.

Synthwave.94's removal of the passage from the archive is inexplicable. As an aside, Synthwave.94 refuses to discuss this on the talk page, but keeps reverting the edits. Please advise on the best next steps. --evrik ^(talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I restored the archive. But that happened a month ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed today when the edit warring started again ... and it continues. I would appreciate suggestions on how to end this low grade edit war. Synthwave.94 barely comments on the talk page, and it is usually to misquote policy. @NinjaRobotPirate: you weighed in before, would you mind commenting here? We are now at two reverts in 24 hours, three in 48 this time around. --evrik ^(talk) 03:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

Perhaps an admin can take a look at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack? I came across it after seeing WP:THQ#Talk page comments on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack. Maybe there's a way to discuss this, but the current approach seems more WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RGW than not and likely also includes some WP:BLP violations. I thought of going in and trying to sort things out myself, but that probably would just lead to more WP:EW; so, maybe an admin or some admins can take a look instead. In addition, given the contentiousness of the subject matter, I'm wondering why this isn't covered by WP:ACDS; maybe it should be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Another editor stepped in and tried to resolve things; that, however, seems to have led to WP:AE#USERNAME, which is malformed and most likely was posted out of frustration. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to explain to them in that Teahouse thread; they don't seem to be grasping that talk pages are for proposing article improvements, not for ranting about political figures and accusing Wikipedians of a "cover-up". I don't think it took, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the BLP violations and of course the edit-warring at the talk page. I don't think Peter Schaeffer should be editing anything to do with American politics, or at least the Clintons. Doug Weller talk 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. When I started this thread, I left out specific names in the hope that it might attract the attention of some admin who could then resolve things without creating lots of drama. I wasn't trying to assign any blame or request action be taken against any editor in particular. However, now that you've mentioned one of those involved specifically by name, I'm not sure whether I'm obliged to at least notify that editor of this discussion. The edit warring on the talk page seems to have stopped (at least for the moment) thanks to NorthBySouthBaranof and the malformed AE request is likely going to to declined as such as explained by another admin at User talk:Pschaeffer#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I can notify those involved in this disagreement, but that might just keep cause things to start up again just as they seem to have cooled down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Admin chat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Where's the place to network with administrators? This seems a bit formal Mladen Cooney (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of openness and to the community accountability, this is probably the best forum unless you wish to contact an admin on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - Just to be clear, I'm after an informal, wide ranging chat and that seems different to other discussions on this page. Is that ok? Mladen Cooney (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not a social network in that way. That said, there are places like WP:IRC where you can go to shoot the shit. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mladen Cooney: You might also check out WP:Village Pump as a place to discuss suggestions or issues of interest to you. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Beland (talk · contribs)

I would just like some clarification regarding the actions taken by this admin in regards to timeline related articles. Take the 2080s for example.... Beland added a merge tag on the 3rd [105], and merged the article just 3 days later [106]. I did not see any warning or notice given to involved editors. Its frustrating to say the least as a consensus should form possible contested major changes. Also please.... I do not want to hear too much into the reasoning behind the mergers as this can be discussed in detail in the merge discussions I had to make at the merge target's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone boldly moved a page. Someone else disagreed. Discussion appears to be underway. Now that it's clear it's controversial, Beland should let the merge discussion(s) play out. Doesn't seem like it needs AN, though, unless there's more to the story? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MERGEINIT says boldly merging pages where it looks obvious that's a good idea is standard practice, and this seemed to be a sleepy backwater where few editors were interested. There are lots of year, decade, century, and millennium pages that are very short lists, which I've been cleaning up. Sometimes I've been putting merge tags on the next page to be cleaned up before I do it, but sometimes I've just been merging without tagging because they go so quickly. I'll jump on the talk page and see what the objection is. FTR, there's also a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Timeline of the near future. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets move this to a place where we can discuss this then and all agree on one format. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is my Account Blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is my account blocked after I reported a user Ticket 2020100810016537 (Skyllagyook) who keeps deleting cited sources. The user is upset about Natufian DNA pertaining to Haplogroup CT. Please explain why I was blocked for posting this and not the user that is harassing me.

According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• @The1Beginning: I explained why I blocked you very clearly on your talk page. This is a collaborative project. You have no choice but to discuss editing disputes with people who disagree with you, and you have no choice but to respect consensus if multiple people disagree with you. See WP:DR. "I will not stop" is not an acceptable substitute for discussion. Calling long term good faith editors "trolls" is not an acceptable substitute for discussion. If this does not seem acceptable to you, then Wikipedia is not for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I was blocked because I wasn't being politically correct and I described the behavior of the user's behavior as "trolling" or harassment.

Contributors shouldn't forced into a debate about a DNA test, when the sources are already provided simply because it doesn't fit someone's idea of the world.  If the user was acting in good faith then they would have posted a source with content that actually debunks or challenges the science; not throwing a fit, and deleting things that don't fit their narrative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 

Hello have you seen my latest addition. As I have explain the user has not read the sources they only delete things. I was blocked when I have sources and evidence to prove it. I posted this in Talk "Yes it is very clear. Natufian I1685; and I1690 belonged to haplogroup CT, supported by mutations M5593, PF228, M5624,PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358Y1462, M5723, L977." — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarify: How can you be posting here, if you're blocked? GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The user is blocked from editing specific pages per the discussion I linked above. Speaking of, User:The1Beginning do NOT delete that section again. I am very close to making your block a site-wide one, as it's looking more like you are WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That was an accident. I was trying to add a comment no need to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Enough already. Block extended to the site. When they come back they can start talking on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove Kovai Daily from Spam-blacklist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My intent was not to spam Wikipedia but to keep it updated. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I still don't know what went wrong in this case. It will better if you can provide me some insight. I will make sure this mistake doesn't repeat.

Also, from now I will only update the article related to Coimbatore and Tamil Nadu.

As I mentioned earlier, the removal of links and blocking of this portal discourages local journalism.

Please remove Kovai Daily from Spam-blacklist immediately.

Thanks Jennny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathewb (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to ask this. Go to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page I would like to edit is Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Gioguch/sandbox. I would like to edit this page for a test editnotice. I want to create this test editnotice for my sandbox, and I attempted to use User:Gioguch/sandbox/Editnotice, but it didn't work. I want to use this editnotice for my sandbox, so please enable it for me. Thank you. Gioguch (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Gioguch/sandbox/Editnotice was deleted by your request on 28 Sep, so please clarify what you are asking for? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

MSGJ, he's talking about Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/User:Gioguch/sandbox. User:Gioguch/sandbox/Editnotice won't work because the editnotice loader only transcludes userspace for the main userpage (I think!). For subpages, it defaults to the normal location. The editor's request can technically be achieved by a TE/admin creating Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Gioguch/sandbox and transcluding in it User:Gioguch/sandbox/Editnotice (which can be edited by the editor), but it depends on if the request should be done at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for closure backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've been able to get the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure back under control, addressing most requests before they hit the 50-day mark. However, there's 2 discussions that are well over 100 days old and could benefit from some attention. I would close them myself, but I frankly don't feel like I understand the CfD one and I participated in the Scriptural texts one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good work! Took care of Cfd. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for permission to use files

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On April 2020, I unintentionally violated Wikipedia rules of non-free content policy, I was blocked during six days and I was unblocked after adding request on 26 April 2020 with the condition of not using the files until I ask permission here. I ask for permission to be able to use files.

My mistake is that I canceled a nonfree file which was corrected by a bot so these files should not be added to pages other than posts like drafts. The file didn't have a valid non-free rationale.

What about the laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content, As I always do, I must respect the content by favorising the free content post and good use of non-free content, respecting criteria of fair use. To edit files I must respect the ten criterias used in Policy chapter, about no free equivalent, respect for commercial opportunities, minimal usage ...etc. And of caurse I understand files that should be kept or deleted as it's explained in Enforcement chapter. And finaly what about posting or creating files, I must add appropriate license and add link to proove, only if I'm a creator of the file and I must explain what about file in Description. All these are explained in the Guideline examples chapter and in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

It is the first time when I was blocked, my wish is that it will be the last one. It's normal that I will not repeat this mistake and I will respect the laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content, as what always do before this incident. My apologies for all that. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this, the discussion leading to the unblock/restriction is at User_talk:Faycal.09#Unblock_discussion, pinging JJMC89 who blocked, ToBeFree who proposed the restriction and Boing! said Zebedee who unblocked.

Given it's been close to six months, there don't appear to have been any other major editing issues, and Faycal.09 seems to have made a good effort to understand the policy, I would personally be inclined to lift it with the understanding that there will be additional scrutiny on any files uploaded, and any issues are likely to result in it being reapplied. ~ mazca ^talk 10:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Welcome back: No concerns from my side either. As the technically unblocking administrator Boing! said Zebedee is fine with this as well, the restrictions are gone (WP:CONDUNBLOCK); I'd remove them from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions if they had been listed there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian K Horton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some new socks of Brian K Horton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sprung up today. All have been blocked (mainly checkuser). I have revdel'd some comments due to harassment, legal posturing and being entirely unproductive, and at least one of the accounts is now globally locked. I guess we can consider this one globally banned? Banned here and any edits are evasion of a global block. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI thread

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anyone discern any kind of consensus from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep? I am minded to close it with a reminder to all parties to AGF, remain civil, and for the love of Jimbo please be more succinct in future. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you on that. It's a lot of sound and fury, but little of substance. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

DePiep is still under a civility-related editing restriction. If "everyone needs to be civil" is to be the outcome... --Izno (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, yup. For the most part he's just been sweary, though, not actually uncivil. Again, more brevity would have been of material assistance. Much much more brevity. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please create a page on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasharthSinhaOfficial (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

YasharthSinhaOfficial This is not the place to do this, see Requested Articles. You will need to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone make sense of this? It looks like ongoing discussions on archived threads. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually. They were not the only one. But, oh well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Other than a different editor unarchiving a thread, all other edits were to archive threads [107]. Are there other archives involved? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murdoch University Dubai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article at AfD, I just finished what was hopefully an [article saving edit] when an IP started adding slews of NPOV content, deleting content presumably not to their liking. That IP has now been replaced by Markbrownnavitas a redlinked user making the same series of edits. Both warned on user talk but ignoring. I'm in danger of crossing 3RR here and would like to suggest some swift page protection or other action to let the page finish AfD at least? Thanks Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick note here, have managed to get contact on Talk, so please do ignore/close this. COI editor new to WP, so we're having a chat... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIAN backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Not too bad, but knocking down nwe vandals before they vandalize a bunch of pages is a Good Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erroneous G5 tag on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Admins, I found an erroneous G5 tag on the AfD log above, but I cant find where it came from. Not sure if someone could take a look and delete it? Thanks Nightfury 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Someone forgot to <noinclude> the nomination. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Nightfury 15:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could somebody close Talk:Mary Shelley#Second attempt at wanting an Infobox. It doesn't appear to be a formal RfC, and there haven't been any substantial comments for about two weeks, so I think the discussion has run its course. I was going to go with "no consensus" with a brief summary that both "for" and "against" sides make some good arguments, and some not-so-good, with additional praise for generally avoiding any acrimony. However, I've closed enough of these now to really prefer that somebody else does it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Because nobody ever likes closing infobox discussions and they inevitably provoke anger, I decided to take the bullet on this one. There is nothing about this discussion that requires admin tools, only an experienced closer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add publisher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please add name of publisher, Main Street Rag Publishing, to the Oct. 2020 Poetry Book, Thread, Forms, and Other Enclosures in my entry https://www.pw.org/content/carol_smallwood

Could a book review be added under References: https://www.whlreview.com/no-15.3/review/CristinaDeptula.pdf Carol Smallwood (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Carol Smallwood As you were advised on your user talk page, the proper way to make this request is to post on Talk:Carol Smallwood and tag your post as a formal edit request. This isn't a matter limited to administrators, any editor can fulfill such a request. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @Carol Smallwood: This isn't something that requires administrator attention. As Salimfadhley has told you on your talk page, please use the Edit Request Wizard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiev/Kyiv

Mass edits by user: AndriiDr

I was just gnoming about and noticed a few edits pop up from the user, who was altering the English spelling of "Kiev" (the city in Ukraine) to the Cyrillic-phonetic of 'Kyiv.' Upon further investigation, these 200+ edits look like bot edits, as indicated by the user's contributions on 22 September alone. Apparently Discospinster tried to address this on the user's page(1), and the user acknowledged (2), but has failed to undo themselves.
I don't know how to undo mass bot edits, except one by one; I am presuming there is a better tool to accomplish this? Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(notification provided to AndriiDr here)

It was decided that it is possible to use Kyiv in modern context, and the article was renamed.(1) But Jack Sebastian revert my change, which is correct, in my opinion. (2) Сan you explain me what's wrong with this cite wich you cancelled; to gov.ua, where it written Kyiv, not Kiev, please? You can switch the language of the website in the upper right corner. I make all my changes by hands, not by a software. Sorry for my google translate. --AndriiDr (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to re-address the nearly 300 edits made every few minutes over the course of 9 hours; that's for someone more familiar with these sorts fo things to sport out. Kyiv is the Cyrillic spelling for the far more common "Kiev". I think that this sort of wholesale editing (be it bot or user initiated) seems inappropriate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Both spellings are romanizations of Cyrillic. The spelling Kiev is Russian. The spelling Kyiv is Ukrainian. The city is in Eastern Europe, and any dispute over the spelling is subject to ARBEE. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the matter is settled. In this [108] edit most of the changes in the lead were quite inappropriate as the replaced names fit the ones the cities had in the 1930s.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That article is about a modern airline. The edit is appropriate. There’s a proposal at talk:Kyiv about the naming and style in historical articles, but no one is proposing changing the spelling from sentence to sentence or phrase to phrase. —Michael Z. 14:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is questionable as well and likely will be reverted after the current discussion have been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is it questionable? Sikorsky is a modern company. This is not a “historical article.” —Michael Z. 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit however refers not to the modern usage but to the place Sikorski was born, which is a pre-1900 usage. There is for the time being no consensus to make such edits, and the discussion is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the proposal under discussion regards naming and spelling in pre-1991 historical articles. This is not one. You are implying using mixed spelling within all articles, or prioritizing the dated spelling in all articles, or something else not under discussion. —Michael Z. 15:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The Kiev/Kyiv issue is a matter of spelling, not a name change like Burma/Myanmar or St. Petersburg/Leningrad/St. Petersburg. The difference is that the name change has historical significance. A spelling change... not so much. In other words if Ivan Doe was born in Kiev in 2010 or 1910 I don’t think it’s a problem to say he was born in Kyiv. It’s the same name of the same city, just spelled differently. —В²C ☎ 00:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It does matter. It is a spelling difference that has to do with two countries with two related East Slavic languages that are at war. And in Kyiv, the accepted romanization is Kyiv. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently about it at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that AndriiDr (talk · contribs) keeps making these changes, blatantly ignoring this thread.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As well as administrator Mzajac and probably a few more users. Their defense line is that since the article has been moved all instances of the name of the city and the derivatives everywhere in Wikipedia must be replaced as a result of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Had the RM taken into consideration all the questions that were raised here and at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, it had not, it was only discussing the current name of the city and has not even mentioned historical context (other than the fact that Kiev was earlier userd more often than Kyiv). However, there is a fraction of users who read the RM as a blanket permission to move all instances, in titles and bodies of the articles, where the city is mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have asked the user to demonstrate where consensus was formed to make these changes en masse, and to stop making the changes until this thread is resolved (Special:Diff/980071406). If they continue, they may be blocked from editing the article namespace (see MOS:VAR/MOS:ENGVAR). –xeno^talk 12:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • While edits like this, which change the reader-facing text of the article, are probably appropriate, edits like this, which only change which title is used for a transcluded template, are clearly not. 46.116.4.50 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    There’s nothing wrong with either edit. I have moved that template, for consistency with others, and it already had a redirect. —Michael Z. 14:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it too heavy-handed to undo the body of edits making this change and urging the user to discuss some of these edits before undertaking them? They have claimed they have made all of these edits without automation, and while I am not keen on undoing that level of personal dedication, I am concerned about the lack of discussion regarding the changes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I was just curious if any action is going to be taken on this. I would undertake the mass undo process, but if there is an automated tool to undo the (what appear to be nationalist, bot) edits, that would make it a lot easier.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think action should be considered. A new Wikipedia has been investing significant work into improving Wikipedia, and he has been criticized for his first language, labelled a “bot” and a “nationalist” (is the use of this undeserved stereotyping an example of anti-Kyiv bias or anti-Ukrainian?), and having his work discounted because someone doesn’t like the current spelling of the city’s name.

I have not reviewed all his edits, but if the “evidence” presented here against his “misdeeds” is representative, I wish we had more like him. Some experienced editors need to think before they wp:BITE. —Michael Z. 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: It bears pointing out that a) "Michael" is admin Mzajac and b) Mzajac has been strongly advocating the name change in most of their contributions in the Wik-en since their very second edit in 2004.

In other words, the admin has a deeply vested interest in the outcome of this discussion - almost as deeply as they were invested in the initial 'Kiev to Kyiv' discussion that prompted our recent Ukranian 'invasion' of new contributors making Ukraine-related edits. Of course Mzajac/Michael is going to approve of the mass, bot-driven changes to Kiev-related articles; from an outsider's perspective, this would appear to have been the user admin's goal for over 16 years. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, why don’t you muster up the stones to ping my user name when you slander me, here and elsewhere? And do better research, because your accusation is inaccurate. —Michael Z. 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I didn't ping you because you were deeply involved in this conversation, and were likely seeing comments in real time. Additionally, I wasn't necessarily addressing my comments to you; I was pointing out your deep involvement in the subject material. 'Kiev' was your 2nd (and 3rd) edit to the Wiki-en, back in '08, right? That - and a number of edits thereafter reinforce your interest in the subject (not to mention your multiple posts here and in the Kiev article). Might you point out to me the slander that you feel has occurred on my part? All I did was point out that - based on the available evidence - you are deeply invested in this topic, and not quite a neutral party in evaluating behaviors regarding the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a newbie. This is an agenda editor who came here from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. They do not speak English and have no interest beyond replacing Kiev with Kyiv.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Newcomer here, sixth edit in this wiki ten days ago. On your talk page you clearly stated you want to force him off. You are taking advantage of other administrators being unfamiliar with what is and is not being discussed at talk:Kyiv to criticize his perfectly good edits. You assume bad faith and your blatant disrespect is uncivil and disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, this really becomes annoying. There is Kiev/Kyiv disruption going all over the place. And this user is an active participant of this disruption, because his almost entire contribution is to replace Kiev with Kyiv, in many cases in an inappropriate situations. And the rest of his contribution is to vote for Kyiv at talk pages. And he is not capable in contributing in any other way, because he does not speak English and uses Google translate. Not biting newcomers is not about agenda editors, this is about new users who genuinely want to help but have some difficulties understanding policies. What the move has attracted to the English Wikipedia are a bunch of users who are only interested in disruption, not in creating encyclopedia. This is an enormous time sink, and I still have to see positive contribution of these "newcomers" in the articles, for example improving the Ukrainian topics which are in a pitiful state because only a handful of editors here - accidentally, including me - care about these topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ymblanter on this; this is not the simple case of us getting snarky with a neophyte. AndriiDr is new to our wiki, but is an established user of our Ukrainian project. It is not a simple matter of an over-excited editor making a bunch of edits to a bunch of articles because they do not know better.

