Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330

Possible (or more) sock voting on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Feldman

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 have found the above AfD, with three !delete votes made within half hour of each other, which I all suspect to be the same user. User:Expertediting (one edit; to that AfD; reg'd yesterday) User:Wikieditor00011 (two edits; also reg'd yesterday) and User:Enteringediting (4 edits; reg'd yesterday; accused someone of being PAID) I all believe are the same person. If possible can someone look over and verify if this is true? All user's behaviour is suspicious to say the least, and could warrant yet another reopening of the AfD discussion. Thanking you all Nightfury 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also note that Enteringediting just deleted this section, which I restored. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the same AFD that triggered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner and is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD. MER-C 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Enteringediting has changed two votes made by others on the AfD to delete - this has been reverted by myself. Nightfury 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Enteringediting has tried blanking these comments from this board, after an only warning against doing so. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And they just modified the AfD again. Pahunkat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Enteringediting (talk · contribs) indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry for using multiple accounts to vote delete. I didn't know that it's not allowed. Please don't relist the AFD. Please also unblock my other account Enteringediting. Your help will be highly appreciated. Wikieditor00011 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've indef blocked User:Wikieditor00011. They can appeal via the account talk page, but I doubt it'll be heard sympathetically. Fences&Windows 17:13, 10 February 2021 (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.

Appeal of a topic ban that was based on a reading error

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 main reason for my topic ban turned out to be a simple erroneous assumption (see the details below). I provided evidence for the error but the administrator who banned me then invented a new reason which doesn't justify a topic ban either. It's a dispute between that admin and myself over the content of a source. Complicating the matter even further is the fact that the admin, unlike me, is not familiar with the subject matter.

More important is the violation of Wikipedia policies during the ANI discussion and its closing. For example, WP:CBAN says: When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.

That never happened. My arguments were not read, let alone assessed.

The details:

1. Admin Rosguill, who closed the ANI [1], acknowledges that they have deliberately ignored my rebuttals to the allegations against me.[2]
2. The decision to ban me was mainly based on a reading error. According to Rosguill, I have deflected a request to supply sources. This is not true. I did in fact answer that request in detail.[3] Ironically, I explained this in my rebuttals, the ones Rosguill ignored, see:[4].
3. When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but instead they invented a new reason to uphold it.[5] However, this new reason is not about disruptive editing but an argument about the right interpretation of a source. A difference of opinions about content is not a valid cause for a topic ban.
4. Additional reasons provided by Rosguill to justify the ban were one old issue that was already dealt with, and two innocent remarks. See the discussion at: [6].

The reading error, the content dispute, and several other misunderstandings that arose demonstrate that Rosguill does not understand the matter very well. But just like with other editors who've involved themselves in this case, they're not prepared to consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Saflieni (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but instead they invented a new reason to uphold it.[7] — I don't think that diff says what you think it says, Saflieni. El_C 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The OP should be blocked for an unambiguous topic-ban violation here. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal. They have not made any constructive contributions to WP since they were TBed 3 weeks ago.) --JBL (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have done this. There's no more appealing topic bans to Jimbo, as far as I'm concerned. No more appealing anything, in fact, in contravention of an existing restriction. With the possible exception of foundation-y stuff, perhaps. But it wasn't drafted as an appeal, anyway, so that matter is ultimately moot. El_C 01:02, 11 February 2021 (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.

Danielbr11 compromised?

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 am reasonably certain that Danielbr11 may be compromised, based on an unusual edit pattern.

The account was created at 2016-05-12 05:39, made one edit, then took a two year break. Came back, made about 40 edits, none of them reverted. Disappeared again for 6 months. Came back for one edit, not reverted. Then took a 9 month break, returning about 20 days ago.

Among the approximately 250 edits in 20 days, the overwhelming number of article edits have been reverted. There has also been premature noticeboard and arbitration cases. There is also a lack of consensus seeking.

So, this user forgot how to Wikipedia, became radicalized and is POV pushing, or the account got compromised by a bad actor. I think someone with the tools to do so should investigate the third possibility. Rklahn (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Their very first edit was an unsourced political/religious statement that was reverted within a couple hours. Woodroar (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already partially blocked them from List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll after yet more ludicrous editing tonight, I suspect it is only a matter of time until they are completely blocked if they keep this up. Black Kite (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The issue appears to involve List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll and edits like this. That page lists human-caused incidents that led to a large number of people being killed. Danielbr11's edit adds the claim that between 100 and 200 million people were killed by abortions in China based on consideration of single-cell embryos and some studies showing that life begins at conception. I gather that other claims of large killings not related to abortion have been proposed for that article. Danielbr11 has been indefinitely partial-blocked from editing that page but is free to continue at RSN and similar. I don't see a reason to believe the account is compromised but a rate-limiter should be arranged to prevent further time wasting such as at Talk:Christianity and abortion#China India and Russia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this. I really don't have the Wikipedia editor experience to truly understand the pattern here. Others have far more experience on this than I do. But I thought that once I seriously suspected the account got compromised, I should report it. Thanks! Rklahn (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem reporting it, thanks. However, there is a problem with recent activity from Danielbr11 (talk · contribs) and that should be discussed now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the issue is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer fabricating policies so perhaps this section can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OP here. Yea, I agree with Johnuniq. This is a dup, and should be closed. Rklahn (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2021 (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.

Extreme bias from editor on Cultural Marxism page

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.

---

It appears that an admin by the name Bacondrum (on their page it says they are antifa socialist marxist) is unfairly editing a page, check the Talk page for Cultural marxism for more information about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm assuming they mean Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as Cultural Marxism is a redirect and that talkpage hasn't been edited since september last year Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, my apologies. If you look you can see the user is heavily invested in it and himself espouses views that are opposed to such 'conspiracy theory'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (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.

There is a holocaust denier that is trying to put Neo Nazi websites as sources Can some one stop them?

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.

---

They are posting links to sources such as, HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE – Free yourself from a lifetime of Holo-brainwashing about “Six Million” Jews “gassed” in “Gas Chambers Disguised as Shower Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pink_Swastika&diff=1005035677&oldid=1004876187.78.92.85.246 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2021 (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.

WP: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.

---

We are now approaching 60 requests and have about 30 hours backlog (in the European morning, we had about 36 h backlog, which was even worse). Some help would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course that place is eternally backlogged, but some of the 50-odd requests there have been posted for nearly 48 hours, so some admin action would be helpful... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like HJ Mitchell has cleaned the backlog up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (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 request

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.

---

Branflakes452701 (talk · contribs) was banned as a result of prolific socking. They have periodically reappeared, sometimes productively, sometimes not (editing as an IP and claiming not to be a sock (before admitting they were), they broke 3RR in March last year during an edit war on Slovakian politics) – see their SPI archive for more background. Under their latest incarnation Bluegrass35 (talk · contribs), they have requested to be unblocked, which I believe would need them to be unbanned, hence bringing the matter here. Their unblock request states:

The only reason I created a new account because I don't have access to my original one and can't get on it. I understand I was blocked and I will absolutely commit to no more socking, if you allow me to freely come back and edit. I am sorry for the socking, but I did it because I can't get on the original account. I'm not making excuses for myself, but I shown that I have not engaged in any edit warring.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to letting them back, but think a 1RR restriction should be imposed if they do. Cheers, Number 57 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Let's start with six months with zero edits, zero sockpuppetry, and then we could consider under WP:SO. The socking is indeed prolific here and I want to see some, any, evidence they are willing to abide by our policies. Their request is disingenuous; had they created the account and then immediately requested an unban, maybe. But no, they edited for months until caught. No comment on what restrictions should be imposed upon them if we do eventually lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose They can try for the standard offer when it comes time. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Extensive, ongoing socking. After 6 months of no edits on enwiki - and perhaps a good track record on another wiki, I'd be willing to reconsider. SQL^{Query me!} 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per sockpuppetry concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 9 February 2021 (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.

Experienced copy & paste fixer needed

The UK tax code is notoriously complicated and it seems to have spread here.

Can someone skilled with the more complicated copy & paste cases have a look at 10p tax rate and the current redirect Starting rate of UK income tax plus any related articles? A glance at the history shows a complete mess of moves, content forks, what looks like copy & paste moves and more plus the talk page is currently detached from the article which is complicating a Requested Move that's seeking to undo some of the past changes. Getting the article histories fixed will make this easier. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was the person who made the move request (apologies for the bad timing; I only noticed afterwards what a mess the whole thing is). In case it makes somebody's life easier, here is what I posted on the Requested Moves talk page: the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [8][9] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [10]. Now the main page is 10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I should also mention, I also first moved the article years before this, back in 2008. Though I've no recollection of doing this. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, though I think it was a lot simpler than it let on - the two copies to other pages can pretty much be ignored (near as I can tell there wasn't much in the way of content changes) and so everything should be where it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeating a prior RfC

When it is appropriate to re-litigate a prior RfC? I'm asking based on a RfC that Snooganssnoogans opened at talk:Tim Pool. In 2019 a RfC regarding the claim that Tim Pool promoted the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory was conducted [[11]]. It closed with a consensus to exclude. That material was recently added and removed from the article. I removed it this morning based on the outcome of the prior RfC. Snoogans opened a RfC to relitigate the content. I'm commented out the RfC tag to pause the RfC as I think it is improper but I wanted to get some feedback on that view. My concerns are:

1. There was no recent talk page discussion related to this content as per WP:BEFORERFC.
2. No new sources for the claim were presented. Basically it appears that nothing external to Wikipedia changed. Is it valid to simply re-run a RfC because you weren't happy with the prior result? Would this depend if the prior close was consensus vs no consensus?
3. The stated reason to relitigate was, "it's worthwhile to re-visit the topic, given that a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and other editors who have been banned or retired." The closing editor said they discounted SPAs. I don't see any evidence that other editors weren't in good standing at the time. I'm concerned that this seems to be a case of "we've kicked enough editors from side B off the island, lets vote again". That seems like a problematic justification to reopen a RfC. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Please note that this is meant to be a question about best practice only. While I disagree with the other editor's actions this is not meant to impugn the editor. If consensus here is the RfC was valid I support restoring the RfC. Springee (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, There's been a lot more discussion of this and other politically motivated conspiracy theories lately, so while the content should remain out of the article for now based on the 2019 RfC, a new RfC is probably legitimate, as long as the person proposing it can show new sources on which it might be based. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that if Snoogans presented new sources the old RfC could be revisited. However, the proposed sources are the same ones from the last RfC (or date to the same time period). Springee (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. The takeaway is: bring new sources. I agree that a new RfC with no new sources is at least somewhat disruptive - akin to the endless retreading of failed move requests. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that a new RfC is procedurally OK in a case like this, where the last RfC was sixteen months ago, new sources may have been published (or come to light), some participants in the last RfC turned out to be sockpuppets or SPAs, and the initiator of the RfC is acting in good faith. Even if the closer of the previous RfC made an effort to discount SPA votes, socks are not always obvious, and some of them may have been caught after the old RfC concluded. (I don't know if that's the situation in this case). In any event, it seems these types of issues should generally be resolved on the merits rather than strict procedure. I do agree that a best practice is to propose some new sources, or at least updated wording (if applicable), but I don't think that's an absolute prerequisite. Neutrality^talk 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This requires common sense. Since consensus can change, a new RfC might be justified. However, there should be some reason to do so. Snooganssnoogans says that "a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets [etc.]" Yet the closing administrator wrote, "There is consensus to exclude the accusation, even after the views of SPAs and discounted."[12]

The main reason to exclude was that it was a comment made in passing in an article not about Pool. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans should have discussed the issue first.

I would suggest therefore that Snooganssnoogans close the RfC and discuss the topic. I think too that he should realize that Wikipedia articles are not here to attack people we think deserve it, but merely to summarize what reliable sources say about them.

TFD (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is nothing more than rehashing the 2019 RfC with basically the same sources what is the best way to handle a situation like this? Springee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, the consensus is that old discussions expire after a while. So for example, if something was AfD'ed two years ago and kept, you can still start a fresh deletion discussion now and it wouldn't be speedily closed. There is no consensus about how long the "while" is, but a gap of eighteen months or two years is, in my view, clearly enough time. It's unusual to begin an RfC without prior discussion, but the preliminary discussion isn't required by any rules. I think that behaviourally, Snooganssnoogans' actions are in order here.—S Marshall T/C 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia system fault :: a logged-in user was suddenly re-logged in as another user

Being handled by WMF.--Bison X (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

*@Tom Radulovich: At 11/02/2021 04:39 User:Tom Radulovich sent me this email: "Hi there, I'm reaching out to you since you're a knowledgeable admin. Earlier today I was editing, and suddenly the wikipedia interface changed - there were unfamiliar fonts, and a clock in the top right corner. Browsing and editing seemed to work fine, so I continued. After a few edits I realized I was logged in as User:Ntsimp‬. I logged out and logged back in. The bar at the top said I was logged in under my user name, but User:Ntsimp's user page came up when I navigated to my user page. I logged out and logged in again, and everything appears fine. However about a half-dozen edits I made - to Mount Mecula, Lugenda River, and Cordylus meculae - are recorded as being made by User:Ntsimp. I let him know what happened. Any idea what happened, and what I or User:Ntsimp ought to do about it? thanks, T." Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC) This is... rather bizarre. Technical evidence (CU) seems to corroborate the story, but I have no idea what could have caused it. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC) @Tom Radulovich: Hello, a Wikimedia System Administrator speaking. I'll send you an email ASAP. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC) General note: @Anthony Appleyard: and other admins: If you receive such a security-related email in the future, please forward it to security@wikimedia.org (including any evidence you may have) rather than posting it publicly at the admin's noticeboard, so it can be triaged and processed appropriately by the WMF security team. Thanks! Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

209.93.129.194

It's reverting CBeebies this. Please click to reading for contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Technically, the IP is correct (I reverted them myself and then realised the IP was fixing the double redirect, not breaking it). The edit-warring is not great, but it appears to have ceased now. Black Kite (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

A motion regarding the MONGO case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Amendment request. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 / Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

The discography article was created by User:Francis Schonken when RfCs were opened on the original article talk page to discuss the changes that User:Francis Schonken sought to make. The "discography" page is in fact a full duplication/rewrite of the original article including all the changes desired by User:Francis Schonken. This seems a blatant attempt at a POVFORK. I have nominated the discography article for deletion. User:Francis Schonken is however continuing to edit and expand it. User:Francis Schonken, in his reponse at the deletion, has speciously claimed that I support his initiative in creating this duplicate article. This is untrue; I simply expressed my view that a discography would be better as a separate List article. And I certianyl cannot support action of this sort being taken while an RfC (or two) is under way. I don't know what action should be taken here, but User:Francis Schonken's actions and 'defence' seem to me to be essentially holding up two fingers to the consensual WP process.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intention to create a WP:POVFORK. If it is, I propose to merge, per the POVFORK guidance. The discography article is currently at AfD:

• this entails that a merge should probably best not be operated before the AfD is closed, and only if the AfD's closure mandates such merge.
• afaik, improving/extending references of an article while it is at AfD is normal, even recommended, procedure. These are also the only edits I did since the discography article was listed at AfD.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the status of the discography can be discussed at the AfD. I agree that the discography should be just a discography and link back to the main article. A more serious problem, which I was considering raising until I saw this entry, is the current edit war at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, with Francis (who has already been pinged enough in this section) and user:Nikkimaria. They are both also posting at the talk page but playing ping pong with 10k of content at a time. This must stop. --Mirokado (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I have not reverted Nikkimaria again (current mainspace content is their version), and limited myself to a talk page reply after their last revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. "link back to the main article": fixed --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. "the discography should be just a discography": I've now created a "just discography" version of the discography article (which I've self-reverted for the OP's suggestion of a restriction on me editing the article I created). The "just discography" version includes a three-paragraph intro, some of the images, etc, – I suppose it is more or less what other editors may expect of such a version, but am open to suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I regret that Francis Schonken's comments above are disingenuous (shall we say). On 4 February FS added links to his sandbox version noting these changes in connection with the RfC on referencing. On 9 February he then without explanation or warning (afaik) moved the sandbox to WP as the "discography" article, without attribution to other editors and any proper edit history, etc. (And, incidentally, with many faults in the article, including removing the references to to the doubt as to the work's attribution). This is not I think consistent with FS's explanation above. In any case, the deliberate creation of an article B, in the face of an ongoing discussion about article A, followed by a proposal to merge to article B to article A shows, at the very least, a lack of understanding and respect for the processes of WP. --Smerus (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a notice about copied material to the talk pages of both articles ([13], [14]). For clarity, the discography page is, thus far, mostly my work, as well content as layout (most of it already being introduced by me in the BWV 53 article before being copied to the draft, and then to the mainspace discography). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C blocked User:Mathsci for iban violations at the BWV 53 article. Isn't this another violation of the iban, this time by Francis Schonken? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, I'm not immediately seeing it. What did the violation actually consist of? El_C 07:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I may be wrong, but shortly after you blocked MathSci for edits on the original article, FS creates this discography which had been part of a dispute between FS and MathSci on the earlier article. Given the nature of MathSci's ban stemming from his actions on the original article, I wondered if you might consider this also a violation of the spirit of the iban. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Doug, briefly, because I'm a bit in transit at the moment: I blocked MathSci because, among other things, he had directly reverted Francis Schonken on the parent page. Not sure how this sister page actually connects to any possible interaction between the two, though I'm happy to review any pertinent diffs to that effect (later). Gotta glow now! El_C 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war that as been going on for days on the Alexei Navalny page

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.

---

It looks like the page needs admin protection. 2 users were trying to add information and another user is undoing it all the time https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&action=history.46.55.213.35 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2021 (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.

Pinxton and Selston railway station deletion instead of Pinxton and Selston speedy deletion help

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 seems to be a mismatch on a speedy deletion on the pages linked above. I am sure you need to have railway station in all the leads on railway station articles. However, i made an error and instead the railway station article is nominated for deletion but I did ask for it to be deleted (The non railway station article) on the talk page. Please can someone correct this error, — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG, it wasn't deleted, just redirected, so all you have to do is undo Special:Diff/1006593252 (remove the A10 tag) and turn Pinxton and Selston railway station into a #REDIRECT. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Things are correct as they are. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) Pinxton and Selston railway station is the correct title with Pinxton and Selston being a redirect to it. Nthep (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2021 (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.

Conny the Cow

Conny the Cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account on List of Dora the Explorer episodes. Already reported the user at AIV and requested page protection, but it's quit clear that a block is needed sooner than later. Quite clearly WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked. Feel free to close and/or remove this section (though page protection may still be needed...) Magitroopa (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No longer an emergency

More than a decade ago, death threats popped up on my watchlist — two children apparently had a fight, and one threatened the other. I wasn't aware of emergencywikimedia.org, and I was in a college class and couldn't alert local authorities, so I found an active editor in the relevant time zone and asked him to alert authorities, and the authorities handled the situation. Some time later, another admin ran across these edits and revdeleted them, since they were definitely "purely disruptive material".

Has anyone ever asked for assistance with old edits that were emergencies when they first happened, but weren't anymore? If so, what happened? I'd like to ask whoever monitors emergency@wikimedia.org, but I don't know how to reach them except by sending an email to that address, and I don't want to make them think this is an emergency. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: If I'm not mistaken, Trust & Safety monitor emergency@. You should be able to reach them via cawikimedia.org . SQL^{Query me!} 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Email sent to ca@wikimedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (speaking with just my admin hat on) if the edits were severe enough to merit RD when they occurred, they should probably stay revdel'd; going through a page's history and seeing people threatening other people is rather jarring, even if the acts that preceded or followed those edits are well passed. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Most anything that needs Revdel today, needs it forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to appeal a topic ban that has been in operation for three years now

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00

G'day all.

I am here to appeal a topic ban (hereinafter referred to as simply a 'ban' for simplicity's sake) that was imposed on my account on May 15, 2018. Limited in scope (it applied to 'pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan), the ban nonetheless effectively curtailed my range of editing. I must at the outset acknowledge the fact that this ban was put in place in the first place because my editing and concomitant conduct in the said domain was deemed to be battlegroundish and rightly so.

There was without doubt deterioration in conduct leading to the arbitration enforcement report that led to the ban in the said domain, which was most regrettable and something I never felt good about. It was rightfully nipped in the bud. There was a passive consciousness of this deterioration in conduct even then, and with the wisdom of hindsight things have only become more clear. Having said that, seen in the broader context of my editing back then, which was largely focused on content creation, writing articles, developing and taking them to high standards through sustained research, making DYK and ITN nominations and stuff, this was somewhat a stray, and, again, highly regrettable involvement in what I would say a very narrow set of volatile articles; it led to the narrowness in interest and detracted me from my larger objective of writing articles on subjects I knew about and stuff.

The ban came with a rider that 'that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block,' and this has been like a sword hanging over my head, and without doubt, to some extent was a factor that contributed to a significant decline in my contributions over the past two years,[15] though it was largely on account of a busy real life. Nonetheless, it has been quite stressful to edit under the constraint of this ban, with all its restrictions and injunctions, for even a potentiality of a minor overlap makes me think twice before continuing to edit in that direction. I made close to 6,000 edits in the year 2018 alone, after the ban came into effect, largely in the WP:ARBIPA domain, writing a number of good articles and DYKs such as DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (), PSLV-C42 ( ), Ankita Bhakat ( ), and Baby Rani Maurya (), besides occasional but significant contributions here and there over these years in what might serve as an eloquent example of my bona fide intention to serve this project.