Assuming Good Faith is not a suicide pact; we are being gaslighted here. As indicated by a similar discussion about Ukraine-related edits (see below), there appears to be a lot of Ukrainian 'reframing'-type edits occurring. As well, the user that prompted this discussion has continued to make these same sorts of edits, despite being warned by no less than three other editors to stop and discuss.

I hate going there, but I think some blocks and RfPP for Kiev-related articles is in order - they are not going to stop unbalancing articles unless we make them stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Which article was balanced and is now unbalanced? —Michael Z. 03:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• If an evidence-free anecdote is worth anything, I confirm that we are obviously being played for suckers by virtual single-purpose accounts whose only interest is promoting their point of view. The careless bot-like Kiev/Kyev editing has hit my watchlist and some error tracking categories I monitor. My conclusion was that editors involved are here only to achieve a fait accompli after ultimate victory in their move campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Muahahahaha! Come comrades and celebrate! Our victory is nearly at hand! Soon, we will have accomplished our mission to change the spelling of Kyiv on Wikipedia, and then, we can take over the world! Muahahahah! Lev!vich 00:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, these Ukrainians didn't get the memo regarding WP:CABAL. @Levivich:, I think that every single one of us here can recall at least two instances of nationalist editing in Wikipedia. My pops dealt with the utter clownage that followed the release of 300, and I myself have witnessed the anti-Islamist sentiments pervading certain articles. Every time is occurs, it is corrosive and whittles away at our ability to stay above the fray.

This is why it seems pertinent to address this a bit more seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: We're spelling it WP:KYBAL now But what is the "this" that needs to be addressed more seriously? When India changed Bombay to Mumbai it was called "shedding colonialism"; why is it when Ukraine changes Kiev to Kyiv, it's "nationalism"? When we get a group of people together to edit articles about the place where they live, we call it an "edit-a-thon"; why is it when Ukrainians write about Ukraine, it's called "POV pushing"? Obviously Ukrainians will edit Ukrainian topics as Indians edit Indian topics, but that doesn't mean it's only Ukrainians, or that we should assume that everyone editing the topic is Ukrainian (just as it's not only Indians editing Indian topics). Obviously after moving Kiev to Kyiv, we will have thousands of places where we will need to change, or consider changing, "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (there are thousands of inbound wikilinks to Kyiv, just for starters), but that doesn't mean that doing so is agenda-driven POV pushing. It's crowdsourced editing. We already have DS to deal with the problematic examples, and we already have a good number of editors blocked. What else do you want to do? What else can we possibly do? We can't stop people from changing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that changes three times a second; that would be counterproductive. So back to this thread, 300 edits isn't a lot of edits when you consider we're going to have to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" probably more than 10,000 times. It's hundreds of articles, we can't protect them all, that would be counterproductive, it would stunt the natural growth of the topic area. Though it's anecdotal, so far I've seen more bad reversions of good edits than I've seen bad edits when it comes to changing Kiev to Kyiv, and those changes that have been challenged, when put to consensus (RMs), seem to be supported... just look at how much has already been moved at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, and look how the currently-open RMs are trending. Bottom line: I don't see a solution proposed here to any demonstrated problem. It's like complaining about rain: it's inevitable, it's necessary, and even if it does suck, what do you want us to do about it? Also, may I note the irony of complaints about Ukrainians changing the spelling of a Ukraininan city on Wikipedia, when the other giant Wikipedia scandal going on right now is Scots Wiki having too few Scots speakers? We need more diversity in our editor base, not less, and complaining that editors from Ukrainian Wikipedia are editing Ukrainian topics here at enwiki is not going to help us develop a more diverse editor base. Lev!vich 06:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, hmm, that's all quite fascinating, and I appreciate the parable about how a concerted action by Ukrainian to alter every mention of Kiev to 'Kyiv' whether its appropriate or not is as inevitable as rainfall.

Clearly, I disagree, and I think I have made my reasons for doing so pretty clear. Maybe I failed to mention a few, like how the Kiev to Kyiv newly-found "rough" consensus might not endure even a short test of time. I get that some folks have been working this angle since 2008, but it took 12 years to even get to a rough consensus. It might not last. Undoing the thousands of edits made after the orgasmic afterglow of getting what you want isn't going to be at all fun - most will just evaporate, leaving others to undo their surge of edits. That sucks more.

Clearly, you have wanted this, and have thought through all the angles. I am just an ordinary wiki editor, looking at a massive number of edits made by someone in love with the idea of changing the nature of a thing to that which they feel is important - its clearly a nationalism thing. Yet....I don't recall a similar crush of edits to change indiscriminately change any mention of Bombay to Mumbai. Then again, I am not editing Indian articles.

As well, I think its weird that while the rough consensus seems to agree that Kiev started pushing to be re-spelled in '95. Yet, the edits alter any mention of Kiev, no matter what date the name was used.

For me, the idea that "interfering" with these massive edits is stifling "diversity" is the reddest of herrings. Quite bluntly, Wikipedia is open to all, so long as you follow the basic rules and work collaboratively; the collaboration is rightly interpreted as editors working to find common ground from disparate viewpoints. The editors changing all the articles are working from a common interest and a common goal, without discussing their edits and hoping the simple crush of them all will stifle complaint.

That isn't working collaboratively; that's working towards a fait accompli. If you are perhaps unaware of ArbCom's view on the subject, you can check it out here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet....I don't recall a similar crush of edits to change indiscriminately change any mention of Bombay to Mumbai - Talk:Kolkata/Archive 1 reads very similar to the discussions around Kyiv. In fact, Kyiv is mentioned in the Calcutta discussion. Both cities (Mumbai and Kyiv) BTW changed their names/spelling officially in 1995. Bombay was moved to Mumbai on Wikipedia in 2005. It's taken another 15 years for us to catch up with Kyiv. But the reason I know about this isn't because I've been doing this for a long time (I've only gotten involved in Kyiv in the last month or so), but because I am helping to track these changes at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. There are 20,000 instances of "Kiev" in mainspace right now; hence, thousands, possible 10k or more, changes that will be required. As I said, there are thousands of inbound links to Kiev, and under our existing policies, those should be changed to Kyiv. So someone changing 300 of them is not a surprise to me. I would expect many editors will have to make hundreds of changes each in order to get it all done. What I see, though, is that you are coming from a place where you disagree with the change, and you seem to think it's even possible that it will be changed back and we'll have to revert the subsidiary changes. This will not happen, I can assure you. 0% chance of us ever going back to calling the city "Kiev", just as there is a 0% chance we will move Mumbai back to Bombay. Lev!vich 16:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is not Ukrainians editing articles on Ukrainian topics. This (and also non-Ukrainians editing articles on Ukrainian topics) must be welcome. It is just not happening or happening very little. What we are discussing here are Ukrainians or non-Ukrainians or whoever whose only interest in the topic area is replacing Kiev with Kyiv, most often without looking at the context (which is not surprising, since some of them do not speak English). I do not see how this editing is net positive for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, I proposed a guideline at talk:Kyiv that seems to have decent support, so have moved it to RfC. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Kiev" vs. "Kyiv" disputes

There are persistent moves and rename of title Kiev to Kyiv. In the article "Kiev Day and Night", there is editors warring around the renaming customs whether it should be "Kyiv" Day and Night despite the enlisted sources/citations verify the article name should be Kiev Day and Night. This situation encountered recently with Ukrainian-related topics. As such, they were coronary to sources, not their customs, as because of the title of the series implies "Kiev Day and Night" in several ways in accordance with existing sources. The Supermind (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The only editor I see repeatedly moving that title is The Supermind. All the sources in the article Kiev Day and Night are Ukrainian or Russian language. So what reliable English source calls this 2018 TV show "Kiev Day and Night" instead of "Kyiv Day and Night"? The answer should probably be posted on the article talk page instead of here. This is a content dispute and it's already being adequately coordinated at Talk:Kyiv and Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, where bold moves and RMs are being tracked. Lev!vich 16:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This might be a fairly recent trend that has emerged. On this same noticeboard, there is another discussion ongoing about this very topic. I am not seeing this as an isolated incident, and I am starting to believe that undoing these edits is going to meet with substantial pushback from our Ukrainian visitors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not a new trend, it's a natural consequence of the recent rename from Kiev to Kyiv. Some of the workings-out are quite straightforward, others are more complex or controversial. As long as everyone follows the bold, revert, discuss method of establishing consensus we'll get through it eventually. – bradv🍁 20:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I searched for the name before I edited the article, and the Kyiv version seemed to appear in more results that resembled real sources, news sites, CVs of professionals linked to the show, etc. But very few overall. The official site seems to have no English at all; defaults to Ukrainian and includes Russian. Since this is not a “historical article,” our own uncontroversial translation would be “Kyiv Day and Night,” following the main article and current English standards.

P.S., it seems that editors who know Ukrainian topics have to defend their every contribution on Ukrainian topics because they know Ukrainian topics. This feels like a hostile environment. —Michael Z. 01:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with that assessment. There is a concern that nationalist flexing is taking place to change a commonly recognized word to one less so. Perhaps your immersion in this topic since 2008 has influenced your perception of the issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If the only thing that the new editors are changing is the spelling of a single toponym, I would not worry about their nationalist motivations. The trouble begins if they start making POV additions to the text. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I am sure that Europe felt that allowing Germany to annex the Sudetanland would satisfy them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass Kyiv disruption

There was a Kiev/Kyiv discussion a few days ago on WP:ANI that might be relevant to this thread. It got archived recently so I am providing a link to it for convenience: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Mass_Kyiv_disruption.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Community general sanctions for Kiev/Kyiv

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's pretty clear that this is going nowhere since DS for EE already exists. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Should we put general sanctions on articles relating to Kiev/Kyiv? 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute will not settle down anytime soon, so I propose this general sanction to be applied to all articles related to Kiev/Kyiv:

Any article about Kyiv/Kiev or otherwise containing its name in the title shall have all proposed moves to them discussed through the requested moves process before being moved, broadly constricted. Any moves to the articles subjected to this sanction done without discussion, including reverting successful requested moves, may be reverted without being subject to the normal restrictions on edit warring.

Goose^(Talk!) 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. We already have ArbCom aithorised discretionary sanctions in this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is User:Ymblanter implying that Ukraine is in Eastern Europe as normally defined? If so, is there any advantage to be gained by adding community general sanctions to a more expansive area of ArbCom sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have been specific that I was talking about discretionary sanctions in the topic area of Eastern Europe. This includes Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Probably - my contact with this indicated a single person spending more than nine hours editing over 300 articles to change 'Kiev' to 'Kyiv' suggest that either they are using a bot and lying about it, or are supremely dedicated to making these changes; both options are disturbing. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that these edits are continuing despite requests to pause until an agreement can be found, which is destabilizing and messes with the idea of collaborative editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• While I imagine many have been dealt with already, a renaming of this scale would become inordinately slow were RM to be required throughout. I also feel that DS would seem to cover it already. As a distinct second choice, make it so that after the BR steps, the discussion must be in the form of RM with no additional move permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Meh. This shouldn't be necessary. I proposed a simple rough guide to naming on talk:Kyiv; if that is adopted and works out then the problem would go away. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic is covered by the ArbCom E-E DS. Hence, any individual administrator is already empowered to enact the sanction described, if they believe it is necessary for the smooth running of the topic area. I already noted some weeks ago that technically, if desired, an edit filter could be created to log/warn unilateral page moves of Kyiv/Kiev. Though, I think this is just part of the normal editing process, nothing so egregious here that it cannot be solved in the usual manner. General sanctions should only really be enacted for chronic, diverse conduct/behavioural issues I think, this doesn't seem to be that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant, per ProcrastingReader. Also, movewarring over a name isn't really a sufficient issue to give rise to unique general or discretionary sanctions anyway. If it comes to it, the page can be move-protected. If there really is ongoing, repetitive dispute about this, one could do a WP:RM (again) and this time list it at WP:VPPOL and even WP:CENT to attract sufficient editors to get a firmer consensus (perhaps also for a moratorium on bringing up the issue again for a year or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, this just started out as me asking how to undo a large number of bot-type edits; its now a multi-page discussion and the subject of at least one (very long) ANI complaint. Maybe the smart thing here is to realize that the very rough consensus that emerged from the Kiev/Kyiv name change discussion isn't enough of a consensus to warrant the sheer number of ripple changes now occurring - and disrupting - the Wiki-en.

As at least one editor has pointed out that a similar wholesale change appears to have happened when 'Bombay' articles were changed to 'Mumbai'. I think this consensus probably needs to be revisited and that the arrangement of edits need to be undone and redone under the aegis of a taskforce or something. I am deeply concerned about unintentional possibility of canvassing and meatpuppetry occurring, as a lot of these changes are occurring as a seemingly coordinated effort by visiting Wiki-Ukraine contributors unfamiliar with our guidelines and protocols.

I'm just spit-balling here. I literally have no horse in this race, and am only involved because it appears the edits are happening indiscriminately (like a hit-and-run) and without individual article discussion. That's pretty disruptive and that's what triggered my involvement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) It sounds like a good idea, but I suggest that the person initiating this conversation flesh out his request a bit. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Just enforce the existing WP:ARBEE sanctions. Don't add on another layer of bureaucracy. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Are those sanctions being considered in this matter by an admin capable of imposing sanctions based upon them? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is a problem with an editor's behaviour, notify them of the EE sanctions. If they continue to cause problems, report them to AE. If it's a problem with an article, appeal to an uninvolved administrator for intervention. Seems pretty simple to me. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@RGloucester:, I understand that those are my options, but I have had my own civility issues in the past that make me hesitant to take action for behavior that might not be what I am thinking it is. Is the massive renaming of articles from a generally-accepted term to one with nationalist overtones a dick move, or is Mzajac & Co. being Bold, and I am being a jerk for telling them to discuss before renaming per article? My perceptions are colored by my tendency to assume the worst. I would prefer that my deductions should be confirmed by others. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If it’s option B, I can still be making a dick move, right? —Michael Z. 19:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jack Sebastian! Sorry for interrupting your conversation here with RGloucester! I stumbled upon this discussion after seeing your comments on Talk:Kyiv and noticing that you were visibly upset in that discussion (and you do sound upset in this discussion too). After seeing you comment above about "massive renaming of articles [...] to one with nationalist overtones" (I'm assuming you got the "nationalist overtones" vibe from the word "Kyiv itself :) ) followed by another comment about "Mzajac & Co.", I kind of got curious and deciding to do some "Google-digging". So I typed "site:wikipedia.org nationalists ukrainian mafia conspiracy" into Google and on the first results page there was a link to "List of fictional gangs" where I found a sub-section "Ukrainian mafia" that, among other things, listed "Petrenko mob" from TV series "24" (you should read it - some of those "mobs" have hilarious Non-PC-yet-funny names; I laughed REALLY hard when I saw that "Petrenko mob" thing - it is just too funny, because "Petrenko" is like THE MOST COMMON Ukrainian surname in the world (think of Smith or something in English-speaking countries) and there are A TON of anecdotes about "Petrenko doing XYZ"). I did not stop there, and next googled "site:en.wikipedia.org nationalists clique prejudice" and on the first results page there was a link to Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced - it was kind of boring, but at the bottom of it I saw a section called "Humorous essays" and there (after clicking around for some time) I stumbled upon Wikipedia:The first rule of Wikipedia (you should read it too - it is a hilarious reference to Chuck Palahniuk's (who btw, interesting fact, has Ukrainian heritage!) brilliant Fight Club novel); however, what really stuck with me me on that page (and why I am writing this) is that on top of that page there was a message that said "This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia" which upon clicking brought me to Wikipedia:List of cabals (again, you should read it too - some of it is boring, but some of it is HILARIOUS). Anyways, long story short, after spending some time on that List of Cabals page, I ultimately stumbled upon a description of a "Polish Cabal". This is when a LIGHTBULB turned in my head - when reading the discussion on Kiev/Kyiv usage/non-usage in historical context post-1995 on Talk:Kyiv, every second editor referenced the infamous "Ukrainian nationalists"; so I thought to myself - maybe all these people are onto something? So I went ahead and (please don't burn me like a witch for this) created a "Ukrainian Cabal" there. You should read it - hopefully, it will make your day a bit less stressful (and if you don't find it funny feel free to delete it!).--RogueRickC137 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

JS is way ahead of you. —Michael Z. 19:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @RogueRickC137:; I really do appreciate you trying to lighten my mood, and I acknowledge that the Kiev/Kyiv stank was getting to me a bit, for reasons that are probably all just imagined, like the perception that Mzajac was like, 'fuck whatever y'all want, we're doing whatever we want'.

And that seems pretty much the opposite of what I was taught and have learned what Wikipedia is about. You want to make massive choices, you talk about it. In each article. If its important enough to you, you take the time to seek consensus, and not secretly hope that its easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And seeing the latter in play - Ukrainian editors swarming onto the Wiki-en to change any and all references of Kiev to Kyiv while using a wobbly consensus as warrant and Mzajac (an admin, no less) totally down to get snarky while dodging any questions to explain his actions (in a weird kind of a parody of current American politics, itself a parody).
So, I knew I was losing my patience with Mzajac and these edits, and decided I should instead trust the Project to deal with the problem - they are by and large smart folk who can see the forest AND the trees. So I took a break from it. I think I've done okay in pointing out my concerns regarding this, and either the community will see them as unacceptable as I do, or they won't. After all, its not like I'm getting paid for this gig, and I'm nowhere nearly as emotionally invested in this as Mzajac clearly is.
So that's why I have been kinda avoiding this discussion. I only post now bc you were nice enough to try and lighten my mood. Fist bump to you, bub. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly how I feel about the issue. I do not particularly care what the outcome of the discussion would be, but I wanted to make sure that the discussion has occurred, and not just a bunch of editors who are seriously morally invested in the issue make the change against consensus. I was first told that I am an active Kiev proponent and talk too much, and then was told to stop in no uncertain terms. Well, I stopped. Now you stopped. Most people do not care. A few more people to stop, and these guys get a free hand, which is the most likely outcome of the whole issue. They never stopped, not for a second.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban my IP address for Warner Archive page

My IP address was banned from editing the Warner Archive page. Someone has been tampering with the page changing a statement regarding the type of media used to create Warner Archive DVD discs. Warner Archive material is not burned on dvd-r discs. Warner Archive material is pressed on a commercially authentic dvd disc just like their factory authentic counterparts. No dvd-r media is used. This is a false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.6.138.74 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring and trying to add unsourced material to that article from this IP and from this range for months, which is why you are blocked from editing those pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a reason to block edits to the article, not to the talk page. Peter James (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Naveen should be replaced with this version

Hi all,

I know my limitations.
"The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." message pops up up when I try to roll it back to the last good version. Rather than posting here saying "I've borked up (any number edits) on Talk:Naveen, can someone please fix up the mess I have made of this?", could I possibly simply ask for someone else to fix this up instead? Pete "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" "I Can't Believe Shirt58 is an Admin!" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see your edits at Talk:Naveen, but I restored that version.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, ha! For who among us has not had such a day? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for deleting some of my subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Wario-Man/Articles
• User:Wario-Man/Bookmarks
• User:Wario-Man/MySandBox

I don't use them anymore. They are unnecessary and obsolete. Please delete them. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Wario-Man (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Provenance of Kevin Merida

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an administrator tell me if it is possible to re-configure the "history" of the article Kevin Merida to show that the content was initiated by User:Michifornia -- that is, if it is clear that the AfC content played a role in assembling the subsequent content published by User:Missvain? For background, see this discussion with Missvain. (She seems amenable to fixing the provenance in the article's history, if that's possible, and if it's warranted.) - AppleBsTime (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. One need to restore the draft and merge the histories.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've merged the histories. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban me

I remember I was banned for creating useless redirects on 24 March 2020 (link) and was directed to use WP:AFC/R. Now, 6 months are passed since then and I realised how cheap and costly the redirects really are. Therefore, I will only create redirects when necessary. Therefore, please unban me. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your math is off. 6 months would be on the 24th of this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, and I would strongly advise a wider ban to cover all redirects, broadly construed, so Soumya is no longer able to be disruptive at WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. Besides the blunt "unban me", the request does not show that Soumya understands WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. Looking at Soumya's contributions at RfD lately, we find: a RENOM violation for a redirect already hashed to death, asserting without evidence that WPJ is an abbreviation for WikiProject, asserting without evidence that Sprache has multiple meanings, misunderstanding of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a weird obsession with J947 (this is the best example of many), etc. Soumya also has several low quality AFC/R submissions, including: Shampooing, Honkong, and constantly trying redirects with "He", including: He Spaceship Company and He Origin of Species several days after being explained why the previous one was no good. I can keep going if necessary, but I'm exhausted only going back to August 20th. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• As long as we are here, per Tavix, continue current ban and broaden to cover all redirect matters, broadly construed, including WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. There are millions of articles in need of improvement. Surely Soumya-8974 can find constructive edits to make that don't involve redirects. I urge them to edit constructively in non redirect areas for another six months before asking to be allowed to come back to redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  I mainly find spaceflight, rocketry, aircraft, and solar system-related articles interesting, and performing page moves, which form redirects, violates my current ban. So I would have to perform WP:RM/TR instead. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum – I have recently joined at WP:WPREDIRECT to discuss about redirects, in order not to disrupt Wikipedia's redirect system. If someone topic bans me on redirect, then it will prevent me to do such discussion. Also, I am suffering in Wikipedia vaguely similar to the Pandavas in the Mahabharata. They spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise. If Kauravas found them in this period, then they would spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise again. In my opinion, it should be best to open WP:AFC/R at least. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, by "disguise" are you suggesting you will WP:SOCK? I highly urge you to withdraw this before your topic ban is converted to a WP:CIR block. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with Tavix and Deepfriedokra. Soumya-8974's participation at RfD, while occasionally helpful, has not been a net positive, and has generated a lot of busywork for others. I think that an expanded topic ban could be worded to allow for page moves and for the creation of articles at former redirects, although as Deepfriedokra suggested, an editor could easily spend the rest of their lives productively improving articles by adding content, copyediting, or fixing categorization without once touching a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, this nomination IMO is a clear sign that we need a wider ban. I'd propose a topic ban covering all redirect matters including RFD and AFC/R, but not including redirects created inadvertently as the result of a page move or the creation of new articles at existing redirects. It probably doesn't need to be said, but just to be clear any attempt to game those exceptions to create redirects by moving pages back and forth or creating a new article and then redirecting it should be considered a violation of the ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, you beat me to it. I came back to this discussion to link the Serbo-Croatia RfD as a clear failure of WP:CIR. While I'm here, I also wanted to point out a very immature comment at the RfD for European+Union. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• (comment from non-admin who no-one would ever consider admin-worthy) - I support this. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_19#Wikipedia:FAMOUS; an RFD nomination with no real rationale explaining why the proposed action was necessary. The European+Union comment linked by Tavix is another problematic one. However, I support an exception allowing them to move pages. I've seen no issues indicating that this user has page-moving problems, so I see no reason to keep them from that. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think there's a fairly clear consensus here around needing a broad ban for redirect matters so we should wrap up this discussion. Tavix, Deepfriedokra, any objections to the wording I suggested about allowing an exception for page moves and article creation? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced an extension of the ban to all types of RfD activity is a good idea. Yes, they sometimes cast !votes without giving reasons, yes, they occasionally make nominations that get quickly snowballed, and yes they should absolutely stop taunting J947 (here I would support a one-way interaction ban). But there have been plenty of constructive nominations as well: 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't think it's a good idea to ban an editor from a venue unless they've been very disruptive or a substantial majority of their nominations have failed. I'm not seeing that here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Uanfala, I think a further complication here is that a fair amount of their constructive nominations have been for redirect changes that wouldn't need to be brought to RfD if it weren't for their originally ban on changing redirects directly. While these changes are nominally helpful, they're being made in a way that is more costly to the project. I wonder if it would be a more productive solution to keep the original ban, but have them file requests for target changes through edit requests rather than through RfDs (at least for uncontroversial suggestions). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, their original ban is for creating redirects [109]. This doesn't prevent them from editing existing redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Uanfala, hm, I had assumed it covered changing targets as well based on Soumya's behavior (and I feel like I remember seeing them claim the same when someone asked them why they were starting RfD discussions for trivial changes). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would agree with the addition of a 1-way IBAN against interacting with J947 due to their seeming inability to desist from taunting them. I came across yet another instance today. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  And why the ban from AFC/R as well? I don't see anything remotely resembling disruption: Tavix brings up four examples: two of them (the "He" redirects) are indeed bad, but the other two are OK: "Shampooing" is a good redirect and it was accepted, "Honkong" was declined though in my opinion should have been accepted as well. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I support the extended topic ban with the proposed by Rosguill with the 1-way IBAN regarding J947. I've seen far too many instances from them of failure to do a basic WP:BEFORE and !votes that indicate they don't understand redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Uanfala. I'm quite skeptical of "topic" bans from processes (as opposed to topics). If someone is so disruptive as to justify banning from using a process like RfD, it indicates to me that a more general measure is warranted. Here, I don't think it rises to either yet. To me, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Wikipedia:FAMOUS reflects a lack of sophisticated understanding of the consequences of retargeting redirects (i.e., I think "FAMOUS" is a better shortcut for...), not malice or disruption. --Bsherr (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Soumya is definitely acting in good faith, issue here is of training which can be addressed by WP:Mentorship for young editors. I agree with Uanfala and Bsherr, extension of ban will be unproductive and demotivating for inexperienced editors.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see this hasn't been resolved yet, but the disruption is still ongoing and evolving. Soumya-8974 has now attempted to close an RfD discussion, which was a WP:BADNAC that I had to revert. Tallest mountain in India was a direct creation as a disambiguation page. I have since converted it to a rather obvious redirect, but I feel like this is indirectly sidestepping the topic ban since I believe a redirect would have been created if Soumya were able to do so. Another interesting situation was when Soumya tried to "fix" an RfD nomination by closing it and then recreating it the "right" way, which effectively created two nominations of the same redirect on the same page. However, that just resulted in more clean-up (which I fixed here) since the way Soumya fixed it was messy, potentially confusing, and ultimately undesirable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In light of the above, I would support a ban on clerking and closing RfD discussions. Unlike with posting comments or !votes (which, if unhelpful, can be ignored by the eventual closer), closing discussions, if not done well, can be disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• I've just un-archived this thread, as at least some sort action appears to have broad support. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User: Solavirum

Update: Hello, I hope this is the proper section for such a post. As it is visible from the below reply by the editor in focus, he cannot keep himself in control and professional enough to abide by this foundation's guidelines in maintaining a neutral presentation of statements and associated references. This jeopardizes Wikipedia's voice as a global open information platform, specially that he admitted on more than an occasion his biased approach which is a clear conflict of interest. --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
---
It's been a week (04.10.2020-11.10.2020) that the user Solavirum has been demonstrating acts of misconduct and disintegrity. Acts such as, but not limited to: reference misuse and misquote, repetition, coming to own conclusions and using them in main article with no apparent proof, not checking the content of reference articles and relying on their titles only, advising other editors and behaving the opposite after modifying (even removing) their edits, disrespectful attitude towards fellow editors such as in the revision description here ("what the hell are you talking about"), and more. Those points are a clear violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct and guidelines.
It is worth noting that in the past other editors have tried to pay user Solavirum's attention to Wikipedia's guidelines. Claiming "victory" in an ongoing war where the word itself is not explicitly mentioned in the reference is a personal conclusion. Perhaps because, as the user expressed himself/herself "I didn't want to paraphrase it, because as a user from a combatant country, I might be slightly biased at least." as shown here.
Based on all the above and the detailed points, I ask the admins Ymblanter Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch to review this case and ban the aforementioned user from editing this article. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is not the page where you appeal, but anyways. Most of the statements here are of no value to their selves. WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH first. Also, you always have the opportunity to WP:BOLD stuff you think that are wrong. And about the disrespectful stuff, I've received much worse statements towards me, so no big deal actually. As for the victory thing, it can be discussed, as the reference stated that the operation was a 'success', which means victory in most cases, in any case, check WP:NOTPERFECT. And for the last statement, of course I can't claim being fully unbiased, I'm from Azerbaijan editing an article about Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as the thread opened against me at ANI remains open I am not going to take any administrative action related to Armenian-Azerbaijani or Ukrainian topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The appropriate board for this would have been WP:ANI. At any rate, I've addressed some individual concerns when they've been raised at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Solavirum has a perspective when it comes to the conflict and has occasionally made edits that have been contested and reverted. They've largely been civil and cooperative, have made significant positive contributions to the article, and I don't think anything that's been presented here rises to the level of requiring sanctions. The endless call for sanctions with minimal evidence of serious bad faith editing, however, is beginning to be tendentious. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It is normal that every one of us has his/her own perspective. Wikipedia has no place for perspectives as they represent biased personal views on a topic. Social media platforms are the proper place for that. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, neither a news outlet nor an analysis forum. Yes, Solavirum's contributions have mostly been civil and cooperative, but his heavily biased edits, references, and views undermine his contributions. Talking about that, any contribution based on a biased personal perspective (as he admitted twice) should not be called a "positive" or a "negative" one. All of the points presented in the talk section of the article in focus need to be reviewed by other editors as well since this seems to be a behavioral pattern. The points listed in the talk rise to call for sanctions specially that some are clear and direct violation of Wikipedia's philosophy and establishment. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex662607004, to be from a combatant country in a conflict and saying that I'm not 100# unbiased in the topic would be a plane lie. It is actually normal for editors to have bias, but that doesn't mean that they should make extremely biased additions and push a POV. Which, as you can see, have been not doing so. In this context, I really have no idea why are you reporting me ... for the third time. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing SPI cases

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

47 pages are awaiting to be archived in the Category:SPI cases awaiting archive. Heart ^(talk) 04:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The clerks will get to it when they get to it, and in the mean time, it isn't hurting anyone. ST47 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous edit reverting by 103.248.237.9 despite providing reliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 103.248.237.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kingarthur581 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anonymous editor with IP address of 103.248.237.9 continuously reverting my or other editor's edits, despite me providing sufficient reference and well sourced citations to back my edits and continuously done so in these reverts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 without seeking any general consensus in talk page. The explanation given by him was "Only fact checking and removing false information.Yes, it IS npov. Don't try to push and advertise a certain place to compete with another's, in this case, Cumilla's. The person adding Kolkata rasmalai again and again is trying to upheld Kolkata with non npov" and "The citations don't prove the other person's point... He himself can go on the talk page" though I have provided reliable sources and didn't made any false claim about Kolkata's Ras malai being famous. Also he is falsely accusing me of pushing advertising and adding non NPOV content while he himself committing it by erasing well sourced material to push POV and doesn't seem to care that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where everyone has to respect general consensus. He is clearly violating WP:DR with his "I will not stop mentality". For my part, I am not replacing Comilla with Kolkata or challenging Comilla's Rasmalai's recognition or upholding Kolkata over Comilla anyway, I am only adding Kolkata with Comilla as both places are famous for their Rasmalai and this is not a false or unsourced claim by me, infact K.C Das Grandsons of Kolkata is among the major contenders for the place of its origin and like Comilla, Rasmalai in Kolkata is very famous too and Kolkata is well documented and known for its Rasmalai. But this guy still accusing me of putting advertisement and claiming that it is me who pushing POV but not him. I have warned him about edit warring in his talk page and to seek general consensus before reverting my edit or reverts but he is acting with a I DIDN'T HEAR THAT mentality and countinued to revert my edit afterwards. Despite me pleading him to discuss any possible POV conflict in the talk page he is basically telling me to mind my own business and doesn't seem to care at all. He is not only reverting my edit but also here when a fellow Wikipedian JavaHurricane reverted his edit, he instantly reverted it without discussion. Can this matter be solved in any way? Please pardon me if there is any mistakes in my explanation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingarthur581 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The page in dispute seems to be Ras malai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is a type of dessert. I am notifying the IP editor 103.248.237.9 of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Thank you sir, that's very helpful of you. Kingarthur581 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request that my TB be removed

I'm still not clear on what I did wrong to be accused of being a sockpuppet then topic banned. I made what I thought were three appropriate edits at the [Gatestone Institute] page here, here, and here.

I had seen that other editors, such as @Snooganssnoogans: had changed it from "conservative" to "far-right" without any consensus on the talk page. From what I've read, when an edit is challenged, a discussion should take place on the talk page: WP:EDITCONSENSUS. It didn't. Then Snooganssnoogans filed a NoCal100 SPI on me. It appears that Snooganssnoogans did that to several other editors from this article that he disagreed with.

Apparently, when they saw that I was not NoCal sockpuppet, @TonyBallioni: just topic banned me.

I’m a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, and from what I've read, sanctions are not supposed to be punitive WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. If I made a mistake, then I would think that the appropriate process would be for an administrator to tell me exactly what I did wrong so I could figure out how I can be better in the future. To first accuse me of being a NoCal sockpuppet then to topic ban me seems excessively harsh and unfair, especially since I have no idea who this NoCal100 is. It looks like I was topic banned because an editor and an administrator simply didn't agree with my content.

I request that my topic ban be lifted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The bandoleer (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reading up on the history here, it looks more like you were topic banned for edit warring without discussion, which is a milder penalty than you could have gotten - and it was a very limited topic ban, covering only Islam in American Politics, so you could have edited anywhere else on Wikipedia, but chose not to, for the 6 months before this appeal. Also, remember that the WP:BRD process states that if you make an edit and it's reverted, it's on you to start the discussion, not anyone else. That said, I don't see any particular reason not to lift the topic ban at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree. I suggest you focus on editing other areas of the encyclopedia to show that you are competent and able to edit elsewhere without being a problem. A positive track record goes a long way towards having bans lifted. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The original ban was from Islam in American politics, under Arbitration enforcement, per WP:ARBAP2. I've notified the banning admin, TonyBallioni of your filing here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sarek and CaptainEek, not editing elsewhere during your TBAN indicates that you only want to work in an area in which you have caused disruption. Spend six months contributing to another part of the encyclopaedia and come back then with a clean record. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• keep topic ban One does not wait out a topic ban by not not editing the encyclopedia for six months and then return saying, "OK, lift the topic ban." Stop me if you've heard this before . . . . One must demonstrate the ability to edit constructively and collaboratively in other areas for at least six months, and then ask for consideration of removal of the topic ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I might also want to see demonstration of understanding of what one does instead of edit warring. I see instead blaming others and complaints of unreasonableness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Because I am right" has never been a particularly compelling reason to lift a TBAN. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of the topic ban. "I'm still not clear on what I did wrong to be accused of being a sockpuppet then topic banned. " That's all I needed to read. You have no idea what you did to be topic banned means you will go right back to the editing that caused the ban to be placed to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Miss Universe Thailand 2020

this IP adress try to adding wrong details on Miss Universe Thailand 2020 article, can admin take any action to this IP adress? because he did not stop to add about Miss Universe Comlombia 2020 on this page. or can you protect this article from an IP user?, thanks.

• 2402:1980:82C5:8E8:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2402:1980:82f7:15d7::1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism ideas

Please see this WP:VP/I thread for some anti-vandalism ideas I'm kicking around. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war in this article Casablanca derby, where this user Elhaddad77 keeps reverting edits to include old data with broken YouTube links, other IP users wrote him to stop but he kept reverting back. It seems that he won't stop until an admin do something about it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.230.205.217 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He reverted the edits again without any explanation other than complete vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.230.205.217 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In his talk page, he has been warned against destructive editing since December 2019, we can view a pattern here ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.230.205.217 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi IP 36.230.205.217. When you start a discussion about someone at AN, you're supposed to notify them per the instructions given at the top of this page. You failed to do this, so I've gone ahead and done so for you.