Three years is a long time and I truly believe that this ban has outlived its utility and has over the years become more of an impediment. Prior to the this whole episode, I had been working on articles like Vikram Batra (which I singlehandedly developed from almost scratch to B-class, adding tens of thousands of bytes in the process,[16] using a vast pool of resources) and User:MBlaze Lightning/Myra MacDonald. I had plans to eventually develop the former into my magnum opus and take the latter to at least DYK... I therefore ask, nay, request the community to kindly reconsider this ban and lift the same in light of my vastly reformed conduct, my eagerness to make amends for the past misconduct, and to continue to contribute to this project, particularly in the said domain, not under the constraint of any ban but with the freedom to choose and contribute wherever I want to. I shall forever be grateful to the community.

Thanks, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. No need for this to be longer than it already has. WP:FORGIVE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Having watched the edits from this user in the histories of South Asian military articles, I can safely suggest that the area will benefit from his presence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support rescinding. A cogent, heartfelt and reflective appeal. Also factoring abuse amelioration, with myself having declined a bogus AE complaint 2 weeks ago that falsely charged the appellant with contravening their ban (the filer has since been blocked by the Arbitration Committee). El_C 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Holy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive279 — did I really close 11 of 14 reports? I think Sandstein would be proud. Hum hum hum. El_C 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, thanks, I guess? It's certainly good seeing somebody attending to the process. In my experience it doesn't really work with respect to the unblockables, and ArbCom doesn't seem to want it to work in these cases, so I'm now spending my time elsewhere. But I guess that's an experience everybody needs to make for themselves. - While I'm here I might as well also support lifting the ban based on the convincing appeal. Sandstein 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, let this user contribute to the topic area they want to improve. Nicely crafted appeal. enjoyer|talk 11:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support The user has had a couple of AE hits, one bogus, one out of scope, so clearly fine, and the other such a minor technical breach (that their own actions helped stop) that even AE decided the best course was no action. Given the timescale, I feel that only a support is an appropriate outcome, in lieu of evidence to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Support If the user starts behaving battleground-ish again, then they can be re-TBANNED, but as long as they don't get into the same problems as before, unblock to reduce unnecessary discontent and because at most the damage done will be none or limited. 4D4850 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. How the system should work. Good appeal and evidence of them moving on. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Very good appeal and a constructive user. I and all my socks support lifting the ban. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support. A good appeal, and a solid portfolio of constructive work outside contentious areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Everybody deserves a second chance.--Berig (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. Hell yeah Sro23 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning, would you please consider changing your signature to something readable? As it stands, it is very hard to decipher and probably fails WP:SIGAPP. Fram (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually never thought about it like that. But I got no problem, so I have done the needful. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Very clear cut case. Mblaze hasn't been sitting out watching the clock to pass $x months, or $x edits, or making excuses. Instead, they've become a better editor in every respect during this restriction, clearly demonstrating that restrictions aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 16 February 2021 (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.

TBAN appeal by Bgkc4444

Hi there. I'd like to appeal a ban made against me here, more specifically the TBAN. Wugapodes suggested I wait a few days before making an appeal, and I have waited a month couple months now, and even though the ban is over soon, it would be good for me to understand whether and why others agree/disagree with my suggestion. Additionally, WP:BANEX states that an editor should explain why their editing is excepted from the ban; I will be making reference to the banned topic and user here in order to address a legitimate concern about the ban itself in the appropriate forum. It's a complex case so I'll try keep it as brief as possible (which turns out isn't very brief), but I'm happy to provide more details if an administrator would find it useful as there is a lot more that I can say.

1. I don't believe a TBAN against me can be considered to be the just outcome from the discussion. Only one administrator suggested a TBAN, while the others suggested an IBAN. As Wugapodes wrote on ANI, there wasn't much debate on the ban. When I responded to that one editor's suggestion of a TBAN explaining why this would not be the just outcome, I did not receive a response unfortunately. Furthermore, as Wugapodes said, the reason for the suggested TBAN is that an IBAN could be hard to enforce against editors if we edit in the same topic. However, Isento said "I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles" and admitted to editing in such articles more just because I was editing in them as well, so I don't think an IBAN would be hard to enforce if there is no TBAN. Additionally, the issue with an IBAN would only stand if neither editor has a TBAN, but enforcing a TBAN on one editor will produce the same result as enforcing it on both. Also, this will be a long story so I'm happy to clarify further if requested, but the claims made against me that were used as the basis of the sanction (e.g. wikilawyering) were unexplained and unsubstantiated, and I asked many times for these claims to be clarified, but no diff was ever cited for such behavior. I do not see why I should be banned because of unsubstantiated claims made about me that I repeatedly asked for explanation of and received no response.
2. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our previous behavior and between our receiving of prior warnings and sanctions. Isento previously received multiple constructive talk page messages about his behavior, a final warning from an administrator after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?", and a block from Ivanvector after further personal attacks were made against me and other editors and also modifying another editor's comment on a Beyonce-related talk page which QEDK and BD2412 warned him about, and this block happened shortly before the ANI report in question. During and after that block, he continued to make personal attacks against me and other editors, such as when he admitted his personal intolerance of me, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court", as well as repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues during the ANI discussion in question as explained here (and later inappropriate behavior is explained below). This explains why a strong sanction such as a TBAN was placed against Isento, as talk page messages didn't help, formal warnings didn't help, and blocks didn't help. On the other hand, I have not once received a polite talk page message from Isento. As explained during the ANI discussion, Isento just repeatedly places warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replies sarcastically when I ask him to clarify, such as here. Importantly, for the issue that the ANI report was on, there was not even any form of talk page message or dispute resolution attempted before as should have been done, with Isento going straight to ANI over an issue that could have and should have been addressed through several possible means before an ANI report was necessary. Further, as well as not receiving constructive messages on my talk page, I have not even received any formal warning or block for my interactions with Isento. I do not see why someone who has never received any formal sanction for this let alone received constructive talk page messages should receive the same sanction as someone who has received multiple sanctions from administrators for his behavior in order to provide him with multiple chances to improve his behavior, which unfortunately has not been successful.
3. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our behavior on Beyonce-related articles after the ANI report in question, as exemplified by the discussion on Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead?. I always kept cool in this discussion and made constructive contributions, despite the fact that I faced several false accusations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by the few "no" voters. Worst of all, one of those editors (HĐ) made a false accusation about me to ANI citing solidarity with Isento, which Games of the world, TruthGuardians and HandThatFeeds all said was a false accusation that was highly inappropriate. The fact that I kept cool and did not make personal attacks even in the most severe cases where I was faced with strong attacks and provocation, means that I would never make such attacks, and so a TBAN is unnecessary. On the other hand, Isento hasn't made such changes to his behavior, and instead has also continued to make false accusations and assume bad faith about other editors during that discussion. He even made complaints to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" (Xurizuri and Israell) who disagreed with him about a Beyonce-related issue, also making false accusations and assumptions of bad faith against both of them, without even notifying them on their talk page. When Isento was told how inappropriate this was, such as by Binksternet, he did not take accountability for it. Such behavior shows that this isn't just a behavioral issue with me, but that this is a chronic issue that Isento has with editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. I do not see why someone who has learnt from their mistakes, is evidently trying to becoming a better editor and has not engaged in personal attacks etc since (even in the most severe of cases), should receive the same sanction as someone who - despite being on Wikipedia for 13 years and receiving sanctions for his behavior - does not indicate that he is learning from his mistakes or trying to become a better editor, and instead continues to engage in personal attacks etc specifically against editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. This is why I do not believe that the TBAN should be enforced against me. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face.

Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bgkc4444, are you able to offer a condensed version of the appeal? I'm just finding it prohibitively lengthy, so myself, I am unlikely to review it for those reasons alone. Thanks and good luck! El_C 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Sure, sorry about that! Hopefully this is better. I believe that the TBAN should be rescinded because:

a) the TBAN was the suggestion of one editor and was not properly discussed and the consensus more indicated just an IBAN

b) the reason given for the TBAN isn't a strong argument (it was said that an IBAN is difficult to maintain without a TBAN, but the user I am in the IBAN with said he edits in Beyonce-related articles more because I do too, and also having one TBAN causes the same effect as having two)

c) the claims made against me that were used as reasons for sanction were unsubstantiated without any diffs given despite my repeated requests for explanation

d) the other user had received multiple constructive talk page warnings, a final warning from an administrator and a recent block from an administrator regarding his behavior towards me on Beyonce-related issues, whereas I received none of those (most importantly, the editor did not try the correct methods of dispute resolution and went straight to making the ANI report against me)

e) during and immediately after the ANI discussion where the other editor was blocked, as well as during the ANI discussion in question, he made multiple personal attacks such as calling the administrators hypocrites and repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues, whereas I did not make such attacks and yet we received the same sanction

f) since the ANI discussion finished, the other editor and I were in the same disussion on a Beyonce-related article. I was faced with personal attacks and false accusations, including a false complaint to ANI cited in solidarity with the other editor. Despite this, I did not make any personal attacks in response, which shows that no matter how much I am provoked, I will no longer respond inappropriately. The other editor himself, however, made false accusations about editors and made a false complaint to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" who disagreed with him, without writing a message on those editors' talk pages. This shows a clear disparity between how the other editor and I will edit on Beyonce-related topics going forward, and yet we both received the same TBAN. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face. Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, honestly, you may be right about the unequitable warnings and otherwise sanctions — or maybe not. No idea. But the point is that you are asking reviewers here to do a fair bit of investigating for a topic ban that, what, expires in 2 months? So, maybe just sit this one out...? I'm just preparing you for the possible consequence of how scarce volunteer resources may be, especially about a really narrow sanction that expires soon(ish), anyway. Still, I can see you wanting to clear your name or whatever, notwithstanding these more pragmatic considerations. But as an active admin, I, for one, would not treat you differently due to this sanction (like as a problem user), if that helps at all. Anyway, who knows, maybe reviewers who are familiar with the case, or ones who possess the time and inclination to investigate, will show up to opine, after all. Good luck. El_C 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Allow me to take this opportunity to add my thoughts on topic bans. Wikipedia has well over 6 million articles now, covering literally hundreds of thousands of topic areas. It is possible for any author interested in working on the project to spend all their available hours working productively in any number of these areas. Topic bans are rare enough that I would counsel any editor subject to one to find something else to do for the duration. BD2412 T 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, BD2412, thank you both for your comments. I fully understand both of your points and recognize the practical challenge. However, I was told that I can make an appeal "any time before" the end of the ban, as well as that I shouldn't make an appeal too close to the ban's initiation, so I still hope that the appeal can be considered even if I have missed the short period of time in which making an appeal would be the most practical. Still, of course, the administrators have the power and superior knowledge of bans here, and I guess I don't have a choice in what admins choose to look at or don't. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is simply a problem with English language knowledge but I feel, if a topic ban was imposed on "6 January 2021", saying "waited a couple months now" on 7 February is likely to be considered misleading. Yes it's very slightly over a month, but it's hard to call that 2 months. (I don't think 2 months or 1 month matters much in a case like this, but it's still better not to confuse or mislead.) To be fair, Wugapodes also confusingly set their 3 month topic ban to expire on 6 March, but I'm fairly sure I haven't either entered a parallel universe or suffered a head injury that made me forget that there's an extra month between January and February. Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the discussion itself started on 12 December and so I guess the stuff that lead up to it was even before then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you for your comment. Yes, that point is part of the reason, but I believe that the TBAN against me isn't preventing anything because I do not believe I have indicated that I will imminently or continually damage/disrupt Wikipedia. I may be misunderstanding these rules so please let me know if I am, but I read the sentence at WP:PREVENTATIVE which says "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition" to mean that a TBAN is only used when it is believed that an editor will repeat their inappropriate behavior if the TBAN isn't implemented. I believe that this is not the case for me. As explained in the last point of the appeal above, there was a discussion on Beyonce's article that both the other editor and I participated in after the ANI discussion died down and before the IBAN and TBANs were implemented, and to me our respective behaviors during that discussion are indicative of what our behavior would have been if the TBAN wasn't implemented, and so are indicative of whether a TBAN is necessary. I was constructive in the discussion and receptive to others' concerns. Other editors did not do so to me, and even one complained about me to ANI about a false situation cited in solidarity with the editor I am in an IBAN with. Despite this, I did not retaliate or show inappropriate behavior to this editor, and I believe the fact that I did not show inappropriate behavior in such a severe case shows that I would never do so no matter how much provocation I face. I believe that this is what shows that the TBAN against me is not preventing anything. Just having the discussion on ANI showed me the appropriate way of interacting with others (which is why I said above that instead of the other editor going straight to ANI when he had a problem with my edits, he should have used the correct methods of dispute resolution such as a talk page message), while a TBAN doesn't help me with this. I am not saying that the TBAN for the other editor should be rescinded as well, as he assumed bad faith about the editors who disagreed with him in that discussion and made inappropriate complaints about them to ANI, but of course that is up to the admins to decide. Thank you for your help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Sorry to ping you again, but in case you haven’t seen I replied above :) Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bgkc4444

No worries! I had seen the reply but don't have much to add. It seems removing the TBAN may be worthwhile, but that requires more input than just mine imo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Block

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 this user EmanueleL187 has been warned for vandalism 3 times, 2 are automatic one are human (me) Could he get blocked? ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the user has not checked his talk page or has not replied]]. --ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @ItzJustLucky:, I've blocked them because I happened to see this report right when it was made. But FYI, WP:AIV is a better place to report this kind of obvious no-discussion-needed vandalism, both because it is (most of the time) faster, and because it fits better with our normal workflow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info @Floquenbeam:, I didn't know where to go to report so I came here, I am still new to wikipedia. --ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, this worked out fine, and now you know. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And knowing is half the battle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (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.

ImageTaggingBot

I had some trouble with this bot recently. I posted details on the operator's talk page. But I now notice that this user has not posted since 26 July 2020. As the bot seems to be faulty and driverless, please can someone block it or otherwise resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson I don't think the bot is exactly faulty (or at least this is an edge case) - it is expecting text in the Source field and I am going to guess that it was (unsurprisingly) unable to evaluate the template that you used ({{citation}}) and therefore it thought it was empty. You'll see that now there is text in that field, the bot is happy. I think this is probably a rare event - 99.9% of the time people will simply fill in the fields with text (which is fine) or leave it blank (which the bot will catch). The rest of its taggings appear to be fine, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• A {{citation}} template is a standard way of specifying a source, which is why I used it and will continue to do so. It contains standard data items such as a date, author and URL which one would expect when specifying a source. If the bot is unable to parse these then it is not fit for purpose. If it is unable to make sense of what it finds, it should still recognise that there is something there and pass this as an exception to its human operator. It should not in the meantime go dropping misleading and hostile tags and messages.

A bot operator is expected to provide good communication per bot policy, WP:BOTCOMM. It seems clear that we're not getting it in this case. If this bot is now orphaned, it should be blocked or otherwise disabled per WP:BOTISSUE.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Many, perhaps even most, botops are inactive or otherwise not actively maintaining their bots. For this particular issue, it's likely blocking the bot will result in its features being unavailable for an unspecified period of time, perhaps forever. An ideal resolution would be you adding the licensing information in the standard way which the bot can understand. It may also be worth contacting the botop by email. Your current way of doing things is not machine-readable anyway, which makes it problematic. See the various added categories such as Category:Files with no machine-readable source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy WP:BOTCOMM states that "Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. ... This is a condition of operation of bots in general." If this and other bots are not compliant with this condition then they should be shut down. Complex software requires continuous support and so should not be launched in a fire-and-forget way. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to file an RfC to shut down the bots of any operator who hasn't edited in 6 months or a year. I imagine you will find a snowing consensus against. Even when the operators are active various bots are mostly unmaintained afaik, such as the GA bot. Various codebases are taken over from past operators who went inactive, and are mostly just maintained for stability. In any case, this still ignores the fact that your method of tagging images is not machine readable and thus is not the correct way of adding the data. I'm not sure why you're insistent on seeing the bot make a change, rather than just changing your wikitext into the machine readable format...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[Ignoring the what-to-do question] Andrew, {{citation}} is not a standard way of specifying an image source. It's a valid way, so the tag was a mistake and Wikiacc correctly removed the tag, but the standard way to provide an image source (and a good way of avoiding this situation in the future) is to describe the image with {{Information}} and to put the source in the |source parameter. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Andrew, there are no such instructions on the file upload pages (mainly, I suspect, because the issue hasn't come up previously). Of course the vast majority of users are simply going to provide text rather than fiddling about with templates so it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: note that I didn't remove the tag, I just added some more text to accompany it, both for added context and to make ImageTaggingBot stop. Wikiacc (¶) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot expects source information to be in the form of free-form text on the image description page, or a filled-out "source", "author", or "artist" field in an {{Information}} or {{Image information art}} template (or a template that transcludes one of those templates, such as {{Non-free use rationale}}), or a filled-out "source" field in {{Non-free media data}} or {{Non-free audio data}}, or any of 23 templates such as {{self}} that provide boilerplate sources, or any of 114+ copyright templates that provide source.

{{citation}} isn't on the list of known ways to provide source information. I'm not going to add it, because it's fairly common for people to use that template in non-source-providing ways on image description pages. If you want the bot to see what you're writing, use a standard method (I recommend {{Information}}). --Carnildo (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in servicing a false-alarm-bot – I improved an article with a valid PD image and then want to be left alone per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I'd still like to know why the bot tagged the image for deletion when its documentation explicitly says that it shouldn't do this: "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." Reviewing the approval, the bot seems to be exceeding its authority by trying to make sense of the image description (and failing).

The more general issue of machine-readability seems to be a work-in-progress – see Phabricator: T194465: When the author/source is indicated with a template, it is categorized as "Files with no machine-readable author/source" ... Maybe the first step of resolving this issue should be some publication (or link to past publication) of machine-readable marking, expected by the software. At the moment those categories are useless, as they are filled with millions of files with correct templates and author/source info.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I figured that this question was coming from someone new, but Andrew has been here since the 2000s. Let me be blunt: it was tagged for deletion because you didn't follow standard procedure, and it's not compulsory for the bot operator to change the bot's operation just because you want to use the wrong template. Since you've been here for this long, you know that plenty of deletions are done rather carelessly, so you shouldn't be surprised if plenty of your images are not only wrongly tagged but wrongly deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked account and reverting of all edits.

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. I'm Jaap. My account (Wiki.Jaap) was recently blocked after a discussion with User:Praxidicae. I oppose the block, and while I might have expressed myself in a rude way, I still believe there was no reason for me to be blocked. Having been blocked, and having lost the password to my other account, I created the present account. I want to be fully transparent, as I've always been. After being blocked, several of my articles were suddenly nominated for speedy deletion. Regardless of my argument with Praxidicae and the cause of their immediate nomination, I believe the latter is undue and unjust. After having provided the articles (Narod (website) and Istrapedia) with even more sources, and deleting the speedy deletion nomination (as the creator of the article(s); and since I couldn't find a discussion/talk page where to write the reason of my opposition), my edits were reverted by User:Praxidicae. I applied for undelation, but Praxidicae removed by request. If I did anything wrong I apologize, bu is all this fair? Thanks.--William.the.Loud (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

TonyBallioni and Tks4Fish blocked and globally locked nearly 30 accounts 2 days ago after determining this user was abusively operating dozens of accounts. So that really says it all. CUPIDICAE💕 15:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@William.the.Loud: Creating new accounts while blocked certainly isn't going to help you here. SQL^{Query me!} 15:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an emergency, and OP should be blocked for evasion. --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the word "emergency" from the header. I'd rather not risk someone thinking this is something it's not. Perryprog (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What SQL said. I good way to prove you deserve to be blocked is to evade your block to ask to be unblocked. Although a global lock would be more difficult to appeal than a normal block, evading your block to appeal to AN is definitely not a suitable method of appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2021 (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.