It appears that you're engaged in a content/format dispute as opposed to vandalism, which is something you should continue to try and resolve Talk:Casablanca derby. The other editor has been in the wrong by reverting, but you continuing to revert them back won't resolve things and will likely only lead to someone's account (even perhaps yours) being blocked for edit warring. So, my suggestion to you is to try and engage this editor via the article's talk page; perhaps instead of accusing them of vandalism or other things, try civilly inviting them to discuss things on the article's talk page. Stick to focusing on the content being disputed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and avoid commenting on them as an editor. If the other editor declines to participate in any such discussion or decides to be come hostile if they do, then that's their choice; they, however, won't be able to ignore a WP:CONSENSUS established through talk page discussion, even if they don't like it. So, make an effort to discuss things and seek consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think this thread can be closed now. Elhaddad77 seems to be willing to start discussing things on the article's talk page based on User talk:Marchjuly#Casblanca derby modification and Talk:Casablanca derby#YouTube videos. I think Elhaddad77's unfamiliarity with how talk pages worked was the main reason why they weren't discussing things, and moving forward things should be better. If not, another AN/ANI discussion can be started. Just going to add that sometimes posts like User talk:Elhaddad77#Stop vandalism can make things worse instead of better and instead it might be better to try more friendlier approach per WP:AGF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:UserRights/Doomsdayer520

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why last change performer's username is hidden? And I cannot find it's revdel log at Special:Log/delete so I guess it's oversighted. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Checking... — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: this log was suppressed, so we are not at liberty to discuss why publicly, however I have raised this to the Oversight team for cross-checking. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this was not a mistake, it has been oversighted, and that's all we can say. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Portals

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Portals

Health Psychology and Iss246

I have been involved in an edit war with editor Iss246 at the Health Psychology page. I have asked them to be involved in a discussion but they refused and instead give me personal abuse and ridicule because they can as I am a new user and this person boasts that they are untouchable and can do what they want on Wikipedia as they are experienced and won't get blocked. However Iss246 looks like they have been blocked for edit warring many times before. Psyballed (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I was asked by Iss246 to review this matter. I did so, noted that Psyballed was continuing to revert having themself been reverted by three different editors, and left Psyballed a standard 3RR warning template. I have for my pains since been accused by Psyballed on my talk page of being "very biased". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No there have not been three different editors reverting me Pigsonthewing. Iss246 used their IP address and the other editor Ophres appeared suddenly and seems to be involved in other edit wars Iss246 has been involved in and 'suddenly appeared' to support Iss246 and only on articles Iss246 is involved in an edit war on. Also Iss246 under their own account has reverted at least 4 times in a 24 hour period. Iss246 has also been blocked many times before it looks like. Not notifying Iss246 of edit warring seems "very biased" indeed. I know I was involved but why have you chosen not to notify Iss246 when it is so bloody obvious they are edit warring and have a long history of edit warring? Are they untouchable here as iss246 boasts because they are experienced? Really? Psyballed (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's ... one hell of an edit war. Something like 10 reverts each, over whether references should be in the lead (not even changing content!). If you don't both stop immediately, there needs to be full-protection or page-bans. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Given you have counted 10 reverts each Power~enwiki it illustrates my point of bias directed squarely at Pigsonthewing not informing Iss246 their friend that they were edit warring too, especially seeing it looks like Iss246 has been blocked many times before for edit warring. Psyballed (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that this conflict has been happening. This teapot tempest began when a "newcomer" to WP named psyballed started reverting my edits. I have indicated in the health psychology entry and in related entries that occupational health psychology (OHP) is in part related to health psychology (HP). Not a revolutionary statement of fact. Just an ordinary, anodyne statement of fact. I have sourced that fact.

Psyballed on the HP talk page has contested the view that OHP is related to HP. Psyballed has removed the sources that I used to document that OHP is related to HP. One of the sources he removed was an article published in the journal Health Psychology (Quick, J.C. (1999). Occupational health psychology: Historical roots and future directions, Health Psychology, 18, 82-88. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.18.1.82). That source is still missing from Health psychology entry, having been deleted by psyballed. I didn't restore it because I didn't want the hassle but now that I have repeatedly been hassled, I intend to restore that source. To psyballed, it is as if a source from the premier health psychology journal is not good enough to show a connection between OHP and HP. Even the names of the two disciplines cry to be recognized as related disciplines.

Psyballed has done almost nothing else on WP but attack me and revert my edits. More than 95% of his edits are aimed at my edits. I don't know why he does almost nothing else on WP but attack my edits. I don't know him. I never met him. I am trying to work on other projects, like improving the grounded theory entry but I keep having to interrupt my work to see what this wrecking ball of a single-minded editor has done to my edits of the health psychology entry. I have more than 13,000 edits. I started 40 WP entries. I have edited many other entries that were started by others. Between September and October, I have completed at least 120 edits of the grounded theory entry--and I am happy to say that between my edits and the September-October edits of other Wikipedians, the grounded theory entry has improved. I love Wikipedia. The research shows that it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I strive for accuracy. But I don't want to spend my time getting hassled over something as minor as this matter. I would appreciate if the administrators would make psyballed stop undoing my edits. I would appreciate it if the administrator would direct him to work on WP entries that I don't work on. There are millions of them.

I add that I don't believe that psyballed is a newcomer. When I was a newcomer, I didn't start out like gangbusters the way psyballed started out. I performed a small number of edits until I got comfortable. It took a year to get comfortable with editing. I did not know about a page like this one for many years. Psyballed jumped into WP with almost a vendetta against me. What he has been doing looks to me like a continuation of what another editor who had a vendetta against me used to do until he was banned. They have a very similar MO--like an inquisitor they ask a (rhetorical) question on the talk page and insist that whatever answer I gave was not good enough. I stopped answering those questions. I would like the administrators to protect me from him. Iss246 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Still on-going. I suggest a handy admin step in and protect the wrong version to force a little discussion other than via edit summary.

Iss246, you say ... I keep having to interrupt my work to see what this wrecking ball of a single-minded editor has done to my edits of the health psychology entry. No, you don't. Let it go, there are scores of editors watching that page and hundreds, maybe even thousands, capable of improving it; WP is not dependent on your efforts to keep any page at a certain quality level. Even though it's incredibly annoying (i know, i've seen the same thing) seeing one editor wreaking what feels like destruction on your hard work. This too, will pass; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Addendum Just to be clear, i'm not taking sides: Psyballed, i would give you exactly the same advice: Move away from this article for a while and find another to improve; perhaps when you come back you'll find it in better shape than now, or perhaps not. If the latter, go to the talk page and work it out with other active editors so we have a better encyclopaedia. Whatever you do, though, stop edit warring, which is what you were doing as of seven hours ago; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've full protected the page for a week. Use the talk page to discuss changes. If after a week, the warring continues, I'm going to swing the ban hammer and block every person who is reverting, whether they are violating 3RR or not. This is ridiculous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ridiculous or not, I appreciate what you have done. Iss246 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor

I'm a paid Wikipedian and today I got a warning [110]: if I continue editing directly the Wikipedia articles, I will be blocked. I've made over 14,000 edits over ten years, most of them in Finnish and over 2,000 in English. I would estimate that about 95% of my edits have been paid edits so far. And yes, I've disclosed them all. I know that paid editors are not encouraged to edit directly, but it is still not totally forbidden, as long as one discloses. Right?

So I'd like to know more about this process now. If I edit any English article in the future, will I be blocked for ever? No matter how small the change is? How about the articles in other languages? Could I have a second (or third or fourth) opinion about this judgement or is this the final one? I'm also a Wikipedia trainer so this warning means that I cannot show how the English Wikipedia is edited in practice. Or can I do that by using an IP address? And am I allowed to review the edits made by the students on my Wikipedia workshops? Cheers, Jjanhone (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately it looks like all of this user's edits and article-creations need to be gone through for possible clean-up; and no, she should not be editing or creating customers' articles directly. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Question: @Jjanhone: Were you paid to edit Cimcorp, Elematic, Raute (company), Molok (company) and Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company? M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I can see that those are listed on your page, yet you clearly ignored what WP:PAY says about editing affected articles directly and proposing changes on talk pages. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I'm editing about notable subjects that the volunteers have not written about (or have only written a bit). If the article was already up-to-date and contained the most important stuff there would be nothing for me to add. In reality quite a few companies have fans who would like to edit their Wikipedia pages.Jjanhone (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment 2: She has been warned repeatedly over the past two years not to edit paid articles directly [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], but has quibbled and evaded and continued every time. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason I kept editing is that I edit mainly Finnish subjects so that the amount of editors interested about the same subjects is pretty small. I'm afraid there are not enough people checking my talk page requests but this is to be seen now in practise.Jjanhone (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Jjanhone, requests take time to respond to, and it has nothing to do with who might be interested in that subject matter. You have to be willing to wait, sometimes for several weeks, for your requests to be responded to. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict):When I read the conversation on the talk page, you weren't warned for adding commas. You were warned because you added non-neutral verbiage to the article, favoring the topic you are paid to edit. Even if you find multiple high-quality reliable sources that fawn over your topic, you shouldn't be modifying the article regarding these as a paid editor. You should request edits at the talk page. This is a prime example as to why, because you thought your additions were neutral when others clearly see them as promotional. Disclosing your paid editing indeed does mean you can edit here as a paid editor. However, disclosing your paid editing does not allow you to add what might be considered value judgements, and your COI makes it all the more difficult to discern what is a value judgement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• What exactly can a paid editor do that is related to the reason for which they were hired but isn't inherently problematic or promotional? I feel like the practice should be inherently disallowed.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• I get that WP:PAID says "strongly discouraged" for direct edits to an article, but that is not the same as forbidden. Assuming the edit was not unduly promotional and made clear it was a paid edit I do not see an issue with them editing an article directly. Is there something I am missing? PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (Non-administrator comment) to reply to I'm also a Wikipedia trainer so this warning means that I cannot show how the English Wikipedia is edited in practice. Or can I do that by using an IP address?: no. You can use the sandbox, or your own sandbox to do that, or even fix a typo in an article you are entirely unaffiliated with. Do not use an IP address. That will land you in very hot water. -- a lad insane (channel two) 15:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So IP is not ok. Thanks. But let's say that I'm training a museum. So when they are paying me, I do have a COI. And if I then correct or typo or show them how to add wiki links I might be blocked. That's not a risk I'm willing to take. :/ Jjanhone (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

PS. There's only four Wikipedia trainers included on Wikimedia Finland's page: [119]. Jjanhone (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think the community has a contradictory / split decision on this, Generally speaking, you are strongly discouraged from making edits directly to the article you have a COI with rather you are advised to use the article's talk page to suggest the changes you are proposing but no where does it say you mandated to do so. Furthermore, No, making small edits such as typographical error/ tense corrections would definitely not get you in any kind of trouble. Celestina007 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

But are the rules permanently different for me from now on because of the warning? Jjanhone (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Jjanhone, Editors here read the same policies and guidelines and have their own unique interpretation of it. When you read WP:PAID it clearly states you are strongly discouraged from editing articles you have a COI with but being strongly discouraged is not the same as being forbidden from undertaking a particular course of action. Moving forward, proposing the changes in the article's talk page first is good practice but no policy makes it compulsory for you to do so. I say this as one who abhors completely the concept of edit for pay be it disclosed or undisclosed but I just have to set the record straight. If any editor warns you about editing directly the article’s you have a COI with you can always remind them that you aren’t necessarily mandated to propose the changes in the article’s talk page. My advise would be this; in future when you have been paid to write an article, just ensure to pass it through the WP:AFC process. Your transparency so far is commendable & I’m quite saddened that this hasn’t been duly appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Kind of adding to this Smartse what was the policy reason for you will be blocked if you persist in editing articles directly?[120] PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really involved, justdipping in, but I'll say I want a partial block on all paid articles. if it exceeds 10, article block. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Per policy, paid editors can directly edit articles but in this case Jjanhone has been warned repeatedly that they are introducing problematic content and that they should use edit requests, but they have carried on regardless. My problem is mainly with the content that they are introducing and using edit requests is an accepted procedure to vet it. If they continue, to not heed warnings, it is disruptive and a block would prevent further problems. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking through her talk page it seems most of the complains are about her editing the article directly and thinking that it is against policy for her to do so. For instance the warning right above yours mistakenly says the same kind of thing. My take is it looks like a line of incorrect warnings and then using that as a sign of disruption. Something does not sound right here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng and Celestina007: I think you are both overlooking the context of these prior discussions/warnings. When I raised Jjanhone's edits to Ken Banks with her, she had not been transparent: she didn't disclose that she had been paid for them until I specifically asked her to, despite having being told years ago that this was a requirement. (And unlike "not editing the article directly" that is a hard requirement, per WP:PAID and the ToU). I spotted it because she was making unexplained, promotional edits to an article with a long history of disruptive undisclosed paid editing by multiple editors (see [121][122] and the history), which included repeatedly attempting to remove the {{coi}} cleanup tag.

Jjanhone is well aware that direct editing is only "strongly discouraged" rather than forbidden, because she keeps doing it. Softlavender's assessment is bang on the money: Jjanhone knows the guidelines well, but quibbles, wikilawyers, and feigns ignorance so she can get around them. There comes a point, when someone repeatedly exploits the leeway given by the "strongly discouraged" wording to insert paid-for promotional material into articles, that we have to also give administrators leeway to deal with it as they would any other disruptive editor. – Joe (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

About disclosing Ken Banks - I had a habit of first editing and then adding the disclosure - the disclosing tab asks for a link of changes and it's difficult to give before I've done a thing. And the disclusure was done in few hours after I start editing. So I had not had time to add it yet, you were faster than me. And what I was doing on Banks' article was not adding promotional content but removing the content the UPEs had added on the article before me.Jjanhone (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This week I was removing categories from Banks' article and changing the tag from UPE to COI. Isn't it enough that I've disclosed and Banks has disclosed the two edits he had ordered before I joined the party? [123]Jjanhone (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we are missing anything. The conversation below sums it up better though. So quit trying to require paid edits use the talk page first, that is not supported by policy. If they have a habit of violating NPOV that is different and can be sorted out separately. Though looking at the examples given it is not a very strong case for that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing PackMecEng, at al., paid editing of articles directly isn't forbidden, just strongly discouraged. If a user persists and do so in a way that is promotional/non-neutral/using bad sources/whatever and continues to do so after warnings, then issue an explicit topic ban. What's problematic is where people try to tell paid editors that editing an article directly isn't allowed. That's not actually backed by policy and will just confuse them to the point that we effectively discourage disclosure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The editor is obviously adding promotional material to articles, and has been repeatedly doing so for years (and even edit-warring over her edits) in spite of warnings, and I think an indefinite block from mainspace is in order. That would not interfere with her making edit requests on talk pages, mocking up requests in her sandbox, and drafting/submitting declared-COI articles through AfC. She can create a declared alternate account for her Wikipedia training, which does not do any COI editing. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

About the edit-wars. I don't remember how many there has been, maybe 3? And the reason for them has been that while I've been editing an article someone has started to edit the same article and saved it before I finished. The war was a result of an edit-conflict. And I want to point what this "new way of editing" for me is in practice: [124]. I used over three hours to change this [125] to this [126]. The result? "A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article." & "Declined, it's basically a request asking to revert Smartse". Jjanhone (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If I give a Wikipedia training for a museum that are paying me I obviously should teach them how to edit their "own" articles or articles related to them, not hang around a sandbox. But I can't do that, as that would be COI. Jjanhone (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

obviously should teach them how to edit their "own" articles or articles related to them Actually no. That's a pretty standard rule of Wikipedia workshops (or "edit-a-thons"): no editing about yourself or your employer. An event that fosters conflict of interest editing is not a good idea. As much as you may or may not have learned about Wikipedia policy, that can't be learned in a single training event, and not everyone will buy into the policies/guidelines. If it's an art museum, suggest that they edit articles about artists on display there, or better yet, donate some images of public domain artworks. Then the museum's name will be on the file page, even. What I think you may be realizing is that while paid editing in articles isn't actually forbidden, nobody actually likes it, and a small number of vigilantes basically impose rules that don't exist and not enough people feel strongly enough about defending paid editing to jump in and say "hey, maybe don't invent rules for them." It's dumb in the long run for us, because unless we have an easy pipeline that ensures thorough review, we're encouraging undisclosed paid editing (as I said above), but that seems to be where we're at. So if you run a training, if for no other reason, strongly discourage them from COI editing because, in practice, the edit might stick or you might wind up dragged off to a noticeboard with people following you around for the rest of your wikicareer... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Usually the participants of the workshops arranged by museums have been "museum's friends". But if the policy is that not even GLAM organizations can edit the content related to them, I'm very sad and confused. We are missing so much potential if all COI edits are forbidden or made so difficult that they don't want to play the game. The loser of this game is Wikipedia itself. Jjanhone (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"if the policy is that not even GLAM organizations can edit the content related to them" It is not. WP:CURATOR is quite clear about that. It may be best if they do not edit the arictles about their institution (especially if they are new here), but we want them to edit in their areas of expertise, about the material in their collections, and the makers of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The conversation here seems to be mixing two separate things: "paid" editing, and "advocacy" editing. The issue in this discussion should be not whether someone is paid or unpaid, but whether they are promoting something (a product, an ideology, a person...) because of an undisclosed relationship. That relationship can be about direct payment, or many other kinds (family/friend, political opinion...). I think it is clear that the editor in question has declared their status as receiving payment, quite overtly - so we're not discussing "undisclosed paid editing". Instead, the focus should be about the NPOV of the edits themselves, and whether there is any consistent/deliberate pattern of edits which contradict that policy - payment or not.