Merger debate

Given apparently Middlesbrough isn't allowed a borough article according to the talk page. I think we should merge Darlington, Stockton and Hartlepool Borough pages with the town article and have villages and towns in them listed in a wards tab. Then that solves the argument. I think it is pointless and silly to say no to a borough article for Middlesbrough yet Darlington which borough article covers the town and surrounding suburbs can boast a wiki page and Hartlepool which has a small borough in size comparison to Stockton and Middlesbrough. It states the council were Middlesbrough Borough Council before becoming just Middlesbrough Council and so the borough exists. Just without its own article to mention the wards and council size of mps. An argument not worth having as there is plenty of evidence about the borough. I will only accept the census of if Middlesbrough loses its page for borough so does Darlington and Hartlepool. They unlike Stockton don't have any notable towns. So in theory only Stockton could boast a borough pages as it covers numerous towns. Yet not Middlesbrough, Darlington or Hartlepool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. May I suggest raising this at Wikipedia:WikiProject England? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin request for Edit Filter Managment (ProcrastinatingReader)

User:ProcrastinatingReader has opened a discussion to request Edit filter manager access. EFM access is occasionally granted to experienced and trusted editors that volunteer to help in this area. Anyone interested is welcome to join in the discussion at: WP:EFN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Involved RfC closure needs review

An involved editor closed an RfC here - they had actually !voted in it. This seems to be a situation that can't properly be resolved by discussion, so if someone could just re-review the consensus reached, thank you! The involved editor will be notified. Full clarification: I'm also WP:INVOLVED. Samsara 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Could you provide a link to the discussion in question. Number 57 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Yeah, sorry for omitting, was going to come back to this after notifying. Here's the link: Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Request_for_comments and here's the notification diff for the record. Samsara 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Have you contacted them to undo their close? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara:, I think it was a fair close - definately on AOC and probably on Musk; obviously participants should not be closing RfCs they !voted on, but the RfC seemed to have gone dead for a few weeks, and the closer discussed their intention to try get closure on it. Wrong process, but fine in the end. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's not technically a formal close - only an uninvolved editor can do those - but it is a proper end to the RfC per WP:RFCCLOSE. The consensus there is clear and the meta discussion about the consensus is appropriate. Not every RfC needs a formal close to have done its job of showing consensus as part of the dispute resolution process. So at best we have a minor "maybe don't use the RfC close template" here but otherwise I see no problem that needs addressing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

+1. Incredible article btw; great level of detail and fact-base on a complex subject in a very short time frame (even has the Citidel angle). wow. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 thanks, that was my intent in the close. The wording on appropriate use of the "closed rfc" templates was somewhat ambiguous and I didn't err on the side of caution here, though I did not anticipate this close being controversial - or I would've requested a formal close. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an uninvolved editor close this discussion would have been a waste of editor time. What we call "involved closes" are OK if the outcome is clear and such involved closure should be encouraged, not discouraged, so as to save editor time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is not that it's controversial, but that it lacks detail in covering the more complex issues that were discussed. The close covers at a rough estimate 1/3 of the issues that were being raised in the discussion. Samsara 10:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible self-promotion/advertising on Double Dare (franchise)

The article has been under some possible self-promotion/advertising for the past few months, seemingly in regards to an audio technician by the name of John Krepol.

This has been going on since about October by now three different users: John V Krepol, Jesse Cute, and most recently Galbicsek. The first editor, John V Krepol, also had an page deleted back in October at User:John V Krepol (I had seen it myself before it was deleted, and it was basically the person's entire resume of work).

Of all the additions of Krepol to the article, the only one actually 'sourced' is this edit, but it is from the John V Krepol user, so it's just blatantly self-promotion at that point.

What should be done at this point regarding this? Not sure it really warrants a page protection or anything, but the article looks like it's just being used for advertising purposes through each Krepol edit. I'm also not going to rule it out as 100% impossible, but I don't think this is sockpuppet case, each user with a different 'way' of adding info about Krepol to the article.

Any help with this issue would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also probably worth noting that being an audio engineer on two shows doesn't seem to be notable at all... if there were something more to it/an actual notability for including information on the person in the article, then sure, but just pointing out that they exist and had this job on the show with no real notable information on them is seemingly just promotion of them. Magitroopa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Magitroopa. Whether this is truly one person or not, it's clearly a concerted campaign and they're only here for promotion. I've blocked the accounts and semi-protected the article for a month. Fences&Windows 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The below is actually nuts! Doing a dude a favor to have him remembered for his work on the show. That’s it. All the assessments are pretty ridiculous*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01D:589F:40D9:5D0D:63D:EDFB (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I re-threaded this (was originally at the top of the section) so "below" is referring to "above" now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tokyointernationalschool5484

The same account sockpuppet of user User:Tokyointernationalschool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by administrator Red Phoenix. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:PetroAntonio?

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.

---

As a result of this AN discussion, User:PetroAntonio was indefinitely blocked by User:Jehochman. He is the author of a book that is critical of Bruce Pascoe and his book Dark Emu. PetroAntonio has made unblock requests, saying he wants to be able to use the article talk pages, giving the specific example of arguing for the use of another publication critical of the Dark Emu book. I declined the first request, and I have suggested that PetroAntonio is unikely to be unblocked without a topic ban (voluntary or imposed by the community) due to a conflict of interest and prior attempts to pursue a personal agenda. The details are at User talk:PetroAntonio, where I offered to ask the community whether PetroAntonio should be subject to a topic ban. I believe he should not be unblocked without we should impose a topic ban (whether PetroAntonio is unblocked or not), so my proposal is that PetroAntonio is indefinitely banned from the topics of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, broadly construed. (I will copy any comments/responses by PetroAntonio over to here when I can, but I'm off to bed shortly so could someone else please also keep an eye open and do it if I'm not around.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Modified - see strikes and underscores. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just to stress, as I realise I was not as clear as I intended, I am not proposing an unblock here - that remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support topic ban, but oppose lifting indef block - I respectfully disagree with this proposal I agree with a topic ban, but object to any removal of indef ban. I see no point in a topic ban, PetroAntonio should remain indef blocked from editing Wikipedia, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to attack BLP subjects, promote his books etc, it is a disruption only account, their appalling behavior is simply off the charts.

Looking carefully at the behavior that led to their indef block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation

and in particular this op-ed PetroAntonio penned offwiki in order to attack other editors (they refer to me as a sub-category of human and a dog eating its own vomit):

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/

They should remain indef blocked, their behavior here and offwiki has been totally and utterly appalling. If they are to be merely topic banned then that should be broadly construed to include all topics relating to Australian politics and specifically Aboriginal Australians and the Australian culture wars, at the very least. Though I think their behavior here has been so far beyond the pale that they should remain indef blocked. They've made numerous unblock requests yet they still have not even began to address their problematic behavior, they have not acknowledged it in any meaningful way, instead they are still carrying on about WP:NOTTHEM. I have absolutely no faith what-so-ever that they will contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we will be back here in no time if they are unblocked. Bacondrum 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I am not proposing a topic ban as a replacement for the current block (merely or otherwise), but independently of it and in addition to it (perhaps you didn't see the changes I made at 21:52?). As PetroAntonio is asking to be unblocked in order to continue editing in the same topic area, it would close that particular avenue of appeal, which I think would be useful. Whether PetroAntonio should ever be unblocked remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for clarifying, I see what you mean (and I'd hate for you to think I was having a go at you). In that case I support the topic ban, my opposition is to removing the indef block. Bacondrum 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool ;-) And no, I understand the initial confusion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, since the editor's conduct regarding Pascoe and his book has been reprehensible and compulsive. It would take an awful lot of convincing for me to support an unblock - maybe they are also an expert in kangaroo biology and behavior or something, and could help in that topic area. But no way under the sun should this editor be allowed to edit regarding Pascoe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Austhistory99 (talk · contribs) and PetroAntonio (talk · contribs) should be topic banned—no discussion or editing related to Dark Emu or Bruce Pascoe. If Wikipedia's treatment of the topic is as obviously wrong as suggested, someone without an attack agenda will propose changes backed by secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (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.

New essay

I've created WP:Two wrongs don't make a right, which may perhaps be of interest to editors and admins who read here. I'd like to particularly recommend it to admins who deal with complex and seemingly intractable disputes that generate walls-of-text. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Referring to the less common but simpler situation of a true boomerang that you mention, it consists of throwing that interesting weapon at a kangaroo that isn't there. I have seen that a few times recently. It is more satisfying than the complex situations that you describe. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. (For some comic relief in that vein, see: File:Fun Fail.gif.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle blocking now allows blocking the /64 instead, and link to RfPP when protecting

There are two changes to Twinkle I wanted to make sysops aware of:

1. When blocking an IPv6 address, you should now have the option to just block the /64 range instead.​ It's a simple checkbox, so you've got the option to do so if you like. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
2. Thanks to GorillaWarfare, when protecting a page, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.

These changes should be live now. Please ping me if there are any issues; as always bug reports, suggestions, etc. welcome at WT:TW or GitHub! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Two very helpful features. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm so excited about this /64 functionality. Thanks for all your hard work, Amorymeltzer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh this is great, thank you! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful. All we need now is a big, friendly button on the Special:Contributions page to quickly show all the /64 contributions of an IPv6 editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A button would be handy but you can just add "/64" to the IP address as shown, then press Enter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet that'd be pretty straightforward to do with a userscript... maybe I'll poke around at doing it tonight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It could probably be added to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon though that's a little less visible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More than a few clicks, but opening Twinkle's block module does now provide a link to the /64 contribs page in a new tab/window. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for accommodating my laziness. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabotage strategies and misuse of Starzoner drafts

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

Again I am forced to have to resort here to report this and this. The behavior of the user in question seems absurd to me who in his eagerness to want to be the only one who creates articles about future films resorts to this type of maneuver. In Draft:Untitled Bong Joon-ho film that I have created, the development of the next Bong Joon-ho film is better detailed, without the need to lie in the title of the draft. It is unfair for me to take the time to write an article and then @Starzoner: with a page he created months ago with another title and try to replace my draft. In addition, the titles themselves are already a fraud since at no time is it mentioned that one of those two films is a sequel to Parasite. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Here anyone can see a complete list with the thousands of subpages created by the user in order to later move them to the title he want. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Dear admins,

Let me put information here that explains the relationships between this user and me.

A While ago, I created a page at Draft:Spencer (film), which was deleted per G13. It was later re-created by another user. After I saw the news that it started filming (and subsequently was renamed to mainspace), I requested it be history merged with the now-deleted draft, but was reverted with this rather pointy edit summary. A subsequent request was later rejected.

That was only only interaction with him, when he immediately went to multiple admin talk pages behind my back here as well as here, and furthermore, and a further complaint here, to which was closed as a content dispute. (to be clear, I had self reverted my edits in the WP:AN dispute.

My second interaction was when someone elft me a talk page, and I removed it, intending to respond later, as I was rightfully called out over my a annoyance with being reverted by others. However, after I remove it, he comes on to my talk page with reverts such as this, this violation of WP:OWNTALK, and this threat of reporting to an administrator. For this, I’m sure he’s in violation of edit warring on my talk page.

I later tell him to stay off my talk page. He retorts by saying I am the unfriendly one.

Finally for 3rd time’s the charm, I had made this edit, querying a potential merge for the page, and immediately reverted, prompting the current message on this forum page. To address the initial sentence, I had batch created a bunch of pages back in July 2020, for plant pages that was listed in a prior revision of Eria, but lalter realized most of them are just simply synonyms of pages and I wasted the effort in making them, so I had decided it was worth repurposing them for other uses to create pages. As for the 2 Bong Joon ho articles, it was prompted by Bong Joon ho saying he is creating two films, one in English and one in Korean, which didn’t require him to be super aggressively bad-faithed about.

In brief, all my interactions with him is his assumptions of me in bad faith, all around, with no room of any positivity. Every single instance his painting of me as the vallain in his book.

Thus, I am requesting if possible 2 things 1) a one way interaction ban so he does not do anything to me again 2) a block for harassment and lack of civility.

Thank you. Starzoner (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: and what happened to this interaction? You only remember what is good for you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Another bad faith attempt to cherry pick, again. Any admin reviewing the abovementioned thread should go to Archive 329 and see the closing statement by an admin. Starzoner (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator has not intervened does not mean that your action was correct, you yourself when I just reported your failed attempt to usurp my draft you deleted your draft to remove evidence. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starzoner I have questions. First of all, why did you want Draft:Spencer (film) merged into the article, given that the one revision of the draft contains no useful information whatsoever? What on earth is the purpose of these subpages? Note: now deleted What is the point of Draft:The_Three_Musketeers_–_D’Artagnan? Or Draft:Trolls 3 (this doesn't even exist)? Or Draft:Little House on the Prairie (upcoming TV series)? Or Draft:Untitled Bond film? And Draft:2030 in film - really? I appreciate that you do eventually expand some of these hundreds of drafts, but why are you not waiting until there's something to actually write before you do? You're just making work for people who have to go through and G13 them when many of them inevitably come to nothing. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, Well, for the spencer page, I thought there was some edits there that is useful, but I can’t see them. I created some of them as I saw the news or so about people wanting to create a film or so, as you pointed out for the specific draft pages. If you want to delete them as G7 instead of G13. please do, as I do not want to burden anyone to waste their time in tagging and deleting them. That can be applied to pages such as Draft:2030 in film, and above. As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on.

I apologize for all the necessary page creation, and do invite anyone who wants to see them deleted, to actually delete them, perhaps by G7, without hesitation. Starzoner (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Starzoner from what I see your problems come from long ago (Starzoner mass page creation:32,000+ pages), it has been a long time since this report and you continue to have the same behavior. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on. And what would be the point of that, pray? It very much feels like gaming the system. And the only aspect worth gaming here that I can discern appears to be the retroactive usurpation of other people's drafts, by being able to claim the "earlier" version. Really, this is not a good look at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit proves your point Elmidae. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that's a little grotesque, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat it once more, since it was not clear from the messages on Graeme Bartlett's talk page. The page was in initially created by an IP, deleted, once again created by me, deleted per g7, and restored with the IP edit (that were a hoax) as initial edit. I tagged it so hoax ip edit can be chucked out, but denied by another admin, so I asked for it to be deleted and restored sans the vandal edit. So the question is, why are are fighting to restore a vandal edit? that is, if attitudes changed to vandal edits? To address the comment by Elmidae, I phrased it poorly. I prefer starting pages in my userpage rather than direct creation in draft/article space, so that it would not be tagged with G13 in the future, avoiding wasting any effort to tag as G13. Starzoner (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it that you don't realize? It is not only your request to delete certain editions that gives you away, the fact of creating draft articles that will be relevant in 10, 15 or 20 years, by itself. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I've deleted 1,258 empty subpages from Starzoner's userspace. Which only leaves the 20,000-odd plant pages. Which I'd quite happily leave there per AGF, but .. this makes me wonder. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I made this short list with a simple history search for Starzoner. Most deserve to be erased for their strategy of creating empty pages and then moving them whenever he want:

1. Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2
2. Draft:The Overstory
3. Draft:Tehek Lake
4. Draft:The Gilded Ones (TV series)
5. Draft:The Lord of the Rings (Season 1)
6. Draft:The Essex Serpent (TV series)
7. Draft:Untitled Jimmy Woo spinoff
8. Draft:The Wheel (American TV series)
9. Draft:Y: 1883
10. Draft:Untitled second Fantastic Four film
11. Draft:Untitled Gamestop documentary
12. Draft:Breakfast at Tiffany's (TV series)
13. Draft:The Serpent Queen.

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know you *really* want but I am starting to feel unwanted harrassment because you don't have a specified end goal. I think I want to report you to the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Starzoner (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Do it, and maybe the one who ends up blocked is you due to your persistent modus operandi. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am requesting an admin or the community to hand a block to Bruno Rene Vargas for harassment and wanting to block me for little reason other than his perceived slight. Starzoner (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, you've made your point (multiple times over) so please step back for a bit and let the admins discuss potential next steps. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite is this ok? For me it does not make sense to create this type of draft only to then redirect it and thus avoid its deletion due to inactivity. Also it has no reference. The user so far has not requested the removal of this. Starzoner only limited itself to requesting the removal of the article you cited. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is an overreach to refer to this as "sabotage". It is entirely permissible, and even commendable, for editors to get a jump on likely future developments by initiating drafts reflecting the current state of knowledge on the subject. Redirecting such a title in mainspace is an issue for resolution at WP:RFD. That's why that board exists. BD2412 T 00:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, the point is that there is a difference between "getting a jump on a topic" (with the intention of making it easy to add incremental material) and "staking a claim on a topic" (with the intention of controlling authorship of the article). Things like the above diff, and those 1.2k blank subpages, are overall baffling, but pretty much useless for the former and readily interpreted as the latter. Maybe calling it sabotage is going too far, but it's not good practice and ought to be discontinued. Which, I hope, is kind of where we have arrived now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to stabilise/protect

For the last few moths at least, controversial figure Robin DiAngelo's page has been repeatedly vandalised or otherwise edited out of compliance with WP:BLP. It should probably be protected on some level. --Pitke (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked an account and applied pending changes protection for 2 years. Hopefully that's enough to prevent the disruption. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

Unban Request by TheBellaTwins1445

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.

---

@TheBellaTwins1445:, originally blocked for sockpuppeting, then indefinitely blocked and ultimately 3X banned for repeated infringements of the same, has requested an unblock. Additional details can be found in the series of blocks/appeals on their talk page. Their unban request is included below, and I will copy across relevant follow-up messages they post on their talk page. If a CheckUser could confirm as far as logs enable as an opening step, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, a long time ago my account on the English Wikipedia was blocked because of sockpuppetering with multiple accounts. I know it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was to continue working here on Wikipedia and edit articles in a constructive manner, not wanting to commit any kind of vandalism. Also I was a kind a fool with Wikipedia, like yeah I have being editing for a long time, but it was just like some kind of part time thing, but now I do love to help editing articles, so certainly this time I am taking all of this in a serious way. TheBellaTwins1445 will be my only account forever, if someone can help me deleting all of the others, I will be really grateful. Hope this time you trust on me. Thank you and i'll wait for your response.

--

Support, assuming no evidence of recent block evasion. Six confirmed sockpuppet accounts speaks poorly, but WP:SO exists so users can turn things around and be welcomed back. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question - I have serious doubts about whether this is an acceptable username considering that the editor worked on professional wrestling articles and The Bella Twins are two living people who are retired pro wrestlers. What do other editors think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) If this were a new account I'd be right there with you. However, with 23K live edits dating back to 2015 AND who knows how many discussion-page references and other places that link to the name, I'm inclined to "grandfather" it in on the condition that the user page makes it abundantly clear that 1) this account is run by one person, not a pair of twins, and 2) there is no relation to any well-known person or group of people with a similar name off-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• CU note I find no evidence of recent socking. As always, remember that the CU tool is not dispositive, they could be socking and just being clever about it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support a chance to return to good standing. Trust that the editor has learned the perils of sockpuppetry. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - used to be a constructive contributor, hopefully they will have learned a lesson about sockpuppetry. I'm sure they are aware that any more socking will make it much harder for them to be unbanned next time. Pahunkat (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support A second chance is warranted. ~ HAL333 00:14, 22 February 2021 (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.

Closer needed

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 CloserDFO

This is not a formal RfC, but it nevertheless needs someone to close it. It's overripe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (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.

• IMO KIENGIR is on the absolute border of being indeffed for this, and you can log this for the record. I have a degree in history, but you don't need one to know that the Nazis were fascists, and anyone who's attempting to whitewash this common knowledge historical fact has no place on this project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• In defense of KIENGIR, while I think their blockading a point that was -- as you say -- completely reasonable and historically justified was extremely annoying, I think they did so in good faith, and not in order to whitewash Nazism. I've been aware of KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazis and Nazism for some time, and I don't believe I've ever seen an instance in which they attempted to whitewash or downplay its attributes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required on COVID?

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.

---

Question regarding the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Coronavirus_disease_2019#Application_notes sub-section, which was cited to me at the Wuhan article. It says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page., which is effectively a consensus required restriction across the COVID topic area. It was approved by consensus here. The meaning of the section was questioned in exactly this manner by PackMecEng at the time but their question wasn't answered. None of this is announced on any of the talk notices or editnotices, which is standard for consensus required restrictions, and as far as I know no admin is enforcing it (certainly there's no such enforcement in the sanctions log). So, what exactly is this? Is this consensus/restriction actually in force and should it be added to the notices, or is it effectively abandoned and should the sub-section be removed? My feeling is that it was rashly decided and the latter applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's "disputed" content, to me, seems to more read as if it's saying "if you get reverted, don't reinstate" (or seek consensus beforehand) - basically a 1RR phrasing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, that's just WP:ONUS. This is "actually in force" in all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence yes, but the 2nd sentence seems distinct from ONUS to me. It reads like standard consensus required phrasing that you’d find in eg Template:American politics AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, first sentence is a restarting of onus while the second is basically consensus required with an extra removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Actually another key difference is it says "should not" rather than "must" not. (While the consensus required supplement doesn't say either, it does say "must demonstrate consensus" as you would expect. Likewise the template {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{American politics AE}} use the phrasing "must obtain consensus". IMO "should not" turns it from consensus required to consensus very very strongly encouraged. Or the difference between 'if you do this, you're wrong (subject to very rare exceptions)' and 'if you do this, you're extremely likely in the wrong' That said, I agree that I'm not sure the wording is helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the wording (ie "should" vs "must") was carefully thought out and is intentional. Either these are general sanctions (the first paragraph a sourcing restriction, and the second paragraph a consensus required restriction), and should be noted as such, or if they're "should"s then they're both redundant to WP:BRD and WP:MEDRS and the text should be removed from the general sanctions page, since it wouldn't be a general sanction. Reading over the discussion my feeling is that the intent wasn't to actually create any general sanctions. Although, a "no preprints or non-peer-reviewed sources for medical content" general sanction in COVID seems like a decent idea. Not sure about the consensus required restriction, though; that's very broad. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-unarchive break

Unarchived the above, which was automatically archived. I'd appreciate clarification on this, since RexxS is accusing me of "forum shopping" for asking the above question here at AN rather than at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 (which would be a local consensus). AN is the standard venue for GS clarifications. He is threatening sanctions for opening a discussion at AN.

Linking in discussions WT:GS/COVID & template & TfD #1 & TfD #2. I've consulted with multiple ArbCom clerks, including @L235 and Callanecc about this, as well. My understanding is DS editnotices are only used when page-specific sanctions are in force (such as 1RR) to communicate those. This is in line with WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page and is the status quo for all discretionary sanctions areas except COVID. The discussion proposing authorised standard discretionary sanctions, and the proposing clerk said their intent was not to exceptionally create an editnotice. The template was deleted by Primefac following the linked TfD. RexxS has unilaterally undeleted it (see the second linked discussion).