Additional edit comment: Also to add - if conversations like this focus on the "paid" part and not the "advocacy", then why would paid editors ever actually follow the rules and declare their position. Good faith disclosure of paid editing should be treated on the merits of the content, not more-hastily blocked because they disclosed their payment. [For what it's worth: I know the editor in-person, but have never read, or been involved with, any of their articles]. Wittylama 09:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wittylama, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that this paid editor is editing articles directly, substantively, instead of making talkpage edit requests as she has been repeatedly (8+ times over the past two years) instructed to. Not only has she continue to defy those repeated instructions, she has even edit-warred with an administrator to restore her article edits. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Such an instruction ignores that disclosed paid editors are only 'strongly discouraged' to edit articles directly (in a guideline), and not prohibited (in a policy). –xeno^talk 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it's best to treat the "paid" angle as irrelevant and focus on the edits: if someone repeatedly violates WP:NPOV after warnings, they may be blocked for disruption related to the POV-pushing, without regard to their disclosed paid status. –xeno^talk 13:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Naw, that makes too much sense. WilyD 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Xeno, this —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly what Xeno said. Not seeing any indication that Jj has violated PAID or COI. The warnings were incorrect: paid editors are allowed to edit articles directly (strongly discouraged means still permitted) and they don't have to use AFC for new creations (there's an ongoing RFC about that, the current wording is "should", not "must"). As long as Jj's edits otherwise comply with all the WP:PAGs and they are making disclosures (the disclosure should be made immediately after making a COI edit; don't wait a few hours, plan to do it at the same time), they're in compliance. Lev!vich 16:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think Xeno and Levivich are making a lot of sense here. Haukur (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is definitely a stigma against paid editors that is counterproductive to both our policies and our goals. Yes, paid editors may absolutely be editing to advance a bias, however, as Xeno says, if they are doing so, their paid status is irrelevant. If they are not, there is no reason to object to their edits if they are otherwise in compliance with policy. If I'm not mistaken, this appears to be about additions made to Solar Foods. SmartSE reverted those additions without any substantive objection whatsoever, other than the notion that the editor is to suggest their changes on the talk page, and is not to actually implement any changes. As is repeatedly explained above, this is not what the policy says is required. I do not see SmartSE articulating any actual content objection to the content they reverted and warned, and when the paid editor asked in good faith what the problem was and how to go forward, SmartSE was unable to provide them with any answer other than threatening to block them. It is not appropriate to revert content without an explanation, and even less appropriate to revert content based on an explanation that is out of line with policy. It seems this was an inappropriate admin intervention. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've raised a few similar issues at WP:COIN recently, and was attacked for doing so. More eyes there would probably help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is why we end up with problems like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paid editor blocked with 30,000 edits. We make the process painful for editors who follow the rules, and then we're hostile towards them regardless. Why would anyone disclose if this is the result? Unless someone has a magic UPE detector, we simply cannot afford to incentivize non-disclosure. There is no policy-based reason why OP cannot edit articles and unless they are being disruptive, it is in our best interest to let them continue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Come on, now. "Strongly discouraged" means in no uncertain terms that people are going to come to your talk page to strongly discourage you. And it's naïve to expect that is not going to happen, whether you disclose or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The difference is admins requiring they use talk only or they will be blocked. While reverting with no rational. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Almost no difference whatsoever, just like almost ever other block on Wikipedia, which are almost never automatic -- people are expected to cooperate, they are warned and talked to, they are seen to transgress requests for cooperation, fail to cooperate, edge the line, etc., etc. and etc. and the block hangs in wait, and sometimes comes down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • That does not appear to be the situation here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
        • The case is, this is a cooperative project and when someone is doing something that is strongly discouraged, they sometimes find themselves in situations they do not like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  No uncertain terms? An example of saying in no uncertain terms that people are going to come to your talk page to strongly discourage you would be: "people are going to come to your talk page to strongly discourage you". Whereas what WP:COI actually says is "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". It doesn't say anything about anyone coming to anyone's talk page. Those are two different thoughts and only one of them is expressed. Also, the talk page warnings in this case were not "strong discouragements" but "absolute prohibitions under threat of sanction", and those are also two different thoughts, only one of which was expressed. Lev!vich 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  In no uncertain terms, you will be strongly discouraged by other Wikipedians and they will regularly do that on your talk page, in fact the pedians are regularly expected to talk about issues there. And yes, from time to time you will be warned that doing things others are strongly discouraging you from doing can lead to blocks, just like almost every block situation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Clearly you're using the words "no uncertain terms" differently than I do. Lev!vich 17:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  You're doing mental gymnastics here. There is a difference between "discouraging" and "prohibiting", by definition. Paid editors are not prohibited from making edits, no matter how discouraged they are from doing so. It's not an objective rule, only something that is not a best practice. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: I have no idea why we even allow paid editors to exist here. It flies directly in the face of our Neutrality Pillar. It damages the entire project's objectivity if we allow 'for sale' editing. This should be a no-brainer; if you are getting paid to edit, you cannot remain neutral in Wikipedia. Will that stop paid editors from sneaking in? No, but they will know that wiki-defenstration will happen once they are uncovered. Please, explain to me why we are even talking about this... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  We are talking bout this because not all paid editors fit the pattern you describe; and nor should they be "defenestrated". Time for yet another reminder that paid editors include Wikimedians in Residence (I am one) who are welcomed and supported by the community at large. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  why we are even talking about this. Because I wanted to know if I can still continue editing or am I forced to proposing edits from now on. If I can continue could some of the admins visit my talk page and give me an "official" permission to continue? Now that so many admins have learnt about me there's hardly a change for me to add any kind of content that wouldn't met Wikipedia rules either in the future. This is nothing new to me: during my decade of paid editing the regular Finnish Wikipedians have kept an eye on me and taught me a lot about what kind of content is not appropriate. One learns by doing and by mistakes too and I try not to repeat my mistakes. The cultures differ from project to project but I think I do a pretty decent work on Wikipedia. Otherwise you would have heard about me much earlier, right? I hope people are not expecting even paid editor to be always perfect editors. Jjanhone (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that paid is not clearcut in every situation. For instance, what if a scholar is paid to fix articles in an academic area, and their editing is generally good? What if a corporate employee updates mundane things? What if an employee edits their employer's article, not at direction and not as part of a public relations campaign, but because they naively come to Wikipedia and see an inaccuracy? My view is that advocacy editing must be prevented, whether or not it is paid. Paid editing usually turns into advocacy editing, but not always. Jehochman ^Talk 00:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We also have a small but vocal group of editors who think that volunteers should be "deemed" (their term) to be paid editors. We even have a few who think that anything that they assert was written by an undeclared paid editor should be permanently tagged, even after any necessary cleaup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on new disclosure requirements for freelance paid_ editors is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

• Anarchyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Backlog at Page protection requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, there is a backlog at WP:RFPP, dating since 14th Oct. Please have a look? Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Around 25+ requests are currently in queue ~ Amkgp 💬 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political endorsements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A now topic-banned user started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements to overturn the substantial consensus for independent sourcing of political endorsements. I think this should probably be closed as it’s nowhere near as widely advertised as the earlier RfC and was started by a user who, I think it’s fair to say, is somewhat misguided on this. It has the potential to sow confusion, with the user already asserting that its going against the earlier consensus [127] despite theirs being the only !vote in that direction. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a bold NAC speedy close for multiple reasons. The full reasons are in the close rationale but a 30-day RfC process 18 days before the election that the RfC targets is pointless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thanks, deftly done I would say. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes needed at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is ECP and progressing reasonably well, but the talk page is drawing a lot of redundant edit requests and NOTFORUM violations. Right now it's been just me and one other editor trying to keep things in line there, and we could use a bit more help, particularly from editors who are awake when it's day time in western Asia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this but after this I have zero motivation to take any administrative actions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. May be we should just unprotect all the articles, let those guys to continue edit-warring and then just routinely block after three reverts with increasing block duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protection backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. There's a backlog at WP:RFPP, some going back to 13th Oct. Please could someone help and take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Ohnoitsjamie and Rosguill for the help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins, can an uninvolved admin/editor close the above as a snow keep, IMO not really worth embarrassing the filer any longer. Thanks Nightfury 20:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, a no brainer--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ta kindly. Nightfury 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's probably worth watchlisting this article as it's being discussed on 4chan and some QAnon forums, with a predictably negative reaction to our preference for mainstream characterisation of the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for a month but that doesn't mean that some dormant accounts couldn't be revived. It's good to add to your Watchlist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring IP user.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm making this report on behalf of @Doggy54321:, of the constant edit warring by 71.234.178.78 (talk · contribs) on Life Support (Madison Beer album). Now, Doggy did perform 4 reverts, but they were to revert unsourced changes the IP user added. Doggy was not engaging in an edit war as per WP:EW, which states "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" does not count as edit warring. The IP user also blocked Doggy from editing their talk page; thus, Doggy couldn't resolve in that way either. The IP user removed the "old warnings" template from their talk page, and has violated the 3RR. Please look into this. BawinV (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Diff before all the edit warring: [128] Diffs of edit warring: [129], [130], [131], [132] Doggy realized that IP user didn’t ask them not to post on their talk page so she warned them here [133] Diff of talk page resolve attempt [134]. BawinV (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

{{rfpp|f|31 hours}} Looks like an edit war to me. The editors should use the talk page, and I've full protected the article to force dispute resolution. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay I've looked into this more and blocks are the better route since the edit war between these two extended over multiple pages. Doggy54321 just got off a block for edit warring a few hours ago and is back at it so I blocked again for 3 days. I blocked the IP for 36 hours for their part in the edit war. Since those were the only two warring on the page I unprotected it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marketing network afoot?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[135][136] Specifically mentions activity on HN, Reddit, and Medium. I didn't notice Wikipedia in the minute or so that I looked through the threads, but it's an obvious enough target that I thought I'd mention it here. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I had a look and didn't find much. I have blocked Perogrimadi as an obvious spammer (and wouldn't be surprised if it was a stray Japanelemu sock based on the username). MER-C 10:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremy Griffith

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suspect this guy is some sort of grifter, the kind who promotes some great pseudo-scientific breakthrough that will supposedly change the world. His website, www.humancondition.com, just screams SCAM to me. He has an L Ron Hubbard vibe going here. Is there a way I can flag the Jeremy Griffith article for closer scrutiny? I think it's a puff piece designed to burnish his image. Kurzon (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: you want WP:Fringe theories noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sack Trick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sack Trick that should probably be enacted soon. If this is the wrong forum, please let me know where to post. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, You already had an answer at WP:DRV from SMarshall. WP:REFUND is not the venue to get what you could not at DRV --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lower the ban to main space pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Guy agreed to lower the ban to main space pages. Therefore I wouldn’t be able to add any edits that are improperly sourced or do anything other than discuss. I would personally advocate for the ban to be less strict to maybe only presidential politics or 2020 politics but that choice is up to you. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Added: I have given up the part about the ban being less strict. I will add that I understand that references must be both reliable and independent. I also understand that before adding a source that may be controversial or has a ton of names (like 5 or more) I should check with others on the talk page if it should be added. Also I would like talk page access so that I could continue at least being part of current political arguments without any chance of me breaking endorsement criteria or violating biographies of living people. When I am allowed to edit again, it would help me have a better understanding and make it less likely that I make any more mistakes like this (if I get feedback for the next 3 months on endorsements and seeing what admins add, this would be more useful than a complete ban) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Bean Farmer (talk • contribs) 01:33, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

Final addition (probably): please just let me edit the talk pages. I apologize for adding so many primary and unreliable sources (medium.com for example), but I know that that was wrong. In addition, I only ask to edit the talk pages again. This would be a good learning experience for me to get an up close look at sourcing without the chance of disrupting any articles. And if it doesn’t work out, I think it’s pretty clear I will get blocked (I understand this). Please just give me this opportunity. Keeping me blocked from talk pages isn’t going to help me or the project out in any way. Please, if it seems like I’m begging, I almost am at this point. I wasn’t really given a warning on the Biden endorsement page and then all of a sudden I get this complete ban. I understand I should have asked before adding all of those edits but I want to continue editing Wikipedia and improve. As I’ve said, I would’ve been happy to just use the talk page if there was no ban. Please, someone be sympathetic and please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Bean Farmer (talk • contribs) 02:12, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not. I said that if you requested such a change, I would support it, provided you showed that you understood the problem. I think what we see here is that actually you don't understand the problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what? You said you would support it. Isn’t the problem that I was adding poor sources which led to a violation of biographies of living persons? What I’m saying is unblock me from the talk pages and I can make requests and review sources with other editors so that they don’t get breached. Don’t go back on your word now Guy. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• For the similarly confused, this is an appeal of Lima Bean Farmer's 3-month topic ban from the post-1932 American Politics topic area, imposed yesterday by @Barkeep49:. ST47 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ST47, are you trying to make me look bad? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see how he's trying to make you look bad. You posted an exceedingly vague thread here (saying "lower the ban" without referring to any specific ban). Your hostile attitude is making you look bad, not ST47's edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      • power~enwiki, I don’t see how anything I did was hostile. The only thing that ST47 added was my ban and no part where I discuss it or anything else. Therefore, I wanted to ask them if they were trying to make me look bad. I didn’t accuse them of anything, just was wondering what their intentions were based on a previous edit. Want to talk about character, look at Guy who posted one thing on my talk page and is now saying the opposite now that I’m actually trying to appeal my ban. Could someone please take a look at my ban? Or give me suggestions on a better way to appeal it? I don’t know what implications Guy is getting that I don’t understand why I was banned. Especially since they were the one who advocated for the ban then against it, then for it again. Please look. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
        • JzG simply said he would support your appeal, not that he would grant it. You implied he was going back on his word by maintaining this position throughout. Then, you suggested that ST47's clarifying your remarks was trying to make you look bad; your implication is clear even though there is a question mark. I think it's clear that you have a hostile attitude towards anyone not giving you exactly what you want, or else you have a competence problem causing you to misinterpret other's remarks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Or give me suggestions on a better way to appeal it? It's barely been a day. Your appeal is unlikely to be successful. The best suggestion I have is to edit topics completely unrelated to American politics for a month. If you can contribute productively for a month without getting blocked or banned, come back and appeal your restriction. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
          • power~enwiki, I changed the wording based on what Guy said. I was genuinely not attempting to be hostile towards ST47, but I can see how that’s how it came across and for that I’m sorry ST47, I did not assume the best faith there (contrary to my user page). However please don’t let that affect this very broad ban. I’m only asking for talk page access back. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
            • I restored the original wording. You cannot retroactively change what you posted after others have responded to it. That give the impression that they responded to something other than what they did. If you wish to change something then strike the original wording and make it clear that your new version was added after the fact. I second Yamla 's suggestion that you drop this. Meters (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Meters, asked you on my talk page how to strike something out. I’m willing to give up the part about politics (as I deleted but then restored per your suggestion) but i would like y’all page access back. This is not something I would be able to quit editing without. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
                • Yes, and I replied to you two minutes after you asked. And then you went ahead and added new comments under a time stamp from hours ago. Don't do that. I will correct that. Meters (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Snow close and frankly, Lima Bean Farmer should apologise to Guy and ST47 and drop the stick before this gets worse. LBF, you have an opportunity here. Take the next three months and demonstrate you can edit constructively elsewhere. I hope and believe you can, but you are definitely not showing this right now. --Yamla (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yamla, yeah, but I can barely edit anything. I tried editing a talk page and made a page on an LGBT advocacy group and was told I would be blocked. I’m agreeing to not make any edits to anything remotely close to politics after 1932 (or was it 1938? Let’s just say 1900 to be safe). However, please keep it at main space only so I can comment on talk pages. I will not add anything and understand what an independent and reliable source is. Or think of it this way: if I am able to edit talk pages and make recommendations and get feedback from admins and trusted editors, I will be more familiar with what is and is not appropriate to add as an endorsement or a source when the ban is eventually lifted. Does that make sense? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • There are 6,176,057 (and counting) articles on the English Wikipedia. I assure you you can find something to edit. If you need some suggestions on where to start, a few clicks of Special:Random have turned up Enneapterygius howensis, pneumatic line thrower, Daisy Irani, Cinnamon (song), and Gorica, Krško. Any of those should be pretty safe bets. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, you are topic banned from post 1932 U.S. politics, broadly construed. That was the year that Franklin D. Roosevelt was first elected president, so you should be able to remember that. I oppose allowing you to comment on talk pages. You have been involved in too much disruption regarding the current election, and you should work on something else. Try improving our coverage of the fascinating 1912 United States presidential election or another topic that interests you instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Cullen³²⁸, I will probably not remember that based on Roosevelt getting elected, but thank you for the fun fact! However, why do you oppose me adding to talk pages? I have addressed the disruption I have caused previously and agreed not to commit it again. If you don’t believe I have fully addressed it above, please let me know here. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose you editing talk pages because talk pages are for having discussions and with the way you are behaving, I don't want to have to deal with you acting this way in talk page discussions. Natureium (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Natureium, acting what way? I generally am very friendly with other editors, even when I disagree. I may have come across as a bit hostile above, which I apologized to that editor for. But using the talk page I would use as both a way to suggest good additions but also to be a learning experience as to why certain additions should not be made. I think putting me on the talk pages would give me a better chance at understanding when I can edit again. Thoughts?Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, you are a time sink and a net negative regarding the 2020 election. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Cullen³²⁸, aside from your bad faith comment and my many useful contributions to this election, wouldn’t letting me edit the talk pages and get feedback help me improve my editing as well as the project as a whole? Honestly if you don’t let me, and I come back in the 2021 elections for governor of New Jersey or wherever, we will have the same problems. I understand I will not be allowed to edit articles from now until the election but at least let me get to add to the talk pages to both contribute and learn from experience without compromising or damaging the project of Wikipedia. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a tip, Lima Bean Farmer: the thing to do when you've been told to first demonstrate you can edit productively in topic areas outside of post-1932 American politics is not to start going to random administrators' talk pages ([137], [138], [139]) to pester them into the lifting the ban, after you've been told here it's not going to happen so soon. It's a good way to leave a sour taste in folks' mouths for the next time you do appeal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I just want some help on how I can increase my chances on convincing y’all that I should be allowed to edit the talk pages to this article. Asking me to not edit anything after 1932 which is even remotely related to politics is telling me not to edit. I am asking these admins to help me construct a way to convince the community that this ban is too harsh. Why is everyone so against me editing talk pages? I really don’t get this. I have made so many good contributors and now I’m being completely blocked from even editing a talk page. And now I’m being berated for asking for help. If you want me to resign from Wikipedia, just tell me on my talk page and I will consider it. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You've been told how to increase your chances: edit productively outside of the topic area. I just gave you a whole list of articles you could edit above, and I assure you there is plenty more where that came from. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don’t know why that affects the fact that I can’t edit talk pages. Plus, same dilemma, I’ll get back and the same problem may occur. If you let me observe and comment from the talk page from now through the election, I will have the knowledge needed to edit pages such as these in the future. Regardless, asking an admin who has not gotten involved in this situation yet for help in my case should not be a problem. I’m not asking them to unban me or anything like that, just to review my case and see what I can do right (from an admin’s perspective) if they would like. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of us managed to figure out how to edit without first earning a topic ban. I trust that you can do the same reading of policy and observation of others' edits that the rest of us did to figure it out. Furthermore, the reliable sourcing policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not just to political pages, and so you can get plenty of practice in unrelated topic areas. I would strongly recommend following that advice, rather than continuing to argue for almost immediate loosening of a ban that was just placed—your continued insistence that you can't possibly learn to edit outside of the political topic area despite not actually trying it is beginning to really drive home power~enwiki's above remarks about not getting what you want. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rescind FA status of Atom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The atom article became FA more than 10 years ago, when Wikipedia's standards were lower. I think it should be re-assessed. I've requested a reassessment several times on the Talk page, but nothing has happened. Could some admin speed things up? I think atom should be stripped of its FA status and someone should review it again under current standards of excellence. Kurzon (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with admin. Admin have zero extra say on content. We mop up, we don't dictate content. This is the wrong place to ask this. Maybe ask in one of the projects that it is under or start an RFC on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: I don't understand what you mean by "nothing happened". If I look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Atom/archive1 various fixes were made as you have been told. If you still have specific concerns about the article content not meeting FA standards, you will need to explain these concerns so people can try to resolve them or can consider delisting the article if they aren't resolved. FAR isn't a magic process, someone needs to find the problems and since you're the one who seems to think there are problems it's likely that will need to be you. Also, putting aside the issue of finding the problems, it would help if you are doing other parts of the work you can rather than forcing others to do it so they have less time to actually review the article. For example, you were specifically asked to follow all the steps of nomination but didn't, so then someone else had to complete them. In any case, no part of the WP:FAR process involves AN, so there's nothing to be done here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFPP backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some more eyes at WP:RFPP would be appreciated. There are a large number of outstanding requests, some over a day old. Woody (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you consulted The Wise Woman? Apparently her advice is "protect everything in the whole world".... :-D On a more serious note, for some things like Punk subculture I would prefer to hold off doing anything for the minute; that's more like an edit war between a longstanding editor and an IP rather than long-term disruption (though the long-term editor has the upper hand in not adding unsourced original research). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't consult the Wise Woman but I was looking for a cunning plan to auto redirect half of them to the EW noticeboard. Woody (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've left them both a note and started a discussion on the talkpage for Punk subculture.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my userpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Sirs,My userpage has not been allowed to make? Can someone please make it for me? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝐿uke3227 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@𝐿uke3227: I created it and your user talk page for you, but I do want to warn you that you will face similar issues creating other pages—for example, user subpages. You might consider having your account renamed so it doesn't begin with an unusual character and so you don't run into this problem. User:Luke3227 appears to be available. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝐿uke3227 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

It appears that Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory was created today for the sole purpose of featuring a dubious story published by the NY Post, an unreliable source. The story has not been corroborated by any reliable source, but reliable sources have punched holes in the story. There is good reason to suspect this story is October Surprise dirty trick disinformation and it is now being legitimized and promulgated in wikivoice. I suggest swift and decisive action be taken to stop it. soibangla (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• And Aviartm puts the cherry on the cake with New York Post reporting on Biden–Ukraine allegations. I agree with Soibangla. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That article should be promptly deleted. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I have redirected it to the conspiracy article, for now; User:Aviartm, I strongly suggest you do not remove that redirect until we've hashed out matters here: it has BLP violation written all over it, besides a few other things, and see also my edit summary in that article. Again, please don't revert. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which criteria would apply, a blatant hoax or attack page, maybe? Or just AfD it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Le sigh. Any attempt to nuke this stupidity will probably be met with the usual "BUT FREEZE PEACH! SUPPRESSION!" nonsense. But it does need to go, probably via AfD, because it's a very obvious WP:NOTNEWS issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the discussion that went into the consensus that this article should be created: Talk:Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump–Ukraine_scandal#Splitting_Proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the recent developments, the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory should have its own separate page not connected to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. soibangla, you have to make distinctions between old, debunked information and new, possibly-true information. Automatically assuming the new information is "debunked" because of the historicity of old claims being "debunked" is misleading.