As I see it, two clarifications are needed here:

1. Is 1RR/Consensus Required in force on COVID-19 articles?
2. Should COVID articles warn of DS in the editnotice, unlike any other DS?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To add, in my view 1RR/CR would be detrimental. It is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice (which would be required). Adding these two sanctions would be highly detrimental to preventing drive-by POV pushing and the like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not sure what you mean by it is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice. I've applied Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 misinformation by China last month. El_C 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You've manually applied 1RR on a particular article. That's obviously okay, as a discretionary sanction. RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR (a general sanction, akin to Israel-Palestine) in force. Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced; it couldn't possibly be because it's not communicated on editnotices (not even on the Template:COVID19 GS editnotice template), so it would be unfair to sanction editors for that. Indeed, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 shows exactly 0 sanctions for this (ctrl-f for "1RR"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Indeed, not even in ARBPIA pages, per WP:ARBPIA4's amendments, there's no longer 1RR by default. Not anywhere. It has to be deemed necessary for that particular page first. That is the longstanding practice in DS/GS. An edit notice must be attached to notify contributors when sanctions are put into effect. El_C 02:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic slightly, but isn't 1RR default in the 'area of conflict' for ARBPIA per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe default in the sense of only whenever a 1RR editnotice is added...? I, at least, do not add 1RR editnotices to ARBPIA pages without there being a need to do so. Many such pages simply do not need it. That is, there can be an ARBPIA page that gets ECP'd due to non-tenured user disruption, but still may exhibit no edit warring happening among the regulars there. So, what's the point of adding 1RR, then? El_C 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: "RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR". That's a deliberate misquote. I said very clearly that the text in WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes looks a lot like 1RR to me. That text resulted from a community debate at AN and is quite a strong restriction, although not exactly 1RR or 'consensus required'. It makes sense to warn editors when restrictions are in place, and your continual pointless attempts to frustrate that process has become tendentious.

"Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced." Another fabrication. There are 800+ COVID-19 articles and not enough admins to patrol all of them. But you are downright wrong to think that it is not enforced, although I find warning and inviting the editor to self-revert is very effective at stopping the behaviour. If you don't believe it is enforced, break the restriction on a c=COVID-19 article and see how long it takes for you to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a much broader issue. ProcrastinatingReader is not an admin and no experience of administering sanctions. That is not a problem in itself, but it becomes a problem when they make changes to the functionality of templates used by admins in sanctions enforcement against the advice of an admin who uses them.

ProcrastinatingReader decided to rationalise the diverse sanctions templates by consolidating them all into Module:Sanctions. That is a good intention, but ProcrastinatingReader took the opportunity to unilaterally impose their own view that editnotices cannot be used on articles under general sanctions unless a page-specific sanction is also in place. That seems to be based on the faulty conclusion that because editnotices are required when page-specific sanctions exist, they must be prohibited where only the general sanctions are in place.

That hamstrings admins working in the COVID-19 area where we sometimes find it useful to add an editnotice to an article that has no extra page-specific restrictions, simply because of an influx of editors new to the topic area who would benefit from a notice cautioning them that they may be liable to be sanctioned for failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." In other words, a warning to be on their best behaviour. The discussion at AN that authorised the general sanctions is here.

Furthermore a later discussion at AN resulted in the addition of the text "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." to the page documenting the procedures for general sanctions covering COVID-19, WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019.

On that page, the text reads: "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." That doesn't limit the editnotices to articles with page-specific sanctions, but rather implies that edit notices are expected to be used on all pages subject to the COVID-19 sanctions.

Despite all of the above, and despite my clear explanation of that, ProcrastinatingReader made the new template {{gs/editonotice}} so that it could not be used unless additional sanctions were in place. I was ill with COVID-19 in October and November, otherwise I would have noticed, but ProcrastinatingReader created a TfD in November 2020, which was closed by Primefac as "replace and deprecate", but did not mention that they had altered the functionality of the new template compared with the old one, in order to enforce their personal opinion about the use of the template.

There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above. The status of the general sanctions on the COVID-19 area is laid out at WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. The explicit use of '1RR' and 'Consensus required' for pages under GS is authorised for use at an admin's discretion by the discussions at AN I linked above. Similarly, the use of editnotices is authorised at an admin's discretion, and that should not be subverted by a non-admin who decided to impose their mistaken view by changes to template/module coding.

I find that behaviour deceptive and a misuse of their template editor permission, and I will later prepare a motion to sanction ProcrastinatingReader for their behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading. I created the module (not edited something existing to 'enforce my views') and coded the current behaviour, not by unilateral decision but by consulting the community in several AN and TfD discussions throughout 2020 (some of which are linked in OP), and by consulting ArbCom clerks (some diffs are linked). Anyone who has paid attention to AN in 2020 can attest to that. The behaviour I coded when I created the module was in line with the clarity I got from those discussions. I never object to community scrutiny of my actions or clarification on matters from the community at AN. Your attempts to discourage me from bringing this to AN prior, and your dismissal of these issues above ("There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above."), appears like an attempt to avoid consensus and community scrutiny and comes across as unbecoming of an admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding RexxS, they're saying that an admin may place a mainspace and/or article talk page editnotices to any pages covered by the topic area without there needing to be any page-level sanctions being in effect. Like, informationally. Do I got this right? Because I do this all the time. El_C 03:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: that's exactly my point. If I use my admin discretion to place a simple, unadorned, editnotice warning that editors should be on their best behaviour, I don't expect some template-coder to make the template that I've always used for the job non-functional. It's unacceptable that admins discretion is having to play second-fiddle to the whims of coders.

@ProcrastinatingReader: Nothing I wrote was misleading. You coded the behaviour of that module to suit your views and altered the behaviour of the previous template. That's not your decision to make. You neglected to disclose the change of functionality in the TfD and that is indisputably deceptive.

Consensus is already established by the previous AN discussions I linked. I warned you that pushing the issue would leave your actions open to scrutiny, and that will happen. I have shown the reasons why I dismiss your two questions as misleading, and I object to you besmirching my conduct, as I have taken no admin actions in this matter so far. --RexxS (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You undeleted a template deleted via TfD, which is an admin action. And to be frank, you're very combative, which is strange for an admin. It's difficult to even understand your concerns because you escalated a discussion, in your second response, with threats and baseless accusations of conduct issues, forum shopping, TPE abuse, going against an admin, etc etc. When they're patently false - I've engaged in countless discussions on this. Most editors are open to discussion: people discuss, we reason, we work things out. You seem to immediately escalate, and not just in this case. I think that's unbecoming of an admin, and I think you should change your approach to communication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway (again) I'd like to hear from the community, and hope this doesn't get archived without resolution, both on the content matter and on conduct, and am (of course) happy with my own conduct being scrutinised. As always, I appreciate feedback on how to handle situations better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoping to duck from under all of this tension, much of the details pertaining to which I admittedly haven't fully grasped. But I will note that for every editnotice that I place which signifies a page-level sanction being put into effect, I probably place ten informational (unadorned) ones that simply tell contributors that the page falls under this or that DS/GS topic area, and that sanctions may follow if and/or when these are deemed necessary El_C 04:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking about different things, El C, can you give an example? A skim of your logs going back to 2017 I don't see any examples of you doing that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That is wrong again. The template was never deleted, and the AfD close was never to delete, but to replace and deprecate. I simply reverted the edit that stopped it working. That is an action that does not require administrator permissions, and I repeat I have taken no admin actions in that matter. I'll therefore ask you now to confirm that you are wrong and strike your accusation. Nothing I've said is false. You've not linked a single discussion that supports your view that your coding decisions should overrule my admin decisions. --RexxS (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Apologies, I have struck that part. I still believe in the rest of the paragraph, however. WP:ADMINCOND doesn't just relate to use of admin permissions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, for me, I'm talking about (informational) article talk page editnotices only. I, myself, don't bother with unadorned mainspace ones, though I do realize they exist as such. I presume other admins may make use of them, though. Stands to reason, but I'm not sure I've actually seen them displayed as such (at least I've no immediate recollection of this). Anyway, as an example of the former, there's the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-i}} — or there's its {{American politics AE}} counterpart versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}. El_C 04:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement contains 3 page restrictions, and is a general sanction. Similar for Template:American politics AE, which contains two page restrictions (1RR + CR). There is no ArbCom standardised template which allows for DS-only editnotice notification. Heck, until October that wasn't even really possible: the Template:Ds/editnotice output didn't work for DS-only since it's not meant to (not my doing, before someone asks, that template's managed by the clerks). Apologies if unclear. I think I'd prefer to add less of my own voice here, since it's already a long discussion, so others can get involved, particularly the arb clerks (Kevin et al) who probably have most insight in this opaque area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I think above you're conflating between article talk page editnotices and mainspace ones. Look at my comment above yours. There, I contrast the former article talk page editnotices that outline page-level sanctions with Ds/talk notices. El_C 05:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the edit notice under discussion is a message that is displayed above the edit box when an editor edits a page. The talk page notices you are referring to are shown on the talk page itself. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. But I was discussing something else related to this matter. El_C 12:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the question is @ me, El C, the talk notices have no filters. So, if you're talking about the setup on pages like Talk:Donald Trump, then that works as you expect if you place the talk notice as an editnotice on talk pages in the same way. RexxS is talking about the mainspace ones (as described in the TfDs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, again, I know. My point had to do with informational (unadorned) editnotices versus ones announcing page-level sanctions on article talk pages, as well. But since my point seems to have been lost to the ether (in my mind, too!), this thread indent has probably done all it could. El_C 12:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies; you had mentioned "the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice", but as far as I can tell, there is no "Template:Editnotices/Page/" subpage or "Template:Editnotices/Group/" subpage that is transcluding that template for an editnotice in the Talk namespace, which confused me. Thanks for clarifying. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes trying to work out what is going on but it's pretty opaque. I believe RexxS is saying that the old Template:COVID19 GS editnotice could be used to provide standard text for the edit notice of an article, but the new replacement Template:Gs/editnotice does not work (sometimes? always?). I don't know if my experiment shows the problem under discussion, but I tried an edit notice for COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona. To do that, I edited Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona and previewed the old wikitext ({{COVID19 GS editnotice}}) and the new ({{Gs/editnotice|topic=covid}}). The old wikitext gave the expected edit notice but the new gave "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required." I got the same results for an edit notice on the talk page. Is the issue that the new module has some code to check if an edit notice is "allowed" and purposefully fails if it thinks it is not? If that's the case, I don't know why I can't see somewhere that ProcrastinatingReader has said that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've encountered the same problem recently, too. But I just switched to the updated (COVID) editnoice and all was well. Unless this is a very recent development (days rather than weeks), then I plead ignorance. El_C 04:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that is pretty much an accurate description, I think. It's been like that since I created the module in July. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, since reading this over it seems you may mean I should've said this also in the TfDs also. To be clear: I did make this point explicitly in this TfD, linked into the broader TfD which included the COVID templates, saying that some of the usages would change to {{Gs/editnotice}} and others would be removed in line with the prior TfD consensus (which I linked in). My proposal in the nomination was slightly complex, since I intended for the templates to be handled slightly differently, so I tried to describe each case. In the end, it was deprecate all that gained consensus (which was probably the simpler option). I didn't actually enact the TfD results anyway, and the nomination had scrutiny from AN (where it was linked) and both were open for ~1 month each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As described in the documentation, {{Gs/editnotice}} is designed to be used "only on pages with restrictions to notify editors of those restrictions. Its presence is required to enforce page-level restrictions. Editnotices should not be used on articles where only discretionary sanctions are authorised." Thus a restriction must be specified as a parameter, or else the error message you described will be shown. This is similar to {{Ds/editnotice}}, where a restriction must be listed (or the template will show "You must adhere to some restriction or another"). I appreciate there were differences in opinion when this was discussed last September on whether or not edit notices should be placed on articles for which no specific sanctions had been imposed yet, but were just under the scope of the authorized general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: would you be kind enough, please, to link the discussion you refer to? I know of no discussion that authorised a change to the current practice.

My complaint is not about the accuracy of the documentation describing the functioning of {{Gs/editnotice}}, but that {{Gs/editnotice}} needlessly removes the functionality of {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which could be used on COVID-related articles that didn't have page-specific sanctions. The mistake was to assume that community-imposed sanctions had the same procedures as AbrCom-imposed sanctions. They don't. WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 requires "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." there's no differentiation between pages with or without page-specific sanctions.

More importantly, and unlike ArbCom-imposed sanctions, the COVID-19 sanctions explicitly include two specific restrictions on all pages subject to the sanction, namely a requirement to adhere to MEDRS sourcing standards and a restriction on reinstating challenged content (not exactly a 1RR or "consensus required", but something similar). It is important that admins working in the COVID-19 area should be able to use their discretion to add an editnotice warning editors of the general sanctions. As an admin working in the COVID-19 area, I find it unacceptable that my ability to act should be circumvented by a decision made by a non-admin changing the functionality of a template/module without any broad community discussion. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have previously read and understood your concerns. I was just replying to Johnuniq's question on the design intent of the {{Gs/editnotice}}. I was not involved in the discussions enacting the original authorization for general sanctions, nor in all of the subsequent related discussions, so I don't know what consensus agreements may or may not have been reached. I participated in Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice § Changing this template; I don't feel a consensus was reached in that discussion, which is why I said that different points of view were expressed. As an aside, the wording you quote regarding the edit notice was introduced in January 2021; it used to say that pages "can be tagged with {{COVID19 sanctions}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} may be created." However for purposes of this discussion, the distinction isn't very significant. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The text you quote wasn't added by consensus, or by the closing admin. It was unilaterally added by a 'non-admin'. So that's a strange thing to rely on for as a show of consensus, compared to the various other discussions linked above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your "unilaterally" diff shows an edit to WP:GS/COVID19 on 17 March 2020. That was 11 months ago and has not been challenged as far as I can see. The WP:AN discussion (permalink) behind the general sanctions did not require any specific wording and claims that a page-specific remedy must be provided in an edit notice are bogus. It's fine to argue that a generic edit notice is bad, but it is not fine to replace a template with something that operates in a different manner because of a personal conviction. At the very least, there should have been a large notice of the fact that the proposed replacement involved a fundamental change in how the template worked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It was challenged in June, some time before I picked up on it. diff. Restrictions always have to be announced in the editnotice, otherwise it's not fair to sanction editors who probably didn't even know about the restriction. The replacement was mentioned in the TfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your diff appears to be an objection to a very different version of the template which featured a gigantic "You will be blocked if you disrupt this page." At any rate, if proposing a replacement for a template, it is necessary to spell out that it's not actually a replacement, it's a new procedure which does not work in the same way. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq: (In fact, I don't know why we have any editnotice unless specific page restrictions have been imposed by an administrator, like with the standard DS implementation, but that's a different issue.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader There are a lot of reasons why editnotices are used like this on articles not under sanction - the most common, on articles, where a particular non-useful edit is being made by many editors, to warn them not to use it (hidden text can work for this, but many tend to ignore it). Go and attempt to edit Chris Morris (satirist) for an example. On talk pages, I have regularly used one to say "Hi - lots of people have come here to say this article should say X, and you can read the reasons why it's not going to say X here, so plase don't ask again - thank you". Or even just to say "Please go and read the FAQ on this page before you type anything". Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yup, those (like the one at Chris Morris (satirist)) are normal and very useful, I agree. I've added a few of those myself in response to template-protected edit requests (I also created {{FAQ editnotice}} to help with the Sushant Singh Rajput issues). But this thread is specifically about mainspace discretionary sanctions editnotices on articles where no restrictions apply - those are not standard (which is why I nominated them for deletion in September and November of last year). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: No, this thread has nothing to do with "discretionary sanctions editnotices" (which result from ArbCom decisions). It is purely about general sanctions editnotices (which result from community decisions), and your drive to conflate the two to create a false "standardisation", where two different sets of sanctions function differently, has resulted in your coding decisions altering the functionality of a template to prevent it being used in the way it previously was. You had no mandate to override community decisions and community-sanctioned practice, and if you can't understand that, you should be editing sensitive templates or modules. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I have referred the conduct elements of this to the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2021 (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.

Non-admin close

I'm not comfortable with the non-admin close of this discussion, in Special:Diff/1008062685 by Only in death, which presents conclusions that I don't think are true and not even established as fact by uninvolved editors in the discussion. For example, the fact that the 'change' was disclosed in the TfD (which are centralised consensus discussions for templates). In any case, the conduct elements, and this very issue, is before ArbCom and the section above was created for clarity on a content issue. Though I agree this section is probably unlikely to lead to anything productive on the content front anymore, I don't believe the comments in the NAC close reflect the discussion and so request that close be reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Or if you would prefer a longer answer: It is a matter of editing practice and clearly adhered to by almost everyone guidelines that 1. if you want to make a change that has wide-ranging consequences, you need to spell out in advance those consequences. 2. If you ignore/miss in error those consequences, when they are pointed out, you need to seek consensus to make them. If you can point to a discussion where in advance of you making those changes, you clearly stated the functionality would change, and gained agreement for that change, then I will be happy to remove that part. However from the discussion here, and at the talkpage of the templates, there does not appear to be any evidence of that. Lastly once you have referred something to arbcom, any further discussion here at this time is fruitless, as the core issue is not the behaviour of Rexx (which is how you framed your arbcom submission) but the functionality of templates which does not require any admin action at this time, and can be sufficiently resolved through a proper RFC on the templates themselves. The principle that if you do not understand something, you should not be doing it, is also long-standing practice, and with regards to advanced permissions, can be enforced by removal of the ability to do it. Consider it a reminder. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to an admin closing it writing that the section is not going anywhere and that ArbCom will decide on the issue, but that's not what you wrote. A non-admin should not be closing discussions at AN/ANI with their conclusions, especially not one currently at arbitration, so I think an admin should revert that close. To your question, if you read my case statement the TfDs, and the exact quote, is given, but that's not really material to the fact that you shouldn't be closing the discussion; if you have comments to add, please add them as comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom will not decide on the issue of the templates. They act on conduct. This issue is not at arbitration. If you want a decision on the template issue, go open an RFC which clearly lays out the differences between the previous version and what you think it should not carry forward and make your case for it. Please stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember a couple years ago there was a complaint against an admin at ANI that had been closed like three times, and the three closers ended up being named parties to the subsequent arbcom case, and some of them were admonished for their closure. OID's closing statement reads to me like a !vote. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OID's closing statement reads to me like a !vote That was my first impression too. It's fine to close a discussion that's not productive, moved to another venue, or naturally come to an end, but that is best done in a neutral manner. The close is almost entirely OID's opinions--skimming the discussion I didn't see a single person bring up the interpretation of BOLD that they chastise everyone for not considering. It's not even a correct interpretation of policy. OID lectures participants (I assume mostly PR) based on Wikipedia:Be bold#Template namespace yet that policy quite noticeably doesn't forbid bold changes to templates. While that might be what OID wants the policy to say (based on how their close interprets it), closing a discussion with your own undiscussed interpretation of policy is not appropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Whatever policy Wugapodes is referring to certainly doesn't prescribe a course of action that leads to a major change in an important template's functionality without considerable prior debate. I have now opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 to seek a definitive answer to whether admins should be able to use their discretion to place the COVID-19 editnotice on any article subject to the COVID-19 general sanctions. That should also answer the question whether OID made an accurate closing statement. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever policy Wugapodes is referring to...wut? I cited the specific policy twice; I even linked to the specific section I was talking about. Bold neither forbids nor requires particular actions w/r/t templates, and the RfC doesn't mention changing BOLD at all, so I'm really struggling to see what it has to do with the interpretation of that policy brought up in the close or why I alone got pinged here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I wondered whether you actually meant WP:BOLD #Template namespace or whether you had something else in mind that you didn't link. The guideline you referred to says "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." and that pretty clearly doesn't prescribe a course of action that leads to a major change in an important template's functionality without considerable prior debate. Or am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what might be written somewhere, it is standard procedure (and common sense) that if an advanced user right is going to be used in a way that affects others, it is necessary to gain consensus first. Of course various exceptions arise when changes would only be minor or other mitigating circumstances exist. However, if people are used to the fact that Template:Example can be used as {{Example}}, it is unacceptable to replace that template knowing that {{Example}} no longer works (unacceptable unless clear notice has been given in a prominent location without significant objection). That is what happened here, and the "replacement" was intentionally not a replacement. By the way, WP:BOLD is a guideline, not policy. WP:TPECON is better guidance and that is how the template editor right should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me take a step back before taking a step forward: my concern is squarely about the close. I believe a closure, particularly of contentious discussions, should be a summary of the major points brought up by participants, and any interpretation of policies should primarily come from how participants (not the closer) weighed particular policies. The first link in the close is BOLD, and the close relies heavily on how the closer believes that policy applies to this situation. It seems no one brought up BOLD prior to the close, so (like others) I'm suspicious of its neutrality. While WP:BOLD counsels against major edits to templates without consensus, it does not forbid it. My point in bringing that up is not to say we should allow people to go on a template-breaking rampage, it's to point out that the policy is equivocal and reasonable minds can disagree about when and how it applies to particular actions. Because the policy is equivocal, the community, not the closer, should be doing the interpretation. There are of course other P&Gs to look to, and even an entire discussion of editor sentiment. None of that is in the close, instead it appears to be one editor's personal opinion of a policy no one else brought up. As an editor interested in understanding what happened, that's simply not helpful to me, and now my only option is to waste time reading the whole discussion when that information should have been in the close. Hopefully that clarifies my concern and why I was confused? If not I've already spent more time on this than I really care to, so I'm completely fine just dropping the issue if it helps us move on to something more useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

IPBE request

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.