As this section is titled, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, the user who created that article should be contacted, which he has not as of the timing of this comment. Yet, the focus is now on the article I created.

The page created, New York Post reporting on Biden–Ukraine allegations was made to centralize on the reporting and suspicions of the reporting itself and contents – suspicions were thoroughly noted within the article when applicable and in process of being added prior to its deletion and redirect. Drmies – it is best if you specify which violations of BLP and "few other things" were present – there was no discussion on whether to redirect the page or not, why? The greatest issue I could see is WP:BLPRS, yet, to the extent that could be corroborated so far, has been corroborated by some media organizations. Vice News – "At the moment, no reporting including our own has turned up evidence to contradict the Post, and The Daily Beast has published an interview with the repair shop owner, which is also bizarre, but lines up with the Post's story."

Wikipedia cannot help itself if other media organizations, to the extent that they could corroborate, could not corroborate "everything" due to seizure of the original hard drive and refusal by Guiliani and Bannon on the copy. Regardless of outcome, it is likely best to reinstate New York Post reporting on Biden–Ukraine allegations prior to its deletion and redirect as the validity and veracity of the entire conspiracy and new reporting now hinges on the New York Post's reporting.

Wikipedia editors have thoroughly and intentionally failed thus far in separating past claims regarding the Bidens and Ukraine and new reporting on information not known then. New York Post reporting on Biden–Ukraine allegations and new sections in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory would have made this distinction – such distinctions must be made. Forcing the combination of old, debunked information with new, possibly-true information calling the new, possibly-true information already "a hoax", "Russian disinformation", "a conspiracy theory", etc. with an absence of RSs on such opinions/claims, in addition to the WP:POVPUSH and WP:STONEWALLING taking place, is fraudulent and misleading to Wikipedia. Aviartm (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, am I seriously hearing you say that Wikipedia's coverage is slanted, and that editors are somehow on the Biden tip? Sorry, I find it difficult to read your prose and figure out what your argument is--but that's what I'm seeing. As for BLP violations: giving more daylight to conspiracies about living persons than they deserve is itself already a violation. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies Political affiliation was not mentioned. And that is the only BLP violation? What is the exact name of that policy? Aviartm (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I think I could point you to WP:CIR, maybe, and tell you to stop digging. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • You proved such a policy and "things" does not exist. Levivich is right. Aviartm (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that should be resolved at an article talk page or AFD instead of AN. The split proposal was unopposed after 24 hours [140], which is too soon to close but not sanctionable. It's not a BLP violation to write about a conspiracy theory. We have articles like Pizzagate conspiracy theory and many more at list of conspiracy theories and Category:Conspiracy theories. Whether this particular conspiracy theory should be spun off into its own page is a content question. Lev!vich 01:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• It all depends on how you write it, the sources you use, etc. And this one is about something that can affect the election. I'm surprised no one has given the article's creator or Aviartm a DS alert, but I've done that. I've also placed the article under ECP until after the election. ECP is going to have to be used a lot more in the next few weeks than it normally is, but then nothing's normal about this election. Disinformation is already a big deal and things will get worse. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Doug Weller, This article needs to be invoke 1RR because how distruptive the article can be reverted. I also suggests to move only administrator access to the article because how distruptive for us for move the page. ECP users cannot unilaterally move the page unless the are consensus in the talk page. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I meant to do move only as well. 1RR can wait a bit but it can be easily added if needed. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Japan

My first time here, so I hope I'm posting this correctly: several IPs, apparently the same user, keep posting a pie chart titled "Religion in Japan (2018 NHK research)". This chart implies that 62% of the Japanese are irreligious. Alas, that's utterly wrong: 62% of the Japanese are mushūkyō, a well-known and researched social category, which, while literally meaning "without sect" mostly implies following Shinto. It's all well-sourced and in the intro. Any possibility of warning the IP/protecting the page/something? Sorry for being vague, I'm new to all the wiki-procedure stuff. AddMore-III (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi AddMore-III. It sounds like what's going on is a disagreement over content and such things are best resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Have you tried discussing this at Talk:Religion in Japan? If not, you should start a discussion about it and see what the WP:CONSENSUS on the matter might be. In certain cases, a Wikipedia page can be protected per WP:PP and you can request this at WP:RPP; page protection, however, is usually not given unless there's some serious disruption taking place and it's not given to favor one side in a content dispute over another.

Looking at the page history of the article, it appears that you've been going back and forth with multiple IP accounts which is probably not a good thing at all no matter how right you think you are; looking at the talk page, however, it doesn't appear that either you or the others involved have tried to resolve your disagreement through discussion. If both sides keep going back and forth and reverting each other over this, it will not end well for either side. My suggestion to you would be to avoid reverting anymore and instead start discussing the pie chart on the article's talk page. Invite the other editors to participate and clarify their positions; you can't make them discuss, but they can't ignore any consensus established through discussion among those who do participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

An IP editor continuously added empty sections to the COVID-19 articles and missing information on COVID-19 medical cases charts

• 95.12.112.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.214.104.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP editor has been editing since 1 December 2016 (with the first war-related article edit) at the very least and in 24 March 2020 this editor began to actively edit COVID-19 articles and templates, and it's still active today, if not even more active than before. While at the beginning of this pandemic this IP editor isn't considered to be a problem or even making a harm, but as the pandemic goes on and as people began to move away from editing COVID-19 articles (including me), I, and some people have began to notice that this IP editor is becoming a problem for this habit of creating missing data (not bothering to do anything) on COVID-19 templates and adding empty sections to the COVID-19 articles, which led people to either revert their edits (articles, templates), or fill the information left by the IP editor's edits (templates, articles). You can see from these edits that this editor generally target COVID-19 articles or templates that rarely got updated or having low traffic (and because of that, this is much more a large scale problem, not a narrow issue). Also, this editor does not explain their edits and never responded to the warnings or even welcomes. But despite these, this IP keeps on going without a stop. And I want to admit that I'm not sure how to handle this editor as some of their edits might not be considered as disruptive/isn't harmful by some people (that's why I didn't warn them or revert their edits when I have a chance to do so - which is why they are still getting away with it).

However, as some of these IPs from the IP range this editor uses began to be seen as a problem (which led to these reverts or fill ups above), I think there is going to be a need for them to stop editing - which finally led me to brought this up at AN. Since I'm not sure which action should be taken against them (I don't want to be a biter in any case), what I could do for them? A block (partial block, maybe)? Or a discretionary sanctions against these two IP ranges (to not edit COVID-19 articles)? Or these edits are really harmful in the first place? I'm not an administrator, but any help about these IPs could be appreciated. BTW, I don't want to be dragged further to this problem, I'm just looking for a quick solution. Thanks! SMB99thx my edits 08:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Neither range has edited in the last few days, so an immediate block is probably not helpful. If a roaming CheckUser could look into possible range blocks, that would be helpful. Many of these pages could/should probably be protected under WP:GS/COVID anyway, so I'll go look through those. In the meantime, SMB99thx, you should feel free to revert the changes you think are unhelpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • None of the COVID pages looked like they need protection. Looking through the contributions more, I'm not sure a block is needed either. I think the best route forward is to handle page-by-page issues as they happen rather than at the IP range level. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Error message when trying to click "page views"

the "page views" button seems to be having problems today. I got an error message "502 bad gateway" when I tried to utilize this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Happens to me too, but this is really an issue for WP:VPT than for here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-harassment RfC closed

In a prior case, the Arbitration Committee mandated that a request for comment be held on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future. This request for comment has now been closed with the following summary:

In this RFC the community was asked to weigh in on 8 topics of concern regarding Wikipedia editors ("editors"), the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), Trust & Safety (T&S), and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). There were common themes presented across some of the questions, so if a related question contains similar themes that will be indicated in parentheses (e.g. "Q1"). Please note that while there may be proposals listed that arose during this discussion, any significant/policy changes to ArbCom must go through the standard processes as described in the Overview.

One of the overarching themes of responses to the questions was that ArbCom will always be under some form of scrutiny or displeasure from certain areas of the community. However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings (Q6) or jump too quickly to conclusions when it comes to the presumption of innocence (Q5).

Q1, on the matter of private evidence impacting sanctions

ArbCom, by its very nature, will occasionally have cases that involve private evidence - be it email correspondence or links to off-wiki websites - that cannot be publicly displayed in the public-facing case evidence. This private evidence is of most concern when it is the sole (or majority) reason for a case being opened and/or sanctions being filed; multiple examples were given where the results of a case were given without one being formally opened on-wiki, or where supposedly "private" information was actually present in diffs on-wiki the entire time.

While many agreed that private evidence should stay private, there were a few main suggestions regarding how ArbCom should deal with private information:

• ArbCom should disclose if/when private information is being used to inform the case
• ArbCom should "categorise" any private evidence so interested parties would know the providence of said information
• ArbCom should open a public case report, even if the evidence is 100% private, so that editors are aware that a discussion is taking place
• ArbCom should only use private information when absolutely necessary - if sanctions and/or findings of fact can be based on public/on-wiki evidence, then that should be prioritised (Q2)

Q2, on fear of retaliation

To summarize multiple editors' opinions in this section, "there is no easy solution" to the issue of retaliation as a result of harassment and subsequent case filing. That being said, many of the editors agreed that if the information is public then the case should be handled publicly and not behind closed doors (Q1). Additionally, admins should be more willing to do what is necessarily “lower down” in places like ANI, and bump cases to ArbCom after these interventions are shown to be ineffective (Q7). While there was a suggestion for some form of intermediate location for cases to be handled between ANI and ArbCom, there was no significant agreement on what that should look like; among the ideas were bringing back RFC/U, having some form of formal mediation process between the users (Q8), or having the functionaries act as some form of private investigators vetting private information before it reaches ArbCom.

One supported suggestion was to allow third-party filings to ArbCom in an effort to minimize retaliation on the harassed/concerned editor.

Q3, on responding to allegations

This question follows on rather heavily from Q2, but focused more on the accused rather than the complainant. Many editors agreed that evidence should not be kept secret from the accused, except when it comes down to the safety of the complainant; if there are specific threats and/or information that could be used in retaliation, T&S should be contacted first (Q8). If there is private information, the complainant should be asked what information they would be willing to release publicly.

While the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" (Q5) was used a lot, significantly more people indicated that we (Wikipedia or ArbCom) are not a legal system, and so that should not be assumed; principles, not any specific rule or formulae should be used in relation to the accused. However, it was felt that there is an imbalance between accuser and accused, and that mediation (Q2, Q8) may be helpful to level that imbalance.

Q4, on unsubstantiated claims

This question had a fairly straight-forward consensus; all editors should be treated with respect and politeness, but there is nothing either the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt the "unpleasant dynamic" of unsubstantiated complaints and filings. A certain amount of "tough skin" is needed to edit Wikipedia, but ArbCom should not be used as therapy.

Q5, on plausible deniability

As mentioned in Q3, there is no "right" to a presumption of innocence. That being said, there was expressed a concern that there should not be any sanction unless there is a clear violation of policy; off-wiki links with no verification should be treated carefully. As every case is different, it is difficult if not impossible to write "rules" around this issue; ArbCom should use common sense and deal with limited available evidence on a case-by-case basis

Q6, on the arbitration environment

There was a fairly consistent response to this question advocating for more/better patrolling of ArbCom proceedings, in particular by the clerks. This includes word limits, lack of diffs (especially when accusations are made), and civility/arguing concerns; clerks should also be doing a better job of communicating with those who have "broken" the rules to get clarifications and/or indicate that their edits were removed for technical/procedural reasons rather than any sort of "point of view" suppression.

One supported proposal was to have ArbCom cases written in "c2:DocumentMode", where a case is presented more like an article (with clerks summarizing and updating a single document) and less like a half-threaded discussion between members (which can become heated/unproductive)

Q7, on unblockables

Much like Q2, there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"; everyone is cantankerous at some point, and we should all be treated equally. Opinions were highly variable, including many that felt there are no changes needed or that everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the following were some of the most prevalent suggestions among the participants:

• Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced
• Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks
• Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom
• More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom

Q8, on the relationship with T&S

Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.

There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.

To reiterate, this close summarizes the opinions and feelings of those who participated, and are not binding; any proposals or suggestions that change policy will still need to go through the formal procedures as outlined in the Overview.

Signed,

• Primefac (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Anti-harassment RfC closed

Request for review of non-admin close at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request a review of the non-admin close made at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual, a discussion about whether to remove the video clip of Donald Trump suggesting that disinfectant injections might help treat COVID-19, which had been used as the visual element of the article's misinformation section. The closer, The Gnome, found consensus for removing the video; following close challenges on the talk page, they suggested earlier today that the matter be brought here for review. Copying my objection from the talk page:

Given that there was already discussion at the bottom from a potential closer (Usedtobecool) who observed weak consensus for keeping the video but for one outstanding issue, this is very much not the expected result, and the closer's extended rationale comes across in large part as a WP:SUPERVOTE. If the closer is going to weight arguments, it is necessary to do so using guidelines and policies (MOS:IMAGEREL, presumably), but instead, the closer brings up only the essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE (which was not once mentioned in the discussion itself) and does a bunch of math about how much room the visual takes up that was also not part of the discussion. Further, per the closer's own rationale, the arguments made by some remove !voters that Trump was not spreading misinformation were completely unsupported ([It] is accepted, per overwhelming consensus of sources, that what President Trump is suggesting or supporting in the video clip constitutes misinformation), but they did not discount them at all in their count, so the tally is actually a numerical superiority for keeping, not a tie. To find from that not just no consensus but consensus for removal is an implausible reading.

How do you all read consensus at the discussion? Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak endorse as I think the outcome is correct. However, I think The Gnome's rationale doesn't adequately address the arguments brought up in the discussion and should be revised or clarified. To Sdkb's point, I appreciate Usedtobecool's perspective--and I admit they've likely read the discussion more thoroughly than I have--but it looks like a no consensus outcome at best. Proponents of option 3 (no illustration) raised serious NPOV concerns along with concerns about whether we should present any illustration of misinformation since it could still mislead despite our best efforts. Proponents of option 1 note that it's an accurate and verifiable example of misinformation, but seem to neglect those two major points brought up by option 3 proponents. Participants never came to a consensus on how to weigh those competing concerns which leads to no consensus. While I don't think it was explained correctly, I do agree that there may be merit in weighing the option 3 opinions more: WP:NPOV has strong consensus behind it while no policy or guideline requires illustrations be used in articles. I don't think that's the right call--I'd prefer to call it no consensus and punt the issue to a later discussion--but it's reasonable. I don't see these as substantially different outcomes though, because given the discussion comments, especially by Barkeep, I think the status quo was no illustration and no consensus should default to option 3 anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: Strike bolded !vote. While I stand by my rationale, I think my choice of bolded text misrepresents my stance especially given subsequent comments in the thread. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, Barkeep's judgement about the status quo was based on the assertion that The May discussion which justifies its inclusion was inconclusive, and that the nearly four months in which the video was present should therefore not count as establishing a status quo. Looking at that May discussion, it never received a formal close since this was long before the issue escalated to the point of having an RfC etc., but I don't think it was at all improper to read it as a perfectly solid consensus for adding given the context at the time. I count 5 editors in support of adding (Moxy, Doc James, Acalycine, myself, and -sche), compared to only one opposed (David A) and Iluvalar suggesting caution in writing the caption but not otherwise weighing in. A 5-1 discussion on a talk page seems a perfectly valid justification for adding a video to a page, and when the video then remains for months in one of the most heavily watched pages on Wikipedia (with upwards of 100,000 views per day), it becomes the status quo by any reasonable definition of "status quo".