---

• PEIsquirrel (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Requesting IP block exemption for my alt account (I am Ivanvector (talk · contribs), see both user pages for confirmations). Someone seems to have been up to something on my home ISP that got it IP-blocked, and as a matter of principle admins should not grant themselves permissions IMO. My mobile provider doesn't seem to be affected, hence this note here rather than UTRS. TIA. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done for a year. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (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 review

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.

---

• Lilipo25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Awoma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LGB Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a review of my actions with regard to a dispute between Lilipo25 and Awoma at the LGB Alliance page. Lilipo25 pinged me to ask for my input in this discussion on her talk page. I reviewed the talk page threads and the editing, and gave my opinion here. Awoma is clearly not satisfied with my resonse, and has repeatedly accused me of bias and ignoring abuse, and has ignored my suggestion that they ask for review here, preferring to continue adding sarcastic snark on Lilipo's talk page. Other discussions that are potentially relevant context are at:

• Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_4
• User_talk:Awoma#Important_Notice
• Potentially also User_talk:Girth_Summit#Hounding, which involves Lilipo and another editor at LGB Alliance, but not Awoma

I've done my utmost to remain even handed and encourage civil discourse, but in the face of continued accusations of bias I would welcome a review. Thanks in advance for anyone willing to read through and offer their perspective. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you've accidentally missed a few things. Here's a few more examples of you excusing Lilipo's mistreatment of other editors: [17] [18] [19] Awoma (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not accidental Awoma, but your continued use of sarcasm is disappointing. I didn't think that stuff from last year, involving different articles, was relevant. Since you think it is, and I can see that from your perspective it would be, I am content for all of those discussions to be reviewed as well. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No sarcasm at all. Apologies for assuming it was accidental. Looks like you deliberately missed a few things. Awoma (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone accidentally misses "a few more examples of you (I.E. themselves) excusing Lilipo's mistreatment of other editors". Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor me. Awoma (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

But you're the one who said it. So what are you trying to say? Did you mean to say "forgot about" rather than 'accidentally missed'? Or are you trying to say, "I wrote that but now that I re-read it I realise it makes no sense, I don't know what I was thinking". I haven't really looked into the dispute but it's not surprising people are frustrated with you if it's the norm for you to say stuff that makes no sense and then when queried about it further confuse the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I assumed that the omission was accidental. Girth Summit has since corrected me: it wasn't accidental. Do let me know if you're still confused. Awoma (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Awoma has effectively only been here six months, but that's certainly long enough to get the feel of the place. And while communication is important, having 76% of edits to talk pages does not wholly suggest a focus on building the encyclopedia. Conversations such as this ("If you could just leave that page alone for a bit, that would be great") and remarks such as "Have you ever been so liberal", a willingness to edit-war while demanding BRD be obeyed, while this discussion has more gaslighting the 1890 Ideal Home Exhibition. (E.g., If you could respond to the actual content of my argument that would be far preferred (in response to Lilipo25 doing precisely that) and Please discuss the actual proposal (to which Lilipo25 responded "Oh, for heaven's sake, I WAS discussing your proposal!"), and then, having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting", called this a personal attack).

And that's ignoring the trolling in this very discussion ("Do let me know if you're still confused"? Oh, really).

WP:ADVOCACY would seem to apply, if nothing else does. (But what else could? Ah, COI, WP:TEND and WP:DE.) ——Serial 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I contribute on talk pages primarily because my experience on wikipedia is that every article has a couple of editors who consider the article "theirs" and will revert any change which is made. As such, I focus on bringing up issues and suggesting improvements to articles on respective talk pages, and contributing to RfCs. I have found this to be much more useful and worthwhile. With regards my repeated requests that Lilipo engage with a proposal, you claim that they were "doing exactly that", but anyone here can read the thread and see that they weren't. They were taking issue with me having said "LGB Alliance exists to oppose transgender rights" which was not part of my proposal. The claim that "having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting" (Awoma) called this a personal attack" is again just not true. Lilipo didn't call the discussion exhausting. They called me exhausting. It's there on the page - anyone can read it. I already have very little faith that there are any decent admins on here, and comments like this with mistruths and smearing don't exactly help that impression. Awoma (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Post-closure note for anyone reviewing the discussions above. I have realised that there is a comment missing from the discussion in the Graham Lineham talk page archive. I reverted Awoma's first comment, which I saw as being too close to a personal attack on other editors, but allowed their revised version to remain. The full discussion is in the talk page history. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I have blocked Awoma for one week for engaging in egregious personal attacks. Re-closing. El_C 18:07, 20 February 2021 (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.

IP needs blocking

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.

---

Special:Contributions/73.39.203.154 (already blocked) needs a talk-page block too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (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.

Issue with the Requested Moves page

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. Looks like all the daily listings at WP:RM are missing, but they are hidden under the collapsed "Template usage examples and notes" box at the foot of the page. I've had a look, but not sure what template has been broken to cause this. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Per related changes, it was caused by this edit to Template:Hsb. I've done the appropriate protections and blocks. Graham87 16:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Graham! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:59, 21 February 2021 (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.

Topic bans

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.

---

Scenario: An editor agrees to a voluntary 6 month topic ban as a condition of being unblocked. Two months into the ban, they breach it. What action should be taken? I favour a reset of the topic ban to 6 months from the date of the breach over reblocking, but am open to persuasion otherwise. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Depends on how big a breach it is/was. If it was a small edit to fix/update something for the good of the article, that could be viewed as an inadvertent breach, then a friendly warning to say "did you know this was a breach of your T/B"? If you feel it was a deliberate act to ingore their voluntary ban, then maybe something more serious needs to be done. Sorry that's a bit vague! I guess some people will see breach = block, and others that want to give some leeway. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the editors talk page (haven't gone into their editing yet), they've been skirting the edges of the ban and breaching it almost from day one. I will name the editor in question tomorrow morning as I am required to inform them of this discussion and I'd like to see more input here without prejudicing the discussion by identifiying the editor in question. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well based on what you've said so far, then it does sound as if they've been reneging on their voluntary ban. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like the case in question is a moot point. There's stuff happening elsewhere which deals with this particular issue. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ARBCOM has acted, GPinkerton has been banned (see announcement below). Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2021 (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.

Blocked article title needs 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.

---

Ten Little Niggers (song) is on a blacklist. Please create it as a redirect pointing to Ten Little Indians#Derivative songs and books. For evidence this is a legitimate article title, see Ten Little Niggers. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 14:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Not Christe's finest hour—it wasn't thought to be inoffensive at the time—although one of her finest works. One of the few to actually achieve atmosphere—the claustrophobia is almost palbable. Curtain: Poirot's Last Case has a similar effect—mainly as a result of its 'back to the future' feel. Can't think of others off the top of the head; she constructed excellent cryptic crosswords, but neither character or armosphere were her strengths. But then, I suppose, does a cryptic crossword need either? ——Serial 14:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not a good title or leitmotif to base a story around, but I remember reading that book as a kid--in its And Then There Were None form--and loving it. I also liked The Rats in the Walls, to which the famously racist H. P. Lovecraft let his name for his real-life cat slip in. How far does The Death of the Author go, I wonder? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, give The Pale Horse a try; as a detective story it's hokum, but in terms of invoking an unsettling atmosphere of postwar uncertainty it's first rate. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent—excellent choice. I'd forgotten TPH—one of Christie's rare forays into the world of Chelsea coffee bars wasn't it? (And yes, as you say, the black mass stuff...!) ——Serial 15:27, 24 February 2021 (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.

• (post closure comment/fun fact) About 40-60 years ago, there was an academic chemist who specialised in organothallium compounds - possibly G. B. Deacon? - who used to cite TPH in all his scientific papers as a warning against the toxicity of thallium compunds. Narky Blert (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

UTRS request

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.

---

See here. https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/view?hash=c367a49768f41e955dbc3c36b1a8289d2402:4000:2081:AE79:3C4A:3F00:8EB4:32F8 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering your number of sockpuppets since then? Yeah that's not happening. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 25 February 2021 (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 comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) to discuss establishing a community based desysop policy. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Mansigh

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, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037 did not satisfy. Where's the correct place? Here, or DR? Thanks for help!...?? Regards PS This Wiki's huge, and confusing...

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.

Administrator impersonation

Just a heads up, there have already been at least three instances today of a new account copying the username of a current or former admin but with a lowercase "l" switched to an uppercase "I"; duplicating or redirecting their user page and talk page; and/or tampering with the UAA reports to make it look like the real admin was being reported. See GeneraINotability, Reaper EternaI, and RIevse. Please be on the lookout. Best, DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Reaper EternaI is globally locked already; the other two I've blocked, probably want a Global lock too. Let us know if you see any others. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GeneraINotability 's been locked now. If your username has an 'l' in it, it's worth registering a doppelganger account that uses an uppercase i to prevent impersonation by vandals. Pahunkat (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't antispoof supposed to prevent this kind of thing...? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The maintainers of AntiSpoof do not believe that it should block this, and have refused to use the confusables.txt file that is provided by Unicode for this purpose. This is not by far the only such example. ST47 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am now immensely curious as to their reasons, as surely this is precisely what AntiSpoof is intended to prevent... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Firefly, yeah, agreed. This seems like something that should be fairly straightforward to solve systematically, rather than whack-a-mole style. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds familiar! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For the curious - seems that the reason the AntiSpoof maintainers don't want to use confusables.txt because it would cause issues with the edit filter, which also uses the "Equivset" module. Now you'd think the sensible thing to do would be to split the two systems so they can be tailored for the individual use-cases.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

66.65.97.10

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

I am bringing this to the attention of administrators on the suspicion of the IP being a proxy. Shivj80 (talk · contribs) has claimed that it was them logged out when the IP made an edit to Brooklyn Nets on 16 February 2021. But the user is most likely an Indian, while the IP is based in Astoria, New York, US, which has never edited the same page as the user, no editor interaction. The IP was last blocked (for the fourth time) on 22 May 2020 for six months. I suppose it would warrant some investigation and action. Idell (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Idell, this feels like WP:OUTING Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't see anything problematic with the IP, nor their most recent edits. Not sure how it is outing when the person claimed it was them. Nothing to fix as I don't see a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, thats my bad, I didn't realize the editor had still publicly claimed it themselves. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Idell, mind explaining the contradiction between Indian and based in Astoria, New York? I certainly don't see it. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Contribution history and editing patterns. WP:DEADHORSE. Idell (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice way to dodge the question: why can they not be Indian yet living in New York? Most of my contributions are related to Pakistan, for example, yet good luck figuring out where I live based on my edit history alone. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idell: I'm with M Imtiaz here. Why the fuck are you claiming an editor cannot be simultaneously be Indian or otherwise interested in India-related topics and currently residing in New York? Please explain or withdraw that offensive comment. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd further note that despite their offensive suggestion that Shivj80 cannot possibly someone interested in India related topics while residing in New York, they failed to notify Shivj80, only notifying the IP which we have no idea if it'll ever be used by Shivj80 again. (From the history, it looks like it could easily be a library or some other public access IP.) So I notified Shivj80 of this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As a probably final comment, I'd note that back in 2019 Shivj80 said "coming here" in relation to coming to the US [20]. Since Shivj80's edit history is so small, using the preview function I looked at basically every contribution of theirs, and I see nothing that conflicts with someone residing in the US. Precisely what this edit history is that makes it unlikely Shivj80 is residing in the US, I have no idea. P.S. For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify I use the term "currently residing in" because that's all that's relevant here. Shivj80 could be someone born in the US who has never stepped foot outside New York. They could have been born in India and have emigrated permanently to the US. They could be a student from India currently studying in the US. They could be something else completely. It's none of our concern and I see no reason to doubt or question any of these myriad possibilities. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Meg. Innne

Meg. Innne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has changed the wording in David Bonnar from "bishop" to "prelate", despite being repeatedly warned[21][22][23] that this goes against the Manual of Style wording established by consensus (e.g. for disambiguation per WP:BISHOP). They have also breached the three-revert rule[24][25][26][27] though they only got warned about this after doing so[28]. I started with a level 2 warning because this user may be linked to the IP that carried out identical reversions[29][30] shortly before this single-purpose account was created (with the IP being warned by Elizium23). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: This is an "incident"—next time please post at WP:ANI. I semi-protected David Bonnar for three days which will hold things for a short period. I would encourage more communication about the actual issue—templated warnings aren't very useful for conveying information (e.g. if MOS says no "prelate", quote a little bit of the text perhaps with a brief explanation of why "bishop" is preferred at Wikipedia). That might be put on article talk ("prelate" is currently not there) and the editor given a link to the section. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to communicate with the user since I think "mobile edit" means they are in a WMF-induced bubble. Ping me from the talk page if the problem continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq since they're using the mobile web browser and have an account they should have a notification of new messages of sorts at least last I checked. It's mobile web edits from IPs and app edits that are the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Create page

I tried to create the page (Draft:Tim Leissner) but it said I couldn't due to some blacklist. Could one of you make it for me? Thx. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This regular expression seems to be over broad. MER-C 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C: Agreed. It's the .*im.*eiss.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinanike101 regex on the local Titleblacklist. Could you delete or change? Deltagammaz (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Deltagammaz: - You could work up the article in your sandbox first. An admin can move it to its correct title when it is in a fit condition to be released in to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fake election sandboxes

An ongoing AN discussion on Commons about fake election maps has led me to discover that there is a large contingent of users who have been using Wikipedia solely as a webhost for their alternate history/politics games for the last several years. Comments from several of them on that thread indicate that they are using Wikipedia to use templates like {{infobox election}} that aren't available on Wikia and other appropriate venues, and thus use Commons to host their images.

Some typical users of this type:

• NonConfirmatory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 47 edits, all to User:NonConfirmatory/sandbox
• Zeksora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 6 edits, all to User:Zeksora/sandbox
• Spcresswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 1013 edits, 99% of them to several hundred sandbox pages

This is a troubling misuse of Wikipedia and Commons as a web host. There is a risk of the fake elections being mistaken for real - I have removed several fake files from mainspace articles. The consistent use of user sandboxes to avoid detection, identical image types used on Commons, and comments on Commons indicate that there is some level of coordination by users on off-Wikipedia sites.

Looking at uses of the election infobox in userspace, there are over a thousand usages; from a random selection, half or more are blatantly fake and not intended as drafts of real articles. Such sandboxes can be speedily deleted as U5. I think it's also worth discussing whether there should be an effort to actively discourage or prevent these users from misusing Wikipedia in this way, given the risk of false information being mistaken for real, and the amount of volunteer time it takes to find and delete the false information later. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a recurring problem with users uploading to Commons fantasy or hoax flags for political entities that do not have an official flag, which are then linked into the infoboxes for the enWiki articles about those entities (see here for example, where a fake flag has been added to the article on Duarte Province, Dominican Republic, at least three times). Again, considerable volunteer time is expended verifying that the flags are indeed fake, and then getting Commons to act on them. - Donald Albury 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm here to discuss my excessive sandboxes. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 21 February 2021

I want to stress that I had no idea that my hobby was causing so many problems. I agree that my sandboxes can be seen as misleading by those who view them that aren't me. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I will cease the sandboxes. Sorry for the problems I have caused. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 21 February 2021

(I had invited them and am happy to see this) No worries, and thank you very much for the answer. We can delete them all per your requests; I have just not done so yet because the pages are currently under discussion here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to delete them all. Sorry once again and thanks for being so patient. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 21 February 2021

@Spcresswell: Thanks for understanding. Out of curiosity, do you know why there would be many people doing this sort of thing? Like is there some website which encourages people to create such pages on Wikipedia? It seems strange to me that multiple people would have similar notions of using Wikipedia for this. (And it's not just politics -- people have fabricated whole seasons of Big Brother, Ru Paul's Drag Race, etc. in userspace, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites Hi. I think that a large number of people do it both with and without Wikipedia because ultimately, it is a work of ficiton and stuff like politics is fun to experiment with. I was using it for personal use only. However, there are at least two websites and forums where people share altered election infoboxes like the ones I created. While not all users use Wikipedia tables or boxes, a sizeable amount do. Would I be allowed to share a link to the two websites? ~ Spcresswell (talk)

@Spcresswell: I think the links could possibly be helpful to know where this is coming from. Perhaps the sites would even be amenable to a "please don't do this on Wikipedia" line somewhere. :) You may want to consider installing your own MediaWiki software. It wouldn't be too hard to replicate what you've been working on there. Or you could look at the comparison of wiki hosting services. It seems like something that could be framed in terms of "Fandom" (but that is an ad-supported site FYI). I'm going to leave a talk page message for you with a couple talk page pointers btw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sorry for the late reply. [History] is a common one for people sharing altered infoboxes. If you search the forum or any search engine with the word "infobox", you'll find a large number of boxes and tables. [Lion Press] is another example too. [[User:Spcresswell|Spcresswell (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Spcresswell]] (talk)

Donald Albury, another false flag to look out for is that of Svalbard. Svalbard doesn't have flag, but the internet has tried to fix that quite a few times. GPinkerton (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton The instances I've worked on cleaning up include List of Dominican Republic flags, Districts of The Bahamas, and various micronations. TU-nor found fake flags being used for local government divisions of a number of nations. See User talk:TU-nor#Flags of districts of the Bahamas for a discussion of cases of fake flags they had found. There does not appear to have been wholesale addition of fake flags for local divisions of the Dominican Republic since the last batch was cleared out almost two years ago, but that was the fourth time such fake flags had been removed. In the past, fake flags have returned to that list every one to five years, so they may be back again. I have no idea whether fake flags are currently a problem for other nations. - Donald Albury 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the fictitious Svalbard flags are popular for adding to articles. In general, fake flags at Commons is a pain in you-know-where. It is difficult to get them removed, but it helps to put a {{fictitious flag}} tag, which I just did for Commons:File:Jan Mayen.png. --T*U (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've nominated the other two editors' sandboxes for MfD, which, of course, doesn't preclude them from being speedied by an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not the first time this has been an issue. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Commons_admin_needed, which resulted in the deletion of over 400 images, mainly on Commons, but some locally as well. I've run into a few other issues of fake electoral maps as well, and have generally responded by PRODding the images or tagging them for G3. This sort of thing is a definite WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Hog Farm _Talk 07:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I suspect this is a wide issue covering tonnes of (broadly defined) fandom: the mention of fake seasons of Ru Paul's Drag Race rings a bell, because I know that there has been Eurovision "fakes" and similar spotted before. I think that if you've got a well established Nation States thing going on and quickly need election results for your blog, then Wikipedia is the best place to go for free. Wikia has nothing like the templates Wikipedia has, and Microsoft Word or equivalent doesn't quite look the same. It may well be that you've lifted only one stone here, there could be countless examples. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've found quite a few fake election infoboxes with a brief search - many of them are clearly U5-able, but many are not by a strict reading of the criterion (includes "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages"). To avoid backlogging MfD into next month, should we make a determination that these sort of things are explicitly covered by U5? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly support explicitly declaring these under the purview of U5. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• :Be careful with this, sometimes what looks like a fake election box might be a mock-up using deliberately fake data. I would say a better response would be to create a template called {{mock-up}} that can be used on any user-space page (other than the main user page) to alert other editors and viewers that the "informational content" is dummy data. If the editor does not add the box within a reasonable period of time, then {{db-hoax}} the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC) see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Hoax/sandbox updated to allow for "intentional fake data" outside of "mainspace," discuss at Template talk:Hoax#Proposed changes (permalink). This should discourage people using user-space drafts for "fake pages intended to be taken as real" since any intentional use would be labeled with "This page contains placeholder information and should not be considered accurate." Courtesy ping to @Firefly:. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem of users misusing Wikipedia as a web host, nor the fake images they upload to Commons to illustrate them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, it's often reasonably easy to tell who's playing games and who's doing test data. If you're running it as test data, you'll have legitimate edits to actual elections. If you're playing games in your sandbox, then you won't have many legitimate election edits outside of the sandbox. With these, I'd say just G3 the local images, U5 or group nom the sandboxes, etc. The images uploaded to commons are a bit more of a pain in the ass for me - I don't know how to bundled nom on Commons, so when I run into these, I have to individually nominate them, which makes a mess. I'd recommend that all administrators keep an eye on the categories for hoax speedies and U5, as there may be a backlog build up in there. I would, but I essentially promised to never do speedy deletions in my RFA, so I should probably not be doing any of those deletions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js is your friend: VisualFileChange (a.k.a. AjaxMassDelete), adds a “Perform batch task” link to your toolbox on wiki pages. Clicking this link will allow you to apply actions to some or all of one user's uploads, files in a category, or files displayed in a gallery. Actions include the creation of mass-deletion requests, the insertion of tags or free text, and customized text substitutions (regular expressions are supported). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree regarding playing games vs actual testing. I don't object to the additions to the {{hoax}} template, but I think just speedily-deleting any pages of users who are clearly here just to use Wikipedia as hosting for their alt-history stuff is the best plan. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search for "alternate history elections" and "imaginary elections" seems to point to this subreddit and this internet forum as being potential sources for this sort of stuff. None of this seems to be in bad faith, but I agree that it should go somewhere else per WP:NOTWEBHOST. FWIW, Miraheze might be a good bet, as it doesn't have adverts and seems to run on the latest edition of MediaWiki (meaning that templates like {{Infobox election}} can be easily ported). The editors who were creating the sandboxes seem to have got the hang of template coding, so I'd encourage anyone interested to check out places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums where you could put your skills to a better use and improve real election articles! PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• A less serious, but related trend is userspace pages for reality show placement predictions. This has been discussed at WT:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. Another Believer might know more about this problem and how the revised templates might help that project. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

More spamming by JShark

JShark is continuing to spam talk pages related to Elon Musk. This issue has already been brought to ANI and they promised to stop. Earlier today, they posted massive identical posts on two separate talk pages (here and there). When their overly long proposal was shot down, they spammed responses. Instead of my listing the diffs, just visit Talk:Elon Musk#Inclusion of information about Musk's study published in Nature Communications. Information about Musk's donations to vaccine researchers. Musk has spent the last several weeks giving back to various charitable causes and research facilities to expedite small business survival and COVID-19 prevention. Sources. Can an admin please tell them to stop? Thanks. ~ HAL333 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: This isn't exactly the same behavior as before. I only came to ANI when JShark was asked to stop a particular behavior and didn't (spamming duplicate text across many topics). I'd say JShark replying to make a defense of their position is acceptable, but the formatting could use some work. That's why I pointed them to the talk page guidelines [31]. Creating a discussion in two different articles was a pretty mild case of WP:MULTI. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that they've been here since 2016 and have made around 1500 edits but still act like this. They post massive walls of text and respond several times when just one comment would suffice. They've had a lot of time to understand how to use a talk page. I'll admit it's not egregious, but it's annoying. This may be a case of competency is required. ~ HAL333 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Another example of their strange behavior can be seen here. ~ HAL333 14:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Nothing is spam. You are accusing me of things just because you do not accept that other editors contribute new information in the Elon Musk article. Another editor has also posted the same information about a scientific article and you just try to figure out how to get me blocked because you don't like my edits. Furthermore, very few editors can edit the article about Elon Musk without your consent. --JShark (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If I was a lousy editor I would never try to communicate my edits on the discussion pages and instead I would delete information without consulting anyone like you do every time you edit the article about Elon Musk. Elon Musk's article is controlled by very few editors and the rest of the editors cannot edit it without your consent. --JShark (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose that you should also start a discussion about your edits in the article about Elon Musk so that the other editors can discuss that inclusion of controversial information or discuss when you delete large chunks of an article without considering the other editors. That way all editors could edit under the same conditions and it would not seem that you have privileges that other editors who want to contribute to improve the article about Elon Musk do not have. --JShark (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior in the way you edit the article about Elon Musk without first discussing your edits on the talk page is not exactly the behavior of an editor who wants to collaborate with other editors. --JShark (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of trying to find an excuse to block an editor, you should try to discuss your edits on the talk page to achieve consensus among all editors. --JShark (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: Honestly, JShark made a reasonable point in the comment. People may sue for literally anything in the US, even when the allegations are completely unsubstantiated. The presence of a lawsuit is not an argument for inclusion. That being said... @JShark:, can you please write out your thoughts into one cohesive comment, as opposed to many individual comments? Your formatting makes following the conversation difficult. If you have additional thoughts after submitting your comment, consider editing your existing response in line with WP:TALK#REVISE (it's not preferred to writing one cohesive comment from the start... but it's fine so long as nobody has replied). You should also cut back on the use of bolding per WP:SHOUT. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Many people in the United States sue people for a huge amount of illogical things and that does not mean those accusations are real. And thanks for the advice, it is good that you assume that my intentions are in good faith and that I am not a ruthless editor who only wants to damage the articles on wikipedia. --JShark (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Presenting lawsuits and controversies together is a perfectly reasonable way to assemble and categorize a set of disputes surrounding a well-known person or entity and furthermore it is an expression with not only precedent on Wikipedia but elsewhere. It is a bit mind-boggling that displaying content backed by sources in such a way is itself under dispute: A controversy can literally be about anything as well as long as there are diametrically-minded people making their claims aloud. A celebration comes into being as long as there are people looking to celebrate something, that is literally anything. Same goes with an award, a proposition between parties, a parade, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Admin to review a WP:RM close

Hi. During a trawl of the request move backlog, I made a bold close (as no consensus to move) on this discussion a day or two ago. I was asked to review it, so I self-reverted. Is there someone who has a spare moment to (re)evaluate, and doesn't mind taking a second look at this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, sorry, was gonna follow up on this earlier, but forgot. Anyway, essentially, your close (diff), which read in full: The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — would hardly ever count as a sufficient discussion closure, be it closed as a NAC or an admin close alike. That's because it isn't actually a closing summary, it's just an announcement of the outcome. The expectation in most RM, RFC, etc., discussions is that at least some of the salient points raised by the participants would be touched on by the closer, however briefly. Regards, El_C 15:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for taking a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Hello to the managers,User:Jns4eva in the article, Ali Athab has committed three violations, although the article is well-known, but it does not pay attention at all.Please handle immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! The issue we are having is that User:2A01:5EC0:9815:799C:DC7E:EEBD:A703:750F is reverting speedy deletion tags on Draft:Ali Athab instead of contesting them. While I didn't place the original speedy deletion tag, I did restore it and warn them three times to stop reverting and instead contest the tag. Also, I have only reverted 3 times, despite the issue not falling under WP:3RR technically. I apologize for inconvenience, but it simply appears the user doesn't understand the issue at hand. Jns4eva (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaIf you are familiar with the violation of the three reversals, you will not say this. Then I translated the article. The person is famous enough because he is a famous YouTuber. You should also read the violation of the three reversals first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4eva If you do not know this person has 5 million followers on YouTube, 763 million views and two of them have received from YouTube, so she has the reputation of YouTube.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am very familiar with 3RR and I hope you understand you've well exceeded that yourself. Again, the issue isn't their notoriety. This is entirely about you removing speedy deletion tags and me reverting them. Please read Wikipedia:Removing speedy deletion tags. I appreciate your enthusiasm but these arguments are exactly what you should be contesting with on the speedy deletion tag instead of reverting it. Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaI complained to you and the subject of my complaint is the violation of your three returns. If I made a mistake, file a separate complaint and do not marginalize the subject of my complaint.The subject of the complaint is the violation of your three returns and you must be held accountable— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that what I was doing does NOT count as 3 reverts nor do I think you understand that this IS the place to discuss this, as this is a discussion alerting admins of what's going on and this complaint is exactly what's going on. No need to clutter the board with additional complains. I understand you're feeling attacked because of these reversions (which isn't the case I can assure you), but trying to wikilawyer myself and other users isn't the answer. Jns4eva (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to notify the admins that user:2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f is throwing around WP:3RR complains but is well over 6 reversions at this point. 06:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaYou can open a new complaint. Do not ignore the discussion of my complaint.‍‍‍--MNL (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oof. Swarm, did they both need to be blocked for edit warring? They were finally discussing things after all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the reported user was blocked by mistake. I meant to block OP for 3rr and deleting CSD templates, but I accidentially blocked the wrong person. Pure error on my part. OP is now blocked and Jns was immediately unblocked as a mistake. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I tried mediating on my talk page but they brought it to AN before I could respond. I tried again on their talk page but I feel like they were too upset at me to understand what exactly I was saying (as you said MJR, I could have used a softer touch for sure, I apologize for that). But I appreciate you mediating. And thanks Swarm for taking action (and especially explaining the block, I was kind of confused). Jns4eva (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for mistakenly blocking you! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/socking/suspicious behaviour at Martha Stewart

Multiple similar edits by multiple new accounts/IPs in the last 24 hours. Needs protection and probably some investigation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The disruption and edit warring has been intense. I've semi-protected Martha Stewart for a month. This seems to be an off-Wikipedia racial justice campaign related to the recent release of Bobby Shmurda from prison. The reasoning is that if Shmurda's article labels him as a felon, then so too should Stewart's. At present, neither article uses the felon label prominently but both articles mention their criminal convictions in the second paragraphs of their respective leads. That seems fair. Nobody is discussing the matter at Talk: Martha Stewart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It appears you undid the protection straight away by accident?. Agent00x (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How so? Seems fine to me. El_C 11:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Agent00x: I think the logs are confusing you. Cullen328 changed protection from indefinite PC1 i.e. anyone can edit but edits by non auto-confirmed editors (editors not using accounts or very new accounts) need to be approved by a PC reviewer before they show up in the revision normally visible; into 1 month semi-protection so non auto-confirmed editors cannot edit point blank. See WP:Protection policy and the linked pages for further info on how the various levels of protection work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it registers on the pending changes log rather than the protection log, but adding/resetting pc does show in the revision history. El_C 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you replying to someone else? I didn't say anything about any specific logs. The logs I imagine most editors look at are the revision history [32] and the general page logs [33] as these tend to be the easiest to navigate to. Both of these are potentially confusing to people who don't understand how protection works. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm someone else! Anyway, could be just that there was no pp tag due to MusikBot II not liking pc resets that are followed by protections, something I've already alerted MusikAnimal to a little while ago. El_C 12:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was getting confused by the bot removing the icon and not replacing it with anything. Thanks. Agent00x (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You were supposed to say: He's right! El_C 12:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User potentially adding copyvio to various articles

TheTransportHub (talk · contribs) - has been adding paragraphs of info to various UK railway related articles. However, they appear to be copied from the sources they are citing. The user mainly cites magazines and websites needing registration so it is not possible to check using Earwig. SK2242 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (edited SK2242 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Blocked WHEELER

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

I was in two minds about posting this - if I'd seen this behaviour, and this userpage, from a new account I'd have blocked and moved on without looking back. However, given that this is an account that's 18 years old, with thousands of edits, I thought I should pay the community the courtesy of letting them know that I have indefinitely blocked WHEELER for not being here to build an encyclopaedia. I made this decision based on their most recent edits, the content of their userpage, and a skim through their last three years of editing, which were almost exclusively to that userpage, which fell foul of several of our most basic policies.

I'm not asking for a review of this block - I am entirely confident that this was in the interests of the project, and Muboshgu, who also noticed their latest editing, came to the same conclusion. This is a courtesy notification to anyone with a longer institutional memory than I have, who may have known WHEELER in the past. The recent concerning edit has been revdelled by Muboshgu, and I have deleted the userpage. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 22:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, bringing it up here was a good idea. I also was much more cautious in how I handled this account based solely on the account's age and opted to ask a question with the idea of giving the person the rope to hang himself with, so to speak. WHEELER, based on their deleted user page and the revdel'd edit, is an avowed racist. Wikipedia is not tolerant of intolerance. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Long "institutional memory" representative here. While he has done some good work I completely understand the reason for this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/List_of_Republics#WHEELER_banned for some of the history. After reading the revdelled comment, I approve of the block. Wikipedia isn't the right place for that POV. Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've declined their unblock request and deleted a bunch of National Socialist and Goebbels-adjacent userspace webhost material. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A review of the articles they've created is illuminating [34]. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Holy Hegel and Mother Marx this user has some FRINGE and repugnant views. WP:ZT EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. Thanks for doing this. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good block. I read most of that deleted user page, so many levels of bizarre fringe. One of the weirdest hecking things I've read in my whole life. That recent revdelled edit is also very messed up. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Great block, of course, per all above. Just a tiny nitpick though: the account is seventeen years old, not eighteen, because the time of the earliest edit in its contributions is wrong due to a clock reset; its diff should probably look something like this. I'm not happy though that one of the edits in my listing of these anomalies was made by a certified extreme racist. Also see a recent archived ANI thread also involving weird times in page histories. Graham87 08:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graham87, that's very strange - does that erroneous timestamp also influence the creation date in the User log? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, it does, because account creation times weren't oficially recorded in the database until September 2005. Graham87 09:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. That's what I call serious institutional memory! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I confess I wandered over to WHEELER's user page every now and again just to see if he'd quit/been blocked. That rev'd comment is far, far worse than anything I can remember seeing from him in the "old days". Good block; sorry it came to this. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to review the close

This is a request to review the close at Talk:List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone#Merger proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Talk:KOI-4878.01#Proposed merger. The first debate has been closed despite no consensus has been reached about merging it. The debate is taking place in two separate talkpages, and an editor has closed the debate in one of them perhaps without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.

The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal

@Trurle @Figuerai @Astronomyeditionwiki @Kepler-1229b and me (5 editors) are in favor of keeping it as it is now, and SevenSpheresCelestia, Lithopsian, Ardenau4, Headbomb, and Davidbuddy9 (5 editors) are in favor of merging it.

Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.

After several months of debate, I would appreciate if an administrator properly closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01, and removes the 'merge' notice from the page.

Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Bradv, CaptainEek, Maxim, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Now having "DYK that the DYKUpdateBot's account was compromised?" would make a great front-page DYK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-requested block and the flag removal

I recently was indefinitely topic-banned from "any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed" [35]. I looked at my contribution [36] and I think I can't find any areas outside of the topic ban where I can participate productively and with interest. Therefore, there is no prospect that the topic ban will ever be lifted. I think that in order to avoid stealing the account, it is better to block it. At the very least, I think you should remove my pending changes reviewer flag.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Permission error

I got a permission, when I wanted to create a local description for File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg. Could someone create the page with {{Featured picture|Falcon 9 Full Thrust}}? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. FYI it matched the first entry of "generic image file names" at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Unban request: topic ban issued, without warning, based on WP:BLUDGEON

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.

---

• Bavio the Benighted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Topic ban from Comfort women by FPAS at 08:54 on 24 Feb.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
• DS alert by Acroterion at 00:09 on 24 Feb.
• Talk:Comfort women where it is said that the bludgeoning occurred

I was issued a topic ban, without prior warning, for six months on the basis that I was 'bludgeoning the process' on a talk page. This seemed excessive and inappropriate for several reasons, which I listed on the relevant section of my talk page, so I would like to ask other administrators to review the ban and, if deemed unnecessary, to reverse it.

I was directed to this page by these instructions. If I should place my request elsewhere or if the decision should be appealed via some other route, please let me know. Thank you. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: TBANNING admin. I would also note that the editor in question has been blocked twice (edit warring). Fut Perf, was there an indication that the editor was likely to take the bludgeoning elsewhere if pagebanned rather than TBANNED? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've added some links to the head of this report to assist the reviewers. Bavio was notified of DS at 00:09 on 24 Feb, but there are a series of comments by Bavio at Talk:Comfort women between then and 08:54 when FuturePerfect issued the topic ban. Reviewing admins can look at Bavio's five comments and judge whether bludgeoning is an appropriate summary. (Their five comments are all in the long thread at Talk:Comfort women#Misrepresentation of C. Sarah Soh). More rationale by FP is at User talk:Bavio the Benighted#Bludgeoning discussions and there are some responses by Bavio. The background to this sanction is a pair of conventional blocks by User:Acroterion and User:Jpgordon. The two past block notices, and their declined unblock requests, are still visible on Bavio's talk page. These appear to be conventional edit warring blocks. On 31 January, Baio did make five reverts at Comfort women, marked as 'Undo' in the edit history which is a plain 3RR violation. It's hard to talk your way out of something like that. FPAS's comments about Bavio's 'sheer volume' in the Comfort women discussion are clearly justified. Good faith opposition to the tone of an existing article does tend to verge into WP:ADVOCACY after a while, especially when the user is full of charges of bad behavior by the other side. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I placed a normal block for straight-up edit-warring in January, and I placed the DS notice out of concern that the discussion was being bludgeoned by Bavio over the past couple of weeks. Given the level of attention the Comfort women article has received from nationalists, extra eyes are warranted on edits and discussion in that area. Acroterion (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate a bit more regarding the reasons I feel the topic ban is premature:

1. The ban was issued in relation to the alert you posted on my talk page. However, said alert explicitly encouraged discussing edits with other users---i.e. I was banned for following the instructions you gave me, Acroterion. I have stopped editing the main article after my second block, because I learned that it's unproductive, so my older blocks do not seem relevant in the context of the topic ban.

2. The ban was issued without prior warning. All sanctions should at least involve one formal warning with clear instructions on how to avoid said sanction.

3. The ban was issued even though I did not violate any official policy.

4. The reason for the topic ban was that my edits were too long and too frequent, so a more rational course of action would be to impose a reasonable daily character limit to my edits regarding the topic.

5. A 6 month ban seems more like an attempt to censor one side of the debate, something I recently suspected another administrator of. The content of the article currently reflects a one-sided view of the subject, and ignores much of the more recent literature contesting an older consensus (see e.g. the diff linked above, and the relevant section on the talk page). Yet many editors who frequent the topic are quick to dismiss all challenges to the old content, no matter how well-sourced or well-argumented. As such, it seems exceedingly likely that any outright bans on those users who express contrarian views will have a negative effect on the quality of article in question, in terms of WP:NPOV and historical accuracy.

6. The topic ban was only issued to me, one-sidedly, despite other editors arguably exhibiting noticeably more disruptive behavior. For instance, an attempt to stifle on-going discussion by the removal of a template from a strongly disputed lede, and the marking of this change as "minor", has remained unpenalized. As has the removal of sourced content citing a recent peer-reviewed article, despite said article being one of the most reliable among the sources we have on the topic (as I detailed here in a post that no one has yet challenged). I am not suggesting that these other users be sanctioned, but I am suggesting that my topic ban should logically only come after theirs, given that some of their actions seem to have been intentionally disruptive. Preferential banning of editors expressing contrarian views, regardless of the actual disruptiveness of their behavior, is not the way to go when building an encyclopedia. And this is especially true if said editors have consistently cited more reliable sources than other editors to corroborate their claims, and if said arguments have never been countered on the talk page.

7. The main reason some of my posts have been long and repetitive is because I wrote them in reaction to repetitive points that I had already countered by other editors. Whenever other editors blatantly "forget" or misconstrue any of my previous arguments, I tend to try rephrasing them instead of linking to diffs, since I believe this way I have a higher chance of getting the other editor to understand my point of view.

8. As I mentioned above, my posts tend to be long for a reason: they have more and longer citations, I tend to make a conscious effort to phrase my arguments as precisely and accurately as possible, and I try to argue my points as thoroughly as I can from different angles. All of these factors make my edits longer than those of others. I think these are examples of exemplary behavior, if anything, and certainly not a reason to ban someone from partaking in a discussion.

As such, if my previous edits are indeed considered disruptive, I would like to suggest that a daily or weekly character limit is imposed to my edits to said topic. Or, alternatively, that the editors on the talk page in question be polled regarding whether or not they unanimously consider my participation in the discussion as disruptive. Based on the reasons listed above, an outright ban seems unjustified in this situation. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting this topic ban. The editor has been tendentious and disruptive in advocating for the fringe theory that the vast majority of the prostitutes who were exploited by the Japanese Imperial Army in military brothels during World War II volunteered for their exploitation. The editor sometimes uses the figure of 99.9%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never "advocated" the notion that the majority had been voluntary prostitutes, a point I've repeated ad nauseam. I have said that many of them were "hired" (regardless of whether they were given a choice or not) and that they worked under "contracts" (again, not necessarily willingly). Both of these claims are supported by a recent peer-reviewed article by Ramseyer. I have clarified my stance countless of times on the talk page---this type of misconstruing of my points by certain editors is exactly the reason my posts tend to be long and repetitive; if I fail to keep clarifying them ad nauseam, I have learned that some editors will keep "forgetting" or misconstruing them ad infinitum.

I did make one provocative hyperbole (mentioned on my talk page) where I assert that "more than 99% likely worked voluntarily", and, in doing so, challenged another editor to find hard proof that more than 1% of the comfort women had been coerced (which, as I'm sure we can both agree, should be an easy task if it is indeed only a "fringe theory" that a significant fraction had worked voluntarily) but they were unable to do so, arguably proving my point. And no, I still do not consider it likely that the majority had worked in the brothels voluntarily; this notion is just as unsubstantiable as the current definition.

And though I do not seem to have ever typed the number "99.9%", I assume you are referring to this quote: As of now, the Wikipedia article uncritically parrots the claims of a vocal minority amounting to 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. But as you can see, here, I am referring to the number of testimonies, which, based on the data we have, have only been given by 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. This number in itself is completely uncontroversial; I doubt you could find anyone who disagrees with that on the talk page.