  Are we really going to say that, because a 5-1 discussion was never formally closed as "support" way back in May, everything after is tainted and we should therefore take a highly atypical approach to defining the status quo now in October? That just seems rather absurd. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: The May discussion to add the video was an informal discussion that lasted a few hours, so it is not on its own robust consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. As Hzh pointed out in the discussion, the caption RfC was about the caption, not the inclusion of the video like was discussed here. While longevity gives the presumption of consensus, the article has been semi-protected since March and the vast majority of those 100,000 daily readers cannot challenge your claim through WP:BRD no matter how much they disagree with it, and this presents a danger of false consensus. Even for those who can edit the page, discretionary sanctions have been in effect for months, and it's obvious that discretionary sanctions are meant to intimidate editors into being more careful by placing a sword of Damocles over their head. Certainly some editors would not want to risk reverting an edit no matter how much they disagreed with inclusion.

  Following the May discussion, it was completely reasonable to add the video given the comments, but with time and context it's not clear whether it ever truly had consensus or was accidentally a fait accompli. The best way to test this is through sustained discussion with widespread participation, and we got that in this RfC. Not only was it the most robust discussion of include/exclude, participants explicitly discussed whether the status quo was include or exclude and that ended with the modification of the RfC statement to strike out "status quo". Even the policy at WP:NOCON suggests that when a discussion is explicitly about whether to include or exclude material, the WP:ONUS to develop consensus is on editors seeking to include disputed material. Given the discussion in the RfC and our policy at WP:ONUS, I simply don't think there is sufficient consensus that a no consensus result should end with inclusion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  So here I am having largely been inactive and as I read AN, I see my name with no ping in this discussion. After having refreshed myself on this situation, let me try to underline something. It's not just that the article was semi-protected as Wugapodes points out making it hard for the caption to be challenged. It's that the short inconclusive May discussion was then used to insert the following comment into the article INCLUSION OF THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN AFFIRMED AS CURRENT CONSENSUS (ITEM 13). DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER CAPTION WITHOUT ATTAINING CONSENSUS AT TALK. Given that the article is/was under GS, if consensus had truly been reached an attempt to do BRD could have been disruptive and might have resulted in sanctions for the editor who attempted to remove it. I recognize the value that such lists of consensus can provide in preventing repeated discussions especially in fast moving controversial topics. However, such consensus should be robust - which doesn't have to mean an RfC but does have to mean more than a few editors, out of many participating in editing/discussing the topic, in agreement and ideally over enough time that those who were busy for a few days (like I've been) don't miss out on the chance to form that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - Closer stated the !votes were a numerical tie, and that they were weighing based on strength of arguments. However, weighing "strength of arguments" simply means identifying and rationalizing in your closing statement that one side is more in line with policy than the other side. Reading the close, I see no such rationalization as to why the side they found a consensus for was notably backed by policy whereas the opposing side was not. There's a lot of irrelevant personal assessment which seems inappropriate and little to no discussion of any policy implications that back or disagree with either side. Concerningly, the only real policy invocation was this bizarre assessment of "meta-arithmetic", where the closer came to the conclusion that the image was "without a doubt" undue weight based on the the percentage of article text discussing it. Due weight means including content relative to the extent it's discussed in reliable sources. It has nothing to do with arbitrary percentages of article text. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. So to see a closer make a personal assessment that something is unequivocally undue weight, when their rationale isn't even rooted in the policy, that's just not a legit close. When a closer purports to be weighing strength of arguments to give one side the consensus, and doesn't even rationalize how that side is rooted in policy where the other side is not, that's just not a legit close. I will usually err on the side of endorsing a justifiable close, even if it's debatable. But this one seems to have given additional weight to one side without providing any real policy-based justification rationalizations for doing so. That makes it a textbook supervote, even if it was not intended to be. Let someone else have a go at it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closing rationale explains why the clip should be included, then decides that it shouldn't. At best it's no consensus, but the policy arguments in the close actually favour inclusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn if you're going to close a discussion on strength of argument, as the closer did here, then either one of the sides in the discussion should have been more policy-based than the other, or there should be something flawed in the arguments of one side (being logically fallacious, convincingly rebutted, etc). I don't see that here, the points made by the closer are more the sorts of things which should be brought up by a participant rather than a closer. The supporters of option #3 feel that including the video constitutes undue weight and that the video doesn't add much to the section, whereas the supporters of option #1 don't think it's undue weight, do think it adds value and note that Trump is arguably the most prominent purveyor of coronavirus misinformation. Those are both reasonable positions which were evenly balanced in the discussion, so I don't see a consensus for either alternative. Hut 8.5 15:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• FYI I have not gone back to look at the exact details but as far as I remember, Option 3 arguers raised concern wrto. WP:NPOV and it was addressed in the Option 1 !votes that followed. The Option 3 !votes afterwards asserted NPOV but did not address previous rebuttals. Rest of the reasons given against inclusion were weak (there must be better options (Nirvana fallacy, more or less), this doesn't add much but will cause disruption (more about maintaining the peace), gives platform to misinformation and might harm readers (self-censorship), etc.). Those favouring inclusion, represented by Sdkb for the most part, made a strong case addressing all policy-based concerns that were raised, I thought, and the numbers, I felt, were balanced enough to decide on the strength of arguments. However, I noticed an issue that put the degree of informedness of all Option 1 !voters in question. So, I raised it, that another more-experienced closer may have better explanations or discussions to help them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn because it was no consensus, clearly, and the closer was a WP:SUPERVOTE --Investigatory (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This account has just been indeffed, FWIW. Hut 8.5 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - At best, a poorly executed and worded close that only tangentially interprets the consensus. At worst, a supervote. In neither case a good close.--WaltCip-(talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Consider, please - wasn't that clip more about relative to uv light and light treatment and making layman suggestions directed to whoever was off-camera on his right. Where's the misinformation? The disinfectant terminology has received widespread mention for COVID. For example, this article states: Thus continuous airborne disinfection with far-UVC light at the currently regulatory limit would provide a major reduction in the ambient level of airborne virus in occupied indoor environments. In this article there are instances of new UV disinfection system, and a sign that reads “Coronavirus Disinfected Here!” According to the FDA: For more information see "Q: Where can I read more about UV radiation and disinfection?". The headline reads: UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus What is the context of that video relative to what's in the article? Can anyone iVote here or is it just for admins? If it's open, then I endorse the close.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's open but I don't think it's about rehashing the original disagreement to determine what's right. Rather, it's only about what the correct closure is for the discussion we already got, whether the closer got the close obviously wrong, and if they did not, whether their closing statement reflects that they walked the eightfold path to the correct close (there's always a one-in-three chance that a closure would be correct without being correct). Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• If I'd closed that, I would have given additional weight to the NPOV concerns, as the closer did. I think that extra weight is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of option 3, so I would endorse that close. I also really appreciate the full closing statement in which the closer shows his working in a lot of detail.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• SNOW overturn immediately and a trout for Gnome; patiently obvious supervote. That's a no-consensus outcome if I ever saw it and there's absolutely no valid argument that the people pushing for removal have any stronger argument in policy (by my reading Gnome does not even attempt to state that; they simply say they personally support option number 3 as a matter of subjective opinion.) I am especially shocked by The invocation of WP:STATUSQUO is thinner than Francis Rossi's hairline. The length of this discussion and the passion herein exhibited cannot be easily dismissed - a flat dismissal of a policy-based argument based on nothing more than Gnome's gut feelings - and by the entire paragraph starting with The meta-arithmetic..., where Gnome patiently obviously presents their own personal argument and opinions, which should have been made as a participant in the RFC, as a justification for falsely representing a no-consensus outcome as their own preferred result. I strenuously urge Gnome not to close further RFCs until they understand how badly-handled this one was - it's honestly a bit shocking. I would urge someone to review Gnome's other recent RFC closures, since this is a sufficiently clear-cut abuse of policy as to raise WP:COMPETENCE issues when it comes to closing RFCs. There is absolutely no way anyone with a reasonable understanding of policy could look at that RFC and see it as anything but a no-consensus outcome. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comments from the closer. The main complaints and accusations raised against the closure concern (A) a violation of WP:SUPERVOTE and (B) a general disregard for WP:POLICY, i.e. the RfC was closed without references to policy, something even worse, as I read above, when the closer is not abiding by the number of suggestions.

A. SUPERVOTE: The relevant essay points out the specific types of a supervote. Let's take them on quickly, one by one.

A discussion has concluded for a particular action, based on solid policy reasoning, but a minority takes a different view that has less backing. It is supervoting to close in favor of the dissenters. Also, a discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such. Since we all agree that the numerical count of suggestions was a tie, neither criterion applies

A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. Also a discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is a supervote to close in favor of a solution no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported. The decision was, as it happens, favored by one of the two sides. As such, it did not amount to a violation of either of these criteria.

The remaining criterion in this case is the only legitimate one we should examine, i.e. A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. A closer makes an editorial, rather than administrative decision, and it moots the discussion. (Italics in the original.) We have to examine whether the closure was made with a rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and [the closer] states what the actual consensus is or whether the closer gave a reasoning based on policy. So, this brings us squarely into the complaints about "ignoring policy."

B. POLICY: The policy that is of paramount importance in this RfC is WP:WEIGHT, as invoked by participants, and quite logically too. This was the policy on which the participants' arguments were assessed, as clearly set out in the eponymous section. And it was the participants' input that was offered as the basis for the assessment and not some "editorial" offering a personal opinion. It'd be instructive to recall part of that section: Ggehrlich stated that the "use of an image is a representation of this section and the content it embodies" while using "an image of a polarized figure diminishes the information being disseminated throughout." Gerald stated that the pic "can be placed at the misinformation main page, not here" since, in his opinion, "it contributes...nothing [to it]." Bakkster Man, Hzh, HollerithPunchCard ("if this [was] an article about Trump failure in propagating accurate information about the virus, then the video insertion would be suitable"), Adoring nanny and others argued that the insertion of clip gives its content more prominence than it deserves. All in all, the cumulative input of both sides was assessed as follows: The arguments offered by editors supporting #3 come out the strongest, in this context.

I will, of course, accept the outcome of this challenge whichever way it goes. This endeavor here, too, is part of the learning process of contributing to Wikipedia. Or, so it's supposed to be. Still, I honestly fail to see where the closure went so wrong as to merit suggestions such as the one tabled by Aquillion to stop me from doing any more closures (I may do one every wolfman moon, more likely, in any case) and catapulting trouts to my anorak. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I didn't mean that you should completely stop forever, but to me, reading your statements there and here, it seems as if you are not arguing that the version you support enjoys consensus (because it plainly does not), but instead are saying that a closer can choose either side in a no-consensus RFC and declare it to have consensus without making it WP:SUPERVOTE as long as both options are supported by policy; that is completely antithetical to WP:CLOSE. Based on that, it very much looks like you saw an unambiguously no-consensus RFC, had a strong opinion on its outcome, disliked the fact that such a no-consensus RFC would default to the status quo, and, as a result, presented your new argument... then overrode the outcome and opinion of everyone present by using the argument you had presented as a justification to ignore the consensus. Outright expressing disagreement with WP:STATUSQUO and devoting an entire paragraph to an argument that had not been presented in the RFC as a justification for your vote was completely inappropriate in a closure, and you need to acknowledge that; likewise, the arguments in favor of option 1 are not, by any stretch of the imagination, ones that contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. You cannot simply override the community consensus with a closure based on your own personal logic or opinions - yet you based your conclusion, in part, on an argument that had not been raised in the discussion; everything starting with the Wikipedia main article dedicated to and titled Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic contains some 2,200 words... presents a rationale that has nothing to do with assessing consensus, and in the paragraph above you raise numerous nit-picking disagreements with the interpretation and analysis of people who supported the version you voted against, mostly without referring to actual policy. All of that reads like a particularly ornery !vote in an RFC, not something appropriate to a closure (my shock, on reading it, that someone would close an RFC with such an inappropriate statement is part of what brought me here.) You plainly disagreed with one side, but if so you should have participated in the RFC as a participant rather than attempting to force your will on it with an inappropriate closure.

Likewise, if you don't believe in WP:STATUSQUO (as you stated with The invocation of WP:STATUSQUO is thinner than Francis Rossi's hairline. The length of this discussion and the passion herein exhibited cannot be easily dismissed, implying that you believe that an RFC closer is not just entitled to but required to substitute their own opinion for the community's when a no-consensus RFC has a lot of passion and discussion), and refuse to acknowledge its importance, then I stand by my statement that you absolutely should not be closing RFCs - that is a shocking rejection of standard practice when dealing with clear no-consensus RFCs like this one, and particularly shocking in that you seem to be arguing that as a closer you were particularly entitled to decide for the community in the face of a clear lack of community consensus precisely because discussions were so contentious. Such contentious discussions ought to have engendered caution, not this reckless disregard for what the discussion actually concluded. I know that this might seem overly-heated for a single RFC closure, but the willingness to accept a no-consensus result and go back to the drawing board is an extremely important part of keeping Wikipedia running smoothly - otherwise we could run into situations where people rush in to slap their opinion on no-consensus RFCs like this, as you did, by prioritizing their argument over everyone else's, only for the inevitable challenge to no-consensus when everyone in the RFC shows up to weigh in on it. If that happened, it would break our consensus-building mechanisms entirely. I have edited Wikipedia for some seventeen years and this is one of the most shockingly wrong closures I have ever seen; I am sure that you, when you participate properly in RFCs, would not appreciate presenting a valid, sound, policy-based argument that gets disregarded simply because it goes against the opinions of the RFC's closer. For that reason, I beg of you to recognize your mistake and reverse your closure voluntarily - it looks like this RFC is going to reach the obvious conclusion (thankfully), but it would be healthier for everyone involved if you acknowledged the severity of your mistake and simply backed down without insisting on another layer of process for such an obviously bad call. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• From WP:CLOSE, see WP:NHC: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. That was precisely the path followed in closing the RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think the key point in the above post is This was the policy on which the participants' arguments were assessed. It isn't the closer's job to read the arguments, read the policy, and decide which argument you think best fits the policy. If you do that then you are doing the same thing as one of the participants in the discussion and then declaring your opinion to be consensus - supervoting. A closer can certainly close one way because the arguments on the other side are inconsistent with policy or some wide consensus, but in most cases which fundamentally boil down to editorial judgement they are supposed to defer to the participants. This discussion, like many others, was about how to apply general principles articulated in policy to a specific case, and that invariably involves a large degree of judgement. I'm certainly not going to support banning the closer from doing any more closures, but I think they should take this discussion as an indicator that their approach for closing this one was misguided. Hut 8.5 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I must refer to the text of WP:NHC, which is part of WP:CLOSE, as quoted above to Aquillion. I'd have precisely zero problems accepting I have been "misguided" as to Wikipedia policy, but the cited essay reads quite clear to me: The closer can read the arguments, examine the policy (in this case, WP:WEIGHT), and decide which arguments best fit the policy. Imagine a case whereby the majority of the RfC participants endorse a position entirely unsupported by policy. Imagine also a case where one half of the participants endorses such a position. Closing the RfC as, respectively, a consensus for the majority or a non-consensus outcome would be an error. In fact, it would be a supervote! (WP:NHC reads: A discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such.) -The Gnome (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to offer a vote on this one as I have zero experience with discussions to overturn or not overturn an RFC close. Will say that in an article about X, including a section on "misinformation about X" is something that I believe harms ordinary readers, who likely came to the article seeking information, not misinformation. This is triply true when X is a deadly global pandemic. By having a section on misinformation, we are increasing the reach of that misinformation. Therefore, the less we discuss "misinformation" the better, with the optimal level being zero. All of that said, I recognize that the above is not Wiki policy on whether or not a closure should be overturned. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. It's an unnecessarily long close (what we're seeing is not a supervote, but a running log of the closer's analysis of the arguments presented and the policy/source bases for them). The result is correct on the policy merits, as RfCs are not a numeric vote. The central issue was WP:UNDUE, and the closer (like the commenters) focused on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Biden conspiracy theory needs to impose 1RR

Hello, i see that Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory contains a controversial issues, so please invoking 1RR for the article in order to maintain stability of the article and please move protected the article only for administrators, so any users except administrators cannot move protected the page. I intend to request that in RFPP but i fear it will declined. The reason of it is the article may become a target of requested move by non-admin users, and sometimes page move vandalism happens in the article, such as move "conspiracy theory" to "allegations", which IMO is incorrect. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's already tagged on the talk page as under WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, which includes a blanket 1RR restriction. It is also currently under 50/300 protection AND it does not appear there are any recent violations of 1RR that need dealing with. What mare do you need done? --Jayron32 10:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But please Jayron32, i see that one IP user (182.1.237.76) invoking 1RR notice in the talk page, please see that page. It seems that IP invoking 1RR that remainds all users cannot reverting the edit in 24 hours. The reason IP invoke that notice because the IP cannot agree any revert edits that contains controversial page, so this IP invoking 1RR. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate my question: What recent disruption to the editing of the article do you see that needs addressing? --Jayron32 10:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

First, one user changing title of the article from "conspiracy theory" to "allegations", I believe i see that edit in my eyes, second there is a request move for a controversial page, also caught in my eye. Because this article is controversial, i only see that problem and i not initally suggest this to impose 1RR in the article, however my mind is changed, and i needs reassure the admin to impose 1RR as part of ARBAP2. For move the page, i suggests that only administrator can have move rights to the page. Thanks. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no recent change of that nature. Can you include some diffs? --Jayron32 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No Jayron32, i want to reverting contribution by that IP that invoke 1RR without administrator permissions. Thanks. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You already did. It doesn't look like you needed anyone else to help. --Jayron32 10:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If problem persist, i want to ping you. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a bad look for Wikipedia: there are a bunch of allegations that I'd consider unproven, or at best supported by a deeper rabbit hole of reporting than I've been willing to look into (I just don't care that much about the matter). Claiming they are false (disproven outright) is a leap from that though, as it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. So that article editorializes way too much. It comes across as biased and non-credible. Whatever interventions are being made around it should result in a neutrally written article, as all articles are supposed to be. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(technical) why does article have a redirect from the clean "_" version to the unicode "%E2%80%93" version? Seems backward and/or unnecessary as wikilink will always be a redirect. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User name redirects not carried through properly?