I recently made a long post that addresses all of this, but I suppose you did not have time to read it, which is understandable, given the length of the talk page. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the ban per Cullen328; every single one of their edits since September 8, 2020 are related to this topic, and they seem to be a clear net negative in the area. They should find some other topics to edit for awhile, and if they're not interested in doing so, then they're an unwanted SPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Established editors need assistance dealing with topics like this and volunteers should not need to drink from a firehose. Bavio started editing in March 2016 but since September 2020 appears to have done nothing but focus on comfort women (72% of their total 161 edits concern that topic). Unless they can gain experience working collaboratively in other areas their future editing is in doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree my edits (and the edits of those editors who I've debated the topic with) have rendered the talk page overly long for volunteers to parse. This is why I would certainly contend with a character limit imposed on my future edits. I feel an outright ban would backfire, though, in that it would stifle discussion and create a warped view of the consensus. And, if the ban is lifted, I can attempt to remedy the situation by rewriting some of my older posts to make them more concise, since I do agree some of them are needlessly verbose, which might reduce their visibility (and explain why so many editors keep ignoring and misconstruing my points). Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bavio, I hope you take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered--I take no position on the merits here; I have not looked in to them. I will say, to a casual onlooker, it looks like you are perilously close to "bludgeoning" the discussion of your bludgeoning ban. Just a word to the wise. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, and yes, I'm trying to take it constructively. This thread made me realize that my arguments on the talk page, which were aimed at getting three specific editors to see my point, were too long and too roundabout, and not very outsider-friendly. I now know I should've prioritized brevity much more than I did, and that I should've been explicit about my stance instead of trying to use a hyperbole as proof, since this lead to the misunderstanding now perpetuated by Cullen. And I apologize for the long posts, but I do feel I should defend myself against false claims / ad hominems, especially if used as a basis for supporting the ban. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen and Johnuniq. — Ched (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the behaviour in this thread. As Dumuzid has suggested, this user is close to bludgeoning this discussion, and in their reply to Cullen above they have used this appeal as an opportunity to continue arguing their case about the content. Please accept the TBan and move onto a subject you feel less strongly about. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion. I have made no attempts to defend my case about the content here. If I had, I would have linked to recent diffs of my best proofs with ample citations, which I clearly did not do here, as anyone who is updated on the state of the relevant talk page can attest. What I did do was correct two obvious errors in Cullen's edit that amounted to slander.

And if defending myself against slander is considered "bludgeoning" then surely I am obligated to do so in a thread discussing the legitimacy of a ban imposed on me. Cullen's post made it very clear that he or she only read a handful of posts on the talk page. Yet they expressed agreement with the ban based on a false assumption regarding my stance---despite it being absolutely obvious to anyone who reads >10% of my posts on the talk page that my stance has always been "the evidence does not support claim X", and that all edits I've made have been me proving this point from different angles. Certainly I should correct Cullen's glaring error, as otherwise I would be letting them poison the well.

The only motive I've ever had for editing Wikipedia has been to fix glaring errors. You can see this in literally all my edits, including the ones in this thread. If you type something that is demonstrably false then you should expect me to call you out, like I did here. I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. Cue bludgeoning.

And I don't have any strong feelings regarding the subject itself, since history has never interested me. The only reason I became fixated on it is because this was the first topic I encountered where an editor reverted my changes without a valid rationale. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Bavio the Benighted has accused me of the crime of slander, which appears to me to be a clear legal threat, especially since I disclose my real world identity. This seems to me an attempt (unsuccessful) to intimidate me from discussing this editor's misbehavior. If I was uninvolved, I would issue an indefinite block until the editor unambiguously withdrew the legal threat, or a court issued a final judgment. I request that an uninvolved administrator take a look and determine whether No legal threats applies here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've lblocked Bavio the Benighted per Cullen's ANI request. El_C 06:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

... and I have unblocked, after a discussion on their talk page, setting out some conditions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose I think the need is pretty plain. Please see user's WP:NLT unblock request. TBH, I feel this user is just going to dig themselves in deeper as they do not seem to understand what they are doing wrong. And they even said, in their response to Girth Summit and others, I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. (Sheesh) And then there's the slander thing. User needs to grow and learn to interact better, without "doubling down". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per pretty much everyone else. This editor needs to find another topic area to edit in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Talk:Comfort women is filled with enormous posts from this editor. Nor do they seem to be the constructive/useful kind, on the contrary they're defending a fringe theory, nitpicking ('I would never use the phrase "South Korean propaganda", and I did not do so here, either... I stated that the article as it is represents the narrative of "a South Korean propaganda machine") and arguing the article should be filled with original research. I don't see any good reason why the other editors on that article should be forced to put up with this, and our duty here is to them. Hut 8.5 12:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Closure pending: Per a discussion elsewhere, User:Bavio the Benighted has agreed (mostly) not to post any more in this ban appeal. We appear to have received enough responses. Unless there is objection I'll close this ban appeal in another few hours. Though we are holding this at AN, this request counts as an AE appeal since the ban made use of discretionary sanctions. For the appeal to be granted it needs the 'Clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN'. Since nobody favors granting the appeal as yet it seems likely that the appeal will be declined. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (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:Hannah02130213

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.

---

• Hannah02130213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Reason: Adding Original research after warning in Chinese painting. Also, if here is not the suitable place for report this inappropriate behavior, I am sorry about that. Thank you. --SCP-2000 11:52, 27 February 2021 (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.

Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

There has been a new proposal since this was first announced which would also omit workshops from some cases: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Timetable and case structure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) is granted administrative permissions on the English Wikipedia following the securing of its passwords by the operator.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

A motion has modified the internal procedures of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was enacted after it reached majority support on the the committee's public motions page. The Arbitration Committee intend to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase. The committee also intends to make workshops optional, such as in cases where the conduct of one or two editors is being examined. The section which has been added to the procedures page reads:

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

ANI closer needed

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XIIIfromTokyo

I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at this ANI section. It's been dragging on for a while, with lots of words and accusations. I just blocked the one editor for personal attacks, but this needs more eyes. It's a bit of a read, but something has to be done here. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult case, but in my opinion something needs to be done, even if it is just s stern warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s. Reason for request: article title was changed to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s, because section was added for 1960s. Thanks in advance, I don't have required permissions. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Post Malone

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.

---

What happened vandalism warned User:TheVideoGamePhenom. Revert of edit Post Malone RoseGold1250 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@RoseGold1250: Yes, the edit by TheVideoGamePhenom to the article Post Malone [37], was not an improvement, fiddling with the protection template and changing "Malone" to "Post" throughout, contrary to normal Wikipedia style, but the only step needed was to revert the edit -- which I have now done. It's hardly an issue to bring to the noticeboards, which are meant for serious, ongoing or intractable problems. I will be removing the notice you placed on TheVideoGamePhenom's talk page and will replace it with a simple editing notice. I'm also going to close this discussion, although anyone can re-open it who thinks the close is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (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.

Community ban request for JaiMahadev aka Phoenix man

JaiMahadev has already been blocked as a suspected sock of Phoenix man, and I suspect will soon be CU-confirmed. Based on this edit however, I think the community should also enact a formal ban. It won't make any practical difference, but it's the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

... Already banned per WP:3X. --Izno (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Izno, Not that I can see from the SPI tags. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Page Creation Error

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.

---

Hellos, Good Evening. I’m Dablizz Praise I want to create a page about myself, but I encountered an error and I was instructed to report the issue.. Below is what I wrote about myself

Dablizz. Ibeole Praise Chinemerem known by his stage name Dablizz is a rapper and Afro-pop artist. Music Genre Rap, AfroPop, Afro Beat. He is the 4th son of Mr/Mrs Ibeole Joseph. Born on May 8 1998 Hails from Orlu Imo State, Nigeria. He released his first single titled LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dablizz1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Social media. Wikipedia does not exist to improve your name recognition or promote your brand. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, even if you are notable. Wikipedians will create an article should you become notable and get coverage in reliable sources. In short, you have to achieve the fame before you get the article, not create an article to get famous. Probably not the answer you want, but it's the reality Slywriter (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, Is the shouting really necessary? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider emphasis of important words shouting but in deference to the concern, I have normal cased. Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2021 (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.

Nmi628 not Assuming Good Faith

User Nmi628 does not assume good faith and has been provoking edit wars with several users, specifically with regards to Nick Fuentes page. She accuses users of spreading disinfo and 'whitewashing' his actions. She also accuses users of not using reliably sourced content when that is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelindy (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gladly. Here is what I removed of his. He cited Fuentes' twitter as a reliable source, which it is not. Additionally, he has been edit warring to remove the label "white nationlist" from the lede and body despite several other users pointing out a plethora of reliable sources describing Fuentes as such, as seen here on the talk page. Natelindy has repeatedly attempted to POV Railroad edits to the page, namely hiding all references to Fuentes' white nationalism. Racists are unwelcome on Wikpedia per WP:NONAZIS, and we should not be in the business of whitewashing white nationalists when reliable sources are clear. This has nothing to do with "not assuming good faith". Nmi628 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me it is you attempting to war in information sourced to Twitter and a mediocre source, and remove the sourced "white nationalist" descriptor: [38], . GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly correct, GorillaWarfare . When several users repeatedly remove reliably sourced content describing someone as a "white nationalist" without further discussion or pointing to contradictory sources, I would describe that as whitewashing. Nmi628 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Natelindy: It takes two to edit war, and it's ironic to repeatedly accuse Nmi628 of "provoking edit wars" as you continue to edit war with them. When material you've added has been contested, the thing to do is take a step back and begin a discussion about it on the article talk page to achieve consensus, not war versions of it back into the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

WP:SPI is currently backlogged with reports predating last Christmas awaiting attention. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE understaffed by admins

I have a distinct impression that WP:AE is currently significantly understaffed by admins and has beed so for a while. There are some threads there where only a single administrator has commented in the "Result" section for a week, while the sections with comments by others keep growing and getting more unwieldy. WP:AE cannot function effectively without sufficient admin participation and I encourage more admins to start taking part there. Currently, there is one admin, User:El_C, who actively participates in all threads. A few others participate from time to time. El_C certainly deserves significant credit for his hard work, but he can't carry the entire AE by himself. More help is definitely needed there. By the way, currently WP:AE is not listed at the top of WP:AN under open admin tasks, but perhaps it should be. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words, Nsk92. Most certainly, any additional assistance that will help lighten the load would be greatly appreciated! El_C 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

+1. Listing # of open AE threads in the admin backlog box might help. I also think the word limit should be more strictly enforced (not to a tyrannical extent, just more than current), to reduce the amount of reading patrolling admins have to do. ("Stay on topic" is probably more important to that than actual word count). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that one of the main reasons that I've asked users not to post any new requests on my talk page (User_talk:El_C#Destiny) is because WP:AE is simply taking up so much of my time, even if only to merely touch on the seemingly never-ending volume of these requests. As noted elsewhere recently, I've been attending to AE requests often almost-singlehandedly, which, for example, is reflected in AE/Archive277, where 11 of 14 complaints were closed (and largely attended to) by me — not including two appeals both involving my actions (both declined). Speaking of which, I'm at, like, what, 7 appeals now during the past month or so (all declined, as well), with 2 currently ongoing. El_C 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I took a quick look at WP:AE and though "I haven't the faintest idea how to handle that lot, and taking action would be broadly equivalent to a bull in a china shop". The only Arbcom case I could realistically manage is WP:ARBINFOBOX / WP:ARBINFOBOX2, and even then I'd proceed with caution. So I'm going to have to give it a miss, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

AE seems to have relied on a few admins doing the bulk of work - before El C it was Sandstein. Not ideal as it leads to a increased risk of burnout.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could force Floquenbeam to do it at gunpoint? I mean, sillier things have been suggested around here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The power of the Floq compels you, the power of the Floq compels you! El_C 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, just need to adopt a remedy here, 'Floq is required to clear AE, stat' all those in favor, say aye. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Floq's currently taking a break; I think he would run a mile from AE right now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's too bad. Unhappy face. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if all else fails, I may have no choice but to turn to Buck Flower, but he'd probably just engage in the usual Gooby-related spammage, as is his nature!¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that User:EdJohnston, User:Dennis Brown, and User:Black Kite used to be pretty regular at AE. I wonder if any of them would have the time or inclination? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I hate to be "that guy" but I think what would be best for the community is if new admins, who haven't ever patrolled AE, gave it a spin. There are 500 active admin and I bet less than 20 have ever commented at AE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that notion is that AE does have a somewhat steep learning curve, so expecting new admins unfamiliar to just jump straight in to the deep end before even dipping their toes, then expecting that to produce the best outcomes — that seems unrealistic, to me. Anyway, I admit that I am curious to see what would happen if I were to just leave the AE noticeboard to its own devices. So, I think I'll do that by avoiding it for the next while. I'd rather be editing articles about Israeli poets than AE-ing away, anyway, I just try to go to where the need is greatest. So, Good Night, and Good Luck. And let's hope it all works out for the best. Fingers crossed. El_C 00:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confident our crop of active admins can master the steep learning curve, as many have done before them. :-) How to convince anyone to volunteer for this, per the bear below, is another story altogether. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course they can, but, again, probably not in one-fell-swoop, as you propose. But doesn't really matter. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end. Necessity is a great motivator, after all. El_C 06:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not one fell swoop: a comment from an admin on one case a week or a month will give us a diversity of opinions on the reports, e.g. "is this edit warring?" "is this uncivil?" "where is the ONUS?" etc., and doesn't put too much on any one admin. Thanks, C, for holding down the fort there, and also to the other admins who have commented there recently. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally. Happy to have helped. Indeed, the more, the better, so, from your mouth to God's ears, Levivich. Lord knows I could use the rest! El_C 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• AE struggles as an area as it is has the unholy trifecta of discouraging admins: 1) technically difficult 2) inherently hostile/dramatic 3) is a field that a significant portion of admins have major ideological disagreements/concerns with either the concept, or the execution. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I'm part of 3) now. I found that AE works well in the daily business of banning or blocking ethno-nationalist POV warriors, but it falls short when discretionary sanctions or even individual ArbCom sanctions are to be enforced against the unblockables. Even though AE sanctions are supposed to be protected against being undone by an angry mob, in practice that's what often happens because in my experience ArbCom does not back up enforcing admins in such circumstances, leaving them to be dragged from dramaboard to dramaboard. That's why I now leave ArbCom enforcement to ArbCom itself. Sandstein 10:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Being an AE admin is not for the faint at heart --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I read all the cases through and I do not feel able to get involved: it is too complex. With AE relying on perhaps now only one admin who is in the know of the mechanism and history of the disputes and who has now understandably taken a step back, is this process even viable? Fences&Windows 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many cases are complex. How to analyze such content, make it simple and separate noise? Here is the approach that one admin used. Focus on the first diff (in each #1, #2, etc. segment) brought by the complaining user, without actually looking at other things. Does that single diff by itself clearly demonstrates a behavior problem, rather than merely a content dispute? If it does, and especially if there are several such diffs, then the case has merit. Basically, when imposing a sanction, an admin can say: "I blocked/topic banned you for this [...],[...]". Such telling diffs frequently appear in final ArbCom rulings. However, if the diffs by the complainer do not clearly demonstrate the problem, then it may be a battleground request. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• My advice: find some deserving non-admin, give them the tools as a reward for services above and beyond, and tell them they won't get paid until they clear out WP:AE. When they're done, take away the tools and yell "April Fools!" and dance around the maypole. Rinse and repeat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey look it's another backlog!

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention could use some admins clearing it out. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL: the non-actionable bot-reported names can be removed by anyone (e.g.). Consider taking a run at it and let me know if you have any questions about individual cases. –xeno^talk 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: I've removed quite a few and commented on others by now,^{[39][40][41][42][43]} but there are a decent amount of pretty blatant username violations still in the bot-que. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The bot-flagging at UAA has gotten out of control. Like I can allot a solid hour to eliminating some massive bot-reported backlog, and when I log in the next morning the backlog is immediately back to an unmanageable level, largely made up of accounts that will never edit more than once or twice. It's become an unreasonable demand on an admin's noticeboard. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Swarm: It's possible for admins to adjust the blacklist. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but even as a UAA admin I don't know how to adjust the blacklist in the correct way. It's just clear whoever was updating the blacklist was too overzealous for too long and now we have out of control bot flagging. I'm not saying I have the solution, I'm just saying this is a problem with the blacklist, not with admins neglecting the board. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As a non-admin, the problem is users like Sydneywhitey (talk · contribs) - not a case where a username block is really in order based on the name alone, but also based on their only edit being vandalism not a user that I want to ignore. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much this^. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rangeblock wording

I am proposing a change to the {{Rangeblock}} wording. Opinions at Template talk:Rangeblock#Wording changes please. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

enwiki Board consultation?

Attending the office hours last weekend thanks to Nosebagbear's notification, the the WMF emphasized that they are willing to hold guided/moderated discussions about this topic with particular groups/communities. Is this something other editors of English Wikipedia would be interested in having? If so I think we can let the WMF know so a date/time could be found to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: This is about the proposed changes to the WMF board? I don't think a lot of people here know about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes MJL. Thank you for providing that link. I had originally posted this on WP:VPWMF where it has been discussed a fair amount (and is indeed present in a couple topics now) and didn't adequately adjust for this audience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to copy across my comment on VPW, I would indeed encourage this to take place, should individuals be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Query

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.

---

Is it permissible to post information to Wikipedia of the form....

• Person X was born in country Y on year Z
• Person X graduated from university Y with degree Z

...without providing an inline citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carter Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't a strict requirement. But what is is having an WP:RS which verifies these elsewhere on the article, somewhere. El_C 17:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it permissible then, to remove this information if you have not read every citation in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carter Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably best for you to specify what article you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that this brand-new editor showed up at AN in their first edit to ask a vague question without mentioning the article they're referring to, I have to wonder if we haven't met them before... ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2021 (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.

Automatic filter found potentialy harmfull page

Hello,

i would need some help of what exactly did filter found harmull on the page, i need to publish it asap. So i would need any advice that could be given in the short time notice. Thanks in advance this is the link of the page https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasa_Mirkovic?veswitched=1&veaction=edit&oldid=23650875

I have given it with edit link, since i can not remove it. IT would delete what i wrote... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawnjfk (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Spawnjfk We cannot help you with issues on another language Wikipedia; each language version is its own project with their own editors and policies. You will need to ask the editors on that version for help. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

In case anyone fancies closing some discussions, there is currently quite a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (Disclaimer: this includes an RfC that I started 79 days ago...). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New editor at Ludwig Wittgenstein

I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed with the new, apparently WP:SPA, editor at this article. I don't know if this editor has English as their first language (I suspect possibly not), and I don't want to appear WP:BITEY, or to get into any kind of edit war, but I am struggling to understand this user's extremely long and complicated edit summaries and Talk page posts. And it seems I'm not alone there. Any suggestions or interventions gratefully received. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're talking about Uniquepw? 93.173.224.233 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject generated thoughts which I found difficult to locate within my account pages. I'll just have to use the sandbox to look through sources and write some thoughts down there. The subject seems tragic, so I had problems dealing with the emotional reactions, because of their being a tangential connection of the individual to my self (not a social connection), which disturbed my composure at an objective position of thought, because I felt connected to the individual actually, I couldn't think dispassionately, which created confusion. I have unusually not been sleeping enough and at the correct times for a period recently. I need to sleep now so I'll do that and maybe I won't come back, or will return in an improved state of mind (rather than an impish state of mind). Sorry to disturb the tranquil status quo. i am uniquepw (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User who has not communicated

Spookyh17 (talk · contribs) - They’ve upload some unlicensed images and made unsourced edits. This is not a major problem, but they have not addressed this at all. Or addressed anything in fact. None of their 173 edits have an edit summary, and they have not made a single edit to any talk page or noticeboard. Is there any way to get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@SK2242: I fear they may be using the iOS Wikipedia app, which doesn't show notifications even for logged-in editors. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably the case. Is there a tag for app edits like there is for mobile web edits? SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe so, but I can test if necessary. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Wilkja19

I don't believe this is an app issue as the above user is an iOS app user and it's clearly documented in the edit logs. Slywriter (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh - I learned something new today (that iOS app edits are tagged). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are no Special:Tags at the end of the edit, then the person is using the desktop site (not mobile), in a web browser (not app), in one of the old wikitext editors (not the visual editor, not the 2017 wikitext editor), and probably not using WP:AWB. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably just partial block them from article space with a request that they communicate, starting here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So I blocked indef from article space, to encourage dealing with the Community's concerns/prevent further disruption. As always, any admin can modify or remove as they see fit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Information of a deleted file

Please tell me file information of File:ContrabassoonBrown.jpg (author, date on created, source and licence) if deleted revisions are left. It was copied to pl:Plik:Kontrafagot.jpg and ja:ファイル:Kontrafagot.jpg) but file information is missing. See also pl:Wikipedia:Prośby do administratorów#File information. --本日晴天 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

All it said was:

Contrabassoon

From the polish wikipedia pl:Grafika:Kontrafagot.jpg

They mark it as unverified - source unknown.

El_C 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the mystery is unlikely to be solved. However, as a result it's a reason to delete the file on jawiki. Thank you! --本日晴天 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Scope of 1-way IBAN: Query

As suggested by the admin that has been most recently offering input into my IBAN (for the IBAN itself, see my Talk page); I am asking for a view on exactly what sort of thing your IBan covers, and also in particular concerning what the scope of BANEX point 2 is supposed to be. If anyone thinks the person I am ibanned from should be notified of this discussion, please do so, but I do not believe that to be a required notification that would be allowed in the terms of the ban. I will not be making any mention of that other editor or any of that editor's edits in this discussion, but of course they will be visible in some of the diffs I present; my understanding is that that is evidently covered in Banex point 2 (though the scope of BANEX is the second part of my question).

Since the IBAN was enacted, there have been a few instances - particularly concerning Talk space rather than Article space - where the scope of the one-way IBAN has been unclear. The key phrase of WP:IBAN, as I understand it, is Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other and the key elements that are then noted are to edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions and make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. The first two of these seem fairly straightforward, but two admins that have commented on the third one have had what Girth Summit (GS) called slightly different takes.[44]

For example, El C offered an interpretation, I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits and found no problem with my !vote on an issue. [45] Months later, in response to another inquiry, GS's take was that that same Talk page edit, and others that I had made in the meantime along the same logic, were (inadvertent) infractions [46]. When I asked GS about what I thought was a very cautious contribution, about a passage I had edited in the past, [47] he expressed his view that it was an IBAN violation,[48] so I reverted.[49] However, the interpretation El C had offered, that I could participate in content disputes so long as I did not reply to the other editor, interact with them in discussion or make reference to or comment on their edits, seemed more plausible to me and more in line with the goal of building an encyclopedia. But Girth Summit usually a fairly grounded individual, so I wanted to see what the broader sense from the Admin community actually is.