Users League Octopus (talk · contribs) and Apanuugpak (talk · contribs) were previously called User:Finnish Gas and User:Apanuggpak (notice there are two g:s instead of two u:s in the latter). When clicking on old user contribution links with their previous names they're not properly redirected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Finnish_Gas and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Apanuggpak It would be nice if you could fix that. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a way to "redirect" contributions pages like that. ST47 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. Why is it then that the two old user contribution links (the plain links) I posted above give quite different results? The one for Finnish Gas leads somewhere, while the Apanuggpak one says there's nothing. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a user called Finnish Gas but there is not a user called Apanuggpak. ST47 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The user page Finnish Gas properly redirects to the new name League Octopus, while the old user page Apanuggpak is not redirecting, but on one hand says it doesn't exist and on the other gives a message that is has been renamed. However the old talk page does redirect: User talk:Apanuggpak

Since this is the first time I have come across something that doesn't get redirected I thought it was an error and wanted to report it, especially since the old links behave differently. I tried my best to find the right place. A regular user cannot possibly know all the possibilities and limitations of the technicalities of Wikipedia. I was acting in good faith. I'm not suggesting a new feature. If you aren't in a helpful mood, then leave it to someone else. I was just trying to understand after you said it doesn't work like that. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason why User:Apanuggpak isn't redirecting to User:Apanuugpak is because the former didn't exist when the account was renamed (so there's nothing to redirect). As far as the contributions for Finnish Gas, someone created and started using that account name after the original user was renamed to League Octopus. It doesn't happen often, but that's also why you'll often see people like AmandaNP creating doppleganger accounts for old usernames (e.g. DeltaQuad), which is to prevent impersonation on the old account. Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm one example of that. I was originally User:Pharmboy but changed to my real name, and then reregistered the name as an alt, so my real history (including as Pharmboy) is under my current name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Web mining

Block requested for 78.147.84.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Falsely accusing me of vandalism for trying to clean up the article and demanding that I be banned for doing so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked you and the IP from Web mining for 24 hours - I'm doing this because I can't see an appropriate exemption, and edit warring is still edit warring. I've dropped a note on IP's talk page requesting they assume good faith or they'll be blocked more. In your case, hopefully you realise the block is not punitive, but simply that I feel if you're right, another editor will restore your version soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

TIL that page-specific blocks are a thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How to close an AFD started by a sock operator?

Hey all, is there a preferred method for closing/deleting an AfD that was started by a sockpuppet? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadaikutty Singam (TV series) and the sockmaster is Daaask. Would appreciate an education. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I would start by opening an WP:SPI so whether they're actually a sock can be investigated. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I did open an SPI. It was determined to be Daaask, which I linked to above. And now I need instruction on what admin-ly steps I should take to deal with the remaining AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've IAR closed both as procedural closes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If they're confirmed socks, G5 the nomination (assuming no one else has commented yet). If there have been comments, and they're not delete, then just speedy keep as an improper nomination. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I'd agree with that - though even with !votes you could still G5 it, without prejudice to renomination by an editor in good standing. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely not correct. Once someone has !voted, the page has a substantial edit by another editor, and is not eligible for G5 speedy deletion. WilyD 06:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wily is correct - in the same vein as an article Nosebagbear (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Deletion of Elizabeth Brodden

Hi all. I just deleted Elizabeth Brodden per WP:BLPDELETE. The article was created in 2006 (before BLPPROD existed) and the most substantial changes since then have been to various external links and references automatically deleted by bots because they were on a blacklist. This has left us with an unsourced BLP containing personal details, which I think is unacceptable to have on Wikipedia.

As this deletion is not covered by any of the usual reasons in the deletion policy and is being done for the perceived good of the encyclopedia, I believe it could be controversial, so I am mentioning this here. I have no objections to anybody writing a reliably-sourced BLP compliant stub as a replacement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, good call, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do slightly question whether the personal details in the last revision of the article really warranted IAR summary deletion, as it doesn't extend to anything beyond her full name, approximate birth year, and the height she was in 1984. The article would have no chance at AfD as it stands, but equally I'm not sure this was really an example of something that needed to happen right this second. I'm certainly not planning to restore it or anything, but I honestly suspect that IAR + this AN post that two people have responded to has already generated more bureaucracy than just PROD/AFDing it would have! ~ mazca ^talk 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I did find this, and this, and mentions in a couple of other books. Personally, I think it would have been better to send to AFD and let the community hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure AfD was appropriate; I'm not disputing the notability of this person (I haven't checked myself) so (under normal circumstances) I wouldn't start one. I have asked the good folk at Women in Red to see if somebody's up for rewriting the article - hopefully somebody is and we'll end up with a better article and not have to thrash things through AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, that is a good idea. I'll remember it myself for possible later use. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The beauty of AFD is that there are a lot of people trying to rescue articles there, and if good sources can be found, that is a good place to get them found. Not saying it is the only, or even best answer, but it at least gives the article a chance at continuing life. Dropping it off at WiR was also a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, the downside is that there are a lot of people who think Wikipedia is a directory of sportspeople. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think summary deletion is appropriate for this kind of thing. BLPDELETE recommends summary deletion if the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. There's definitely nothing like that. Although the page did contain personal information, as Mazca noted it isn't anything particularly sensitive and it could easily have been removed without deleting the page. It also isn't correct to say it was unsourced, it did cite this, although that doesn't look reliable at all. I suggest sending it to AfD instead. Hut 8.5 12:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"references automatically deleted by bots because they were on a blacklist." Since when was that acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe Ritchie misspoke; Cyberbot II tags pages with blacklisted links, per this BRFA. Humans removed all of the offending links in this article. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A non-related article in need of a similar solution

Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), looking at the history of the article, has for fourteen years contained serious unreferenced or poorly referenced extremely serious allegations relating to named and unnamed third parties. Martin Ingram is a whistleblower has written a book (Stakeknife: Britain's Secret Agents in Ireland. O'Brien Press. ISBN 978-0862788438) and various articles (for example this) about his allegations, which are covered to various extents at Force Research Unit, Stakeknife and Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist) and to a lesser, much more minor extent in some other articles. It is difficult to know whether a neutral article can be written at the title "Martin Ingram", as any biography of him instantly involves extremely serious allegations about third parties. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I do not have the time or the energy to deal with the article myself at present. FDW777 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Paid editor blocked with 30,000 edits

I just blocked Lapablo for abuse of multiple accounts and undisclosed paid editing. Their previous account, Ukpong1, had been blocked for "advertising", and this new account picked up where the first left off, but was much more subtle and deceptive about it. Lapablo has managed to acquire several permissions: AFC reviewer, new page reviewer, page mover, and autopatrolled; and they have made over 30,000 edits.

I'm starting this thread in order to get the cleanup process started. There's going to be a lot of spam in their contributions, and it all needs to be checked for neutrality and proper sourcing. Please help. – bradv🍁 17:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a list of their creations (and I believe AFC) for us to go through. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry actually Primefac's list includes the AFC accepts here. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Like many paid editors, a large portion of Lapablo's contributions are constructive, and we can reasonably assume that only a small percentage of them are paid contributions. And even of the articles that were written for pay, most are likely to be notable. Before someone suggests it, I don't think mass deletion is the answer here – we simply need to check through these to make sure they're up to our standards, and remove or fix the ones that aren't. – bradv🍁 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would say the same thing goes for the AFC accepts - if it's a reasonable accept, then leave it be, otherwise kick it back to the draft space to be reviewed by an impartial reviewer. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Mass delete is certainly not an option here, everything from my random sample check was notable (mostly Nigerian village one-line stubs).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, this was actually real? It's been months, and ArbCom was working all this time? Wow! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  This was a checkuser block, based on a report that was submitted about an hour ago. I'm not aware of anyone working on this for "months". – bradv🍁 18:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  There was this which went to COIN and a few other places I think. In the end, the OP was blocked; I think the general sense was that they were targeting Lapablo because of the latter's work against spammers. The OP was advised to send private evidence that they claimed to have to ArbCom. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  User:RickinBaltimore, you blocked User:Supolsanko in August due to casting aspersions on Lapablo (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Personal attack by Supolsanko), who has now been blocked for socking and undisclosed paid editing - vindicating Supolsanko. They were also rude, but should they be unblocked now as a proven whistleblower? Fences&Windows 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm hesitant due to this comment they made on Lapablo's talk page: "All three articles I created here were taken down by you within three weeks of creation as if you were the only editor here. My grievance with you is that you do not obey rules." I checked their deleted contributions, and they had none, which tells me this is a sock. I'd be very hesitant unblocking at this time, though if another admin wishes to do so, I will no object. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  In reviewing this, I would say that wrt to sockpuppetry, it could be argued the creation of a different account was because they didn't want their identity exposed to Lapablo. However, they did edit project space with such a undisclosed alternative account so have violated the sockpuppetry policy. Without knowing what their other account was, we can't also say that this isn't a case of forgotten passwords. However, their userpage does seem to say that this account was here to whistleblow (and any other account was probably still being used).

  I want to try and assume some level of good faith here, as the action of reporting the account was constructive for the project. However, this comment by the user does concern me. They are incivil there, and the subsequent ANI report was started about this diff.

  I don't think I'm going to unblock this account, but I also think just leaving the user blocked isn't necessarily the right thing to do here. Any thoughts from others? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• The previous time this happened, DannyS712 ran a script to add pages that the paid editor had patrolled to the New Page Patrol queue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Danny is ready anytime a consensus is presented to act on. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed - if an admin confirms that there is consensus to unpatrol and requeue all of the pages, I can (also, if someone is willing to grant me account creator rights for a few days to be exempt from rate limits, it'll make things go faster, otherwise I have to hard-code a delay to avoid abusing my global rollbacker rights) DannyS712 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I will confirm that it is appropriate to unpatrol and requeue all of the pages patrolled in this situation (this is standard NPP practice in such situations and i have done it manually on occasions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: So is there consensus / approval for the mass unpatrolling? And, if there is, can I request account creator rights for the ratelimit exemption? DannyS712 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, yes there is consensus to unpatrol these reviews. I'm not someone who typically grants that PERM and so I don't feel comfortable doing so here despite what seems like a logical and reasonable request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've added the right DannyS712 for a week under NOTBURO if nothing else. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 @Izno since last time this was dealing with a new page reviewer that was blocked, the query I ran then was to unpatrol and requeue pages they had reviewed. Am I current to understand that the intention now is to unpatrol and requeue all pages that were created, since they were autopatrolled and thus didn't go through the normal review process the first time? DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I'll manually go through their 55 created articles in mainspace and requeue what needs to be done. Your script can just focus on their use of NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Okay. I count 291 pages to re-enqueue and 66 to unreview -  Doing... DannyS712 (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Should be  Done - 635 logged actions made (enqueueing also unreviews) - see [141]. Happy to have my account creator rights revoked now, or if you want to leave them until they expire in a few days a won't abuse them :) DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks DannyS712. And just for the record it looks like GSS and SamHolt6 went through their AfC accepts. I did look over their page creations since receiving autopatrol. I only found a couple of their actual article creations that might be fishy and have put them back into the queue. On the whole they had done some valuable work covering African politics and I'm sorry to see that they decided to do UPE given the positive record of content creation they'd done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, wouldn't local consensus supporting permission use be sufficient for not 'abusing' global rights? Granting a local technical group to also grant them seems to just be an extra, if the perm is already there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: Per Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Global rollbackers, Global rollbackers may use the rollback, suppressredirect, markbotedits, and noratelimit functions on the English Wikipedia only in the context of counter-vandalism efforts (unless they hold such rights separately in a usergroup permitting local use for other reasons). - since this directly alludes to the rights also being available from local user groups, I believe using my global rollbacker rights for this would violate the policy DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wow that's crazy! What was the evidence of undisclosed paid editing? Was it a CU thing? PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, yes, please see OP's reply to my comment. The user talk page gives clue as to how that came about. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Usedtobecool, That was evidence for the CU block. I was asking on the confirmation on the undisclosed paid editing. Unless I am missing something? PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Unless I am mistaken private evidence, such as that sent to the paid-en arbcom queue isn't generally made public for the obvious reasons. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Right, I was asking if there was private evidence, not to specifically reveal it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: You are correct – the bulk of the justification for the block is private evidence. Bradv and I actually block-conflicted and I would have blocked as a "appeal to ArbCom" block rather than a "CheckUser" block. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, thanks for the clarification! PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted earlier, this is now the 11th new page patroller (by my count) that has been blocked for spamming in the last two years. There is starting to be a wider pattern. What can we do to reduce the chance of this happening again? MER-C 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs to start with a discussion of how to get people to understand that the quality of sources matter so we can weed out the trash that's currently infiltrating Wikipedia, such as the black hat SEO garbage I've been removing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

One can start by closing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#RFC:_Reliability_of_Entrepreneur_(magazine). If Entrepreneur contributors is marked as unreliable or deprecated this will take out one of go-to sources for spammers. MER-C 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• NPP is just a step in the ladder to various levels of status that protects one from scrutiny. I have only ever seen one editor claim that they review articles from autopatrolled editors just as they would the rest. And we do encounter autopatrolled editors who start creating UPE articles as soon as they get the flag having only ever created articles on say, biological species, until then. There is a lot of talk about how AFC is a mess because it is the gateway to higher permissions and has a low bar. And so on. But it takes highly experienced editors with some amount of balls to challenge the work of editors who are past the first few rungs of that ladder. That is what's been lacking.

  On another note, we need something akin to AIV or SPI for paid editing, your talk page seems to be one, I don't know of another. COIN is too much like ANI. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  MER-C, hmm, throwing out an idea, do we need a task force to spot check random pages from autopatrolled editors to find those abusing the right? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do we know which of their rights they were abusing? Autopatrolled has always seemed the most dangerous to me, but I suppose it wouldn't be hard if you're an AfC reviewer to get a confederate IP to create a draft you'd then approve. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with AFC is not usually getting paid to write and accept articles because at that point, they could just create it in mainspace themselves, people pay handsomely to accept their already written articles. There are people on the typical sites, like Freelancer, Upwork, PeoplePerHour, etc...that advertise their user rights from AFC to autopatrolled and extended confirmed to admin (which to my knowledge at least has never been accurate for at least the latter.) In particular I would say for serious UPE, such as this, autopatrolled is definitely the most dangerous. Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Our course of action when we see such listings should always be to reply "hey, I'm interested; can I see some examples of your past work?" Sting operations worked for French Wikipedia, and I wish we'd use them more here. Even if the effect is just to make them unwilling to share past work, that's still a success, since it might cause some of their (actual) potential customers to think twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Precisely the kind of situation I was referring to when I wrote the UPE essay on my user-page. Celestina007 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have in the past tried to review autopatrolled editors, or at least a portion of them, but I have not done so for many months now because of the pressure of work at AfC. I always patrol/review, but every few months I change my area to keep from getting stale. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps some way to map accepts against deletions (esp G11s)? I mean I keep my own personal list which includes any AfDs raised within 1 month of me accepting them (all 3 of them), but obviously self-generated lists are not wildly helpful here! In terms of AfD issues, you'd be highlighting by % most likely, which does allow UPE reviewers to get round it by handling lots of other reviews normally, but that's unavoidable. However, if a reviewer had 3 G11s get through, even if they did 60 others without issue, that would be sufficient concern for me to take a look at some others. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The percentage of overturned or overruled work depends to a large extent on what sort of articles or drafts you work on. If it is uncertain whether or not a draft will be approved at AfD, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to approve it --- and even send it to afd oneself, in order to get a community decision. The people at AfC or NPP are only screening, not deciding. I've noticed that the ones that go unreviewed for extended periods are the ones which are difficult to deal with, but someone has to take the responsibity for doing the screening. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, that's a fair point. Leaving things in draft forever is a bit close to WP:WEBHOST for me: in the end there has to ba a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

and letting the unreviewed ones get deleted by G13 is admitting our own failure: if we are going to use the AfC process, we have an obligation to our users to employ it properly. G13 is proper for material that is apparently abandoned & not worth rescuing, or clearly unsuitable, though not to the point that it's worth dealing with at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, agreed. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think we're going a bit overboard with the G5 deletions of mainspace articles. Some of these are perfectly cromulent villages in Africa (e.g., Oborhia, Umudobia, Orie Uratta). Just because something can be deleted as G5 doesn't mean it's the best thing for the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Concur. A more noble spirit would embiggen the breadth of Wikipedian knowledge on the subject. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Applying more than one block at a time

I've indeffed Crystal3003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing the Jacqueline Jossa page following a complaint raised at ANI. I was also minded to give a 1 week site block for edit warring, but am concerned that doing so would mean the indef PBAN will be lost when the block expires. Is this the case, or does the block revert to an indef PBAN once the sitewide block expires? Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no "default state" other than "unblocked", so if you partial block and then full block for a shorter length of time, when the full block expires it will revert back to unblocked. I was thinking it might be worth putting a phab ticket in, but I just thought of a case where an indef siteblock is imposed, followed by a shorter "time served" block, which would then default back to an indef siteblock after the expiry of the second block. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so my intuition was correct then. I'm not au fait with phab though. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Having multiple separate but overlapping blocks (and protections) is a perennial ask on VPT and Phab. There's been a bit of refactoring in the blocks area for the past few months so that might be a thing being made possible. Blocks is phab:T202673 (inspired by the creation of partial blocks) and others in the related tree; multiple protection is phab:T41038 and related tasks. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at ITN

There are several outstanding items ready to be posted at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates that require attention. 2020 Bolivian general election in particular has been marked as "Ready" for nearly 24 hours with no action. Morgan695 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Logan Williams

The Logan Williams bio created by User:HistoricRelic looks suspect. I've just moved it to the common name, done a history merge and added the old AfD. I have a busy few days ahead and can't look into it further, but note that the original page was created by an SPA and was a suspected paid job. The new version is also created by a new account. Schwede66 18:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the current version, and the deleted version (admin only) [142], I'm thinking that it qualifies for speedy delete as recreating a substantially identical article that was deleted at AFD (CSD:G4). I'm off to bed, so I will leave to someone else to second and mop up, or say otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• There was also a more recent AfD from this year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Williams (entrepreneur), at which it was again resoundingly deleted. I have applied G4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IP block exempt

Dear administrators, can you please give my user name an IP block exempt? When I was on holiday in my country it appeared I could not edit EN: Wikipedia due to block of this IP range: 185.252.0.0/16. I was editing from a private home. Can you please help by giving me an IP exempt. I hope this is the good place to ask. I tried at meta for a global exempt, but was told to ask for a local exempt. I tried Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, but this did not work, my request was closed and I was not able to recover it. Ellywa (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ellywa, The instructions for requesting IPBE in these circumstances can be found at WP:IPECPROXY. SQL^{Query me!} 22:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Whathever... I tried now on 3 places. Please help. This is Kafkaesk.... Ellywa (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you TonyBallioni. Ellywa (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Azuredivay reported by User:Vincentvikram

• Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive418#User:Azuredivay_reported_by_User:Prolix_(Result:_Warned)

@EdJohnston:, I would like to point to this link [[143]] wherein @Azuredivay: continues to violate with impunity the 3RR rule. A perusal of the User talk:Azuredivay shows that there are helpful suggestions and multiple warnings by editors. It appears that the warnings have had no effect. Vikram Vincent 08:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I just realised that I posted on the wrong page. Let me move this to the Edit_warring page Vikram Vincent 14:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll look at it here. It seems that this edit at Jio is a new violation of MOS:DIGITS so I'll be issuing a block per my prior warning to Azuredivay. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)