The other issue that came up was specifically with reference to WP:BANEX point 2, concerning appeals. I tried twice with Girth Summit to appeal to have the 1-way IBAN converted into a 2-way ban (after El C, the original banning admin, gave his affirmative endorsement that it was appropriate to so).[50] The first time I offered a somewhat technical history of the sequence of events leading to and following the ban[51], which he had no problems with under BANEX 2 as far as I could tell, though he did object[52] to my followup comment[53] for reasons I did not understand at the time. After 10 days of additional developments I tried again, contrasting very recent developments with the ban's pre-history. [54] After some back-and-forth for clarification, GS finally got me to understand [55] that in his view, a post under BANEX point 2 can make reference to the editing of the other editor only concerning diffs that were directed at me and my editing in particular, and that identifying patterns connecting an editor's actions directed at me and those directed elsewhere (such as other editors or BLPs) is not allowed, even as part of a clarification or appeal. Is this the general view of the Admin community? I have looked everywhere I could think of, including the archives of this noticeboard, and could not find the basis for any such restriction. BANEX exempts Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum such as appealing the ban. I don't see any documentation relating to what GS called the commonly accepted interpretation that only very restricted evidence is allowed in such appeals. Obviously GS is not going to convert the 1-way ban into a 2-way (nor am I asking for that to be done here), but I would very much like to understand what the scope of my 1-way IBAN actually is.

So my questions are:

• must I avoid entering a talk page discussion in which the editor from whom I have been IBANned has previously commented or !voted (so long as so do not interact with their comment or !vote)?
• must I avoid entering a talk page discussion about newly proposed article text, where some of that text would replace text previously edited by the person from whom I am IBANned (assuming that I do not comment on their contribution or text)?
• in any future appeal made under BANEX, am I restricted to present only diffs that are drawn from direct commentary on me or my edits by the other editor, or can other evidence also be included?

I would appreciate the views of the Admin community on these and any related matters. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC) missing word added Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll just note that my position toward one-way IBANs (editor-to-editor, as opposed to editor-to-uninvolved admin) has largely been that the other party must also adhere to the IBAN as if it were a 2-way one. They just get to not be logged at WP:AEL/WP:RESTRICT (i.e. as being at fault). As I explained to Lilipo25 on several occasions (and to others facing a similar situation, elsewhere), repeated breaches on their part to that effect, are likely to lead to the one-way IBAN being formally converted as a 2-way one (logging, etc.). So, though in a sense an informal prohibition, I still generally view it as a big no-no. Not sure to what extent this is a prevailing practice among other admins, but that's been my approach to one-way IBANs for a long while now. El_C 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Approximately ten minutes ago, I made a mistake and, while saving a report I was writing to this very noticeboard about Newimpartial's repeated violations of this Iban, to my sandbox, accidentally pinged Newimpartial and let them know about it before I could post it here (I did not know that pings saved to my sandbox would be sent, as I rarely use my sandbox, or I would never have put the pings meant for the final report in it. Mea culpa/). Coincidentally, Newimpartial immediately thereafter posted this report first.

Should I go ahead and post my report after this one or add it to this one? i don't know the appropriate protocol here. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, it's probably best that you attach it here as a subsection. But, please, for the love of Gooby, could both of you try to be relatively brief? (Though in the case of Newimpartial, I suppose it's a bit late for that, but for any further follow ups, certainly hoping they keep this in mind.) El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such — just so there's no confusion whether I am making the claim that she did. Possibly, it did happen, but if so, I remain ignorant of it. El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, here it is (and I'm sorry, El C, but it isn't all that brief) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

This makes baby Gooby sad. El_C 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Report from Lilipo25 about Newimpartial's Iban Violations

20 February 2021 at 15:12: While talking to an admin Girth Summit about the last Iban violation by Newimpartial who is currently under an Iban placed by El C and barring contact with me or discussion of me on Wikipedia, I accidentally referred to Newimpartial as "he", after previously using only a neutral "they" (bc I did not know what their gender was): [56]

20 February 2021 at 23:36: Eight hours later, Newimpartial suddenly added to their profile for the first time in their nine years on Wikipedia that they identify as nonbinary and use they/them pronouns [57]

26 February 2021: In the latest violation of their Iban, Newimpartial sent Girth Summit a second request in ten days to place an Iban on me, as well. In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments [58] [59] that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that: [she] has misgendered me ; I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered ; not only has she misgendered me.; As I said previously, I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered.

In the same comments, Newimpartial also made libelous insinuations, with no proof, that I objected to the slur TERF in a source on an article talk page last week because the author is "transmasculine" In a similar vein, she dismissed a peer-reviewed source as misogynist based on nothing besides her own POV, citing its use of a term (TERF) which she called a slur.[8] Meanwhile, according to the balance of academic and non-activist sources, the claim that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here. Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess.

For the record - and since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I will use only UK sources -TERF has been called a "gendered slur like bitch and cunt" by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament, a "pejorative term" by the Standards Commission of Scotland, a "derogatory word primarily aimed at women" by a UK district court judge and "hate speech" by the All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime.

Newimpartial took this even further in that comment, saying that I aim baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).

To my knowledge, Newimpartial is the only editor with whom I have a regular history of interaction who has ever identified themselves as either nonbinary or trans, and they have literally only just done that now.

In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way.

While Girth Summit once again chose not to sanction Newimpartial for these latest breaches of the Iban, he told me that I should bring it up here if I objected. I do, as this breach not only came with slanderous statements of me that are too extreme to ignore, it is also in my opinion at least the sixth breach in the past several weeks.

Girth acknowledges this one and the three others here were all breaches [60] [61] [62] . In addition, Girth acknowledged this one as a breach but gave Newimpartial a pass by saying they might not have realized the content they were discussing was written by me (after being told not to discuss my edits): [63]. Then there was this one, that no one even acknowledged, in which Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C) [64]

I want to be clear that I would not normally make a further complaint after an admin has ruled, and I am not filing a grievance about Girth's response to this situation now. My complaint is solely about Newimpartial's continual breaches of the Iban and their slanderous accusations toward me in this latest one. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add here that although it is only a one-way Iban, I have made it a point not to discuss Newimpartial with anyone except the two admins involved in the Iban when breaches occur or I need to ask if something was a breach. Nor do I reply to any of Newimpartial's comments on the talk pages we both edit, nor do I change any of their edits in articles, nor do I follow their edits on other pages that I myself do not edit and keep track of their interactions with other editors or their opinions on those pages. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications re: Report from Lilipo

Per BANEX, point 2, am I allowed to make factual comments concerning this submission (which, BTW, I received no notice of until after filing my query above?). I will confine any such clarifications to this section Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But what do you mean you received no notice? And, anyway, I am the one who had informed both Lilipo25 and GS of this discussion (diff1, 2). Everybody's aware now, in any case. El_C 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

hat harmless digression

I meant simply that my submission to this board[65] preceded the other user's accidental ping[66] by the better part of an hour. I did not file my query in response to anything the other user was doing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Sure, okay. I'm still slightly confused, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. El_C 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Sorry. My parenthetical comment was alluding to this diff, specifying that in fact I had no idea of the content now posted as the Report from Lilipo25 section at the time I filed my query about IBAN rules. Because of my lack of access to a working time machine. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) It's a subsection of a thread you authored, what do you mean? You feel you ought to have received a notice for that? What am I missing? El_C 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC) BTW, stop stealing my jokes! (diff) Grr. El_C 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications

• Concerning this diff, I received the other editor's ping about 45 minutes after filing my query in this forum.[67]
• Concerning In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that - I never suggested or implied that the misgendering was intentional, Misgendering can be either. My point was that being discussed by third parties, being unable to make even factual comments about that and being misgendered at the same time was a situation to be avoided by a 2-way IBAN. I would also point out that, while my coming out on wiki was recent, most editors avoid misgendering each other by avoiding gendered pronouns AFAIK; until last week I don't think I had ever been misgendered on-wiki.
• Concerning since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I live in Canada; concerning my (quoted) prior comment that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here, "here" originally linked to the discussion of that very topic at TERF#Slur debate.
• The point I was making in that long, quoted passage, in case I was unclear, was that it seems to me a BLP violation to label a living person as a misogynist because they use the term TERF, unless additional evidence or sourcing is provided. I was not invoking the terms of that debate beyond (what I thought was) that simple point. I regard the unattributed use of "TERF" and "misogynist" identically.
• Concerning In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way (emphasis added) - there was no "following" involved in either of my appeals to Girth Summit for a 2-way IBAN [68] [69] - as far as I am aware, all of the diffs I provided are from pages I have had on my list for a long time, though for the second filing they include discussions on those pages in which I was unable to participate because of the IBAN.
• Concerning the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion, I believe this is a reference to this section. I encourage admins to read the linked discussion, but as far as I am aware I observed my IBAN strictly and confined my discussion to the other editor (with whom I had previously interacted repeatedly, beginning on pages my IBAN partner does not edit) and the two admins.
• The statement I made in the previous bullet appears to be confirmed by Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C), where the reference provided points to the same discussion. Again, I encourage interested admin to read this discussion, which concerns a DS topic, the editor whose page it is on, and the two admin, but (at least in my own contributions) does not in any way touch on the editor from whom I am IBANned.

(Any further clarifications will be added as required). Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional clarifications

• Concerning El C's statement that Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such, I would expect that the following statement made by Lilipo would not be covered by BANEX 2, and certainly not without supporting diffs:
• I have no expectation for an immediate solution to what is a very contentious and complicated issue between Newimpartial and I. I have been pushed well beyond exasperated. all the way to disgusted, by over a year of continual baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying and don't feel that my staying inside the rules when they simply will not has done me any good at all thus far.[70]
• My sense therefore is that the conditions of El C's informal prohibition were not in fact maintained, and this seemed to be the view of Girth Summit as well.[71] Also the interaction analysis he offered in the same diff did not find any support for "hounding", nor has any admin ever suggested any gaslighting (or misogyny) on my part. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Concerning being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people[72] - this is not a thing that ever happened in the linked ANI discussion or anywhere else. In fact, I specified in that discussion, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people, and no quotations or diffs have ever offered evidence to the contrary.
• Concerning taunted with the TERF label[73] - this is not a thing that ever happened in my interactions with this editor (or anyone else). The only reference I made to TERFs in that discussion - as any admin can see by checking the link - was I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs, and that was in response to a question raised by Girth Summit concerning my attitude towards violence against TERFs.
• Concerning the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation[74] - that is also not a thing that actually happened, as anyone can verify at the same link. I see now that my first comment on this matter could be misunderstood:

quote from the same link
Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people.

However, I later clarified that the "promoting violence" and "standing idly by" were things the "individuals and organizations" had done, not an accusation against an editor:

another self-quote from the same link

As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources.

So while I understand that my first comment might be confusing, I did clarify, and I certainly made no suggestion that the editor in question was "whitewashing" the incident in question; I stated that they whitewashed the BLP article of an individual who, according to reliable sources, condoned the incident.

• Concerning that ANI in general, I regard it as probably the lowest point in my participation on WP. I recognize that I let my emotions get in the way of clear thinking and writing in that discussion, and I regret the evident distress it caused to my IBAN partner and other editors. For that reason, I was accepting of the "final warning" I was given after that discussion and have not repeated any of the behaviours I showed there in any subsequent on-wiki interaction, to the best of my knowledge. (It is largely for this reason that accusations of baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying seem so profoundly inaccurate when applied to the period since July 2020, while "gaslighting" and "hounding", like "misogyny", represent things I have never done.)

• Concerning The addendums upon addendums and Bilorv's statement about a comment I made a year ago are clearly intended to provide distractions - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but having reviewed this discussion I don't see anywhere that I have referred to said April discussion on this page, at all. My Bilorv section refers only to my filings with Girth Summit, appealing for the 1-way ban to be converted to 2-way.

• Concerning the black trans man in question had just stabbed to death a black youth, after declaring their own intention to commit 'suicide by cop' in a posted Facebook video, to avoid going back to prison. The subject had worked with the victim's family and expressed no sympathy for his killer - none of that changes the point that I made in the ANI discussion, that the BLP subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man, as reported in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications re: the Bilorv section

• Concerning accusing me of transphobia against "both a "transmasculine writer"[75] - I have never accused any editor of transphobia; what I actually said in my filing was Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess[76] - a statement made entirely without irony, and supported by the relevant diff.
• Concerning accusing me of specifically targeting "trans and nonbinary users"[77] - well, I didn't do that, either. What I said was, I have listed these ... to document the pattern of baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).[78] The examples for which I provided diffs in that filing included four instances where the labels "misogynist", "anti-lesbian" and/or "bigoted against lesbians" were used (never with evidential support), of which three concerned trans or nonbinary people (or publications associated with trans or nonbinary people). But I never alleged targeting "trans or nonbinary users"; I simply observed what often, though not always happened, providing the relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications re: the El C section

• Concerning Newimpartial had the opportunity then to show El C the comment - as, indeed, they showed El C many other comments of mine that they deemed important in opposing the original Iban - actually, I would not say that I "opposed the original ban" - I questioned El C's interpretation of the immediate sequence of events producing it, and I asked to make it voluntary rather than Admin-enforced, but I did not "oppose" it in the sense in which this month I appealed to Girth Summit to have it converted to 2-way.
• Also, I had drawn that April diff to Girth Summit's attention earlier in July, and may have felt that having posted it twice to the Talk pages of two different Admins, it wasn't something the Admin community considered actionable (I don't really remember).
• Concerning Newimpartial ... has continued their same abuse and slander of me with no deference to (the IBAN) - I don't believe that this comment is either true or CIVIL, and in any event no diffs supporting abuse or slander relating to the period of the IBAN have been presented, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo's Responses to Clarifications:

• Since Newimpartial did not notify me when they opened this discussion (most likely in deference to the Iban), I didn't receive notification of it until El C left a message on my Talk Page, which was after I accidentally 'pinged' El C, Girth Summit and Newimpartial from my sandbox and let them know I was writing a report. I accept Newimpartial's explanation that they in fact posted this report before being notified of mine.
• My accidental use of the pronoun "he" would not have been avoided by a Two-way Iban. I was speaking to GirthSummit, the admin currently in charge of the Iban, at the time about one of Newimpartial's Iban breaches. This would have been taking place whether or not I was under an Iban at the time or not. Furthermore, Newimpartial's very strident, repeated claim that I 'misgendered' them was at no time accompanied by any disclaimer that I could not have known their pronouns (as they did not add them to their bio until hours later). It stretches credibility to claim they were not attempting to make it seem I had done it deliberately.
• Sorry, I always thought Newimpartial was in the UK. I did not realize we were both Canucks. I could have used North American sources (and still can, if anyone's interested), but at any rate, it is considered an offensive term by both many people and many official organizations, and is not, as they claimed, believed to be neutral by "academic and non-activist sources", nor is the belief that it is offensive based on merely my POV as stated (and I don't think there are any official bodies or even academic papers, anywhere, that call the word "misogynist" a slur). None of that really matters, tbh, because my objection to that term in a talk page discussion of an article has nothing to do with Newimpartial's Iban and should never have been taken to an admin by them in a bid to get a two-way Iban placed on me.
• In at least one instance in the past week (the last diff in my comment above), Newimpartial came to a page where they had not been editing (the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion), opened a new section and began offering advice to the other user on how to deal with the issue at hand, which had nothing at all to do with them. It is difficult to see how that doesn't constitute 'following', but even if they had not done that, keeping track of my edits with which they are not involved to report them to admins is, at best, seriously pushing the limits of an Iban. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The only thing I have to clarify from Newimpartial's addendums is that the conversation that they joined on the other user's page did not start there - it started on my Talk page here, between me and the other user, we then asked Girth to mediate there, and it continued there until Girth moved it to the other user's page while I was asleep later that night (as I am in a time zone some hours behind the other participants) [79].
• I keep thinking I'm done adding things (and I would really like to be) but then more is added by Newimpartial to widen the scope of this just a bit more and I feel I have to respond. I have no idea if any admin has ever used those particular words to describe them, but I will stand my description of what the last year of dealing with this user has been like for me. I am genuinely reluctant to rehash more old drama and had hoped we could just stick to the Iban and yesterday's accusations, but since they have widened the scope to include that description, I now feel that I have no choice but to point out why I have reached the point of complete exasperation with these tactics from Newimpartial, and with one violation of the Iban after another.
  • I could pull up a dozen more gifs here but suspect that would send El C and Gooby over the edge completely, so I will pick one discussion that demonstrates all of those descriptions in one microcosm: the last ANI Newimpartial and I were in together [80].
    • I'm not going to pretend I behaved perfectly there, but If being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people because I had said nothing about violence against trans people in discussions that had nothing whatsoever to do with that topic - then taunted with the TERF label to make a "declaration" disavowing the violence I had never even suggested - isn't baiting, bullying and gaslighting, I don't know what is. And that was even before the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation. If you can tell me that you could put up with that kind of thing over the course of a year and not be disgusted, too, you are a far better person than I. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• This section is now so long from Newimpartial's addendums upon addendums upon addendums that it took me five minutes to find the Edit link for this part.
• It obviously stretches the limits of credibility to suggest that they said Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess "without irony" - especially since they already KNOW that the reason I said the ARTICLE was misogynistic was the repeated use of the gendered slur TERF including the quote that was included in the reference: "TERFS are not feminists" I have already pointed this out in earlier diffs. Newimpartial falsely implied that my problem was that the writer was "transmasculine" (I don't mean to sound foolish, but I'm not actually sure what that term means, or if I even knew anything about their gender status at that time). Newimpartial knew my objection was to the slur and implied otherwise.
• Claiming that it violates some rule for me to be of the opinion that Pink News' articles are frequently anti-lesbian and misogynistic - which they very much are - is nonsensical. I have every right to my opinion of that source and to express it and it doesn't violate policy just because Newimpartial disagrees.
  • Newimpartial takes every opportunity they can to call Living Persons whose articles they are editing "anti-transgender", so I am at a complete loss why they keep insisting that it is some sort of violation for me to have the same opinion about anti-lesbian sources or people who have made anti-lesbian and anti-female comments. Why are women and lesbians less worthy of fair sources and decent treatment than trans people? And I would really like to know what in the world my personal opinion of Pink News' bias has to do with their Iban, anyway? Lilipo25 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• I believe that I have shown very clearly that Newimpartial not only violated their Iban six times in the last few weeks to continue harassing me, but repeatedly made extremely egregious and slanderous accusations about me with no proof whatsoever, even after being told repeatedly to stop by admins, and continue doing so right up until this report was filed. The addendums upon addendums and Bilorv's statement about a comment I made a year ago are clearly intended to provide distractions from that (Bilorv is in fact, along with Newimpartial, one of four editors who have long been a group on one side on the Graham Linehan article where we all edit very contentiously, despite their claim that they are a disinterested party and on no one's side) .
• The last response I will hopefully have to make (and I hope admins will just rule before this endless thread gets any longer) is that for those who did not check that last ANI (and I know most won't have wanted to take on another after reading through this slog), the BLP I created which Newimpartial claimed was about someone who "applauded the police murder of a black trans man" was in fact about a gay rights pioneer behind the first Pride, and the black trans man in question had just stabbed to death a black youth, after declaring their own intention to commit 'suicide by cop' in a posted Facebook video, to avoid going back to prison. The subject had worked with the victim's family and expressed no sympathy for his killer. That's the kind of twisting of facts to represent me in a horrible light that I have been subjected to repeatedly by Newimpartial. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Concerning this reply from Newimpartial: this is obviously false, as I provided numerous instances AND diffs of the abuse and slander in the original Report of Newimpartial's Iban Violations farther up this thread. Saying it is not CIVIL for me to point out when they have made such false allegations against me while under an Iban is nonsensical.

Concerning Newimpartial ... has continued their same abuse and slander of me with no deference to (the IBAN) - I don't believe that this comment is either true or CIVIL, and in any event no diffs supporting abuse or slander relating to the period of the IBAN have been presented, AFAICT.

Comments by Bilorv

I'm sorry to see this report here and have no doubt that it will not be properly dealt with because these walls of text are impenetrable to uninvolved users, despite El C's request for brevity. I think it's clear that this one-way IBAN needs to be extended to a two-way IBAN and that both participants should be given a final warning after which any sort of reference to the other participant should lead to blocks of escalating lengths. I'm not convinced that there should be any exception to this rule at all even under the premise of "clarifying the IBAN" as Lilipo25 has used this opportunity to make negative implications about a user's disclosure of gender identity and make a wrongful claim of libel which could reasonably be taken as a legal threat, while Newimpartial has made misleading descriptions of Lilipo25's actions in IBAN-related "clarifications". Possibly it could be said that they are permitted to make exactly one edit when they think there has been a breach in which they could inform an uninvolved admin with a cookie cutter wording I believe this edit [link] is a violation of an IBAN described here [link]; could you please investigate? and then not reply further or raise the issue again (including if the admin chooses not to take action). I don't know why this wasn't a two-way IBAN in the first place when it was April 2020 that Lilipo25 said of Newimpartial and another editor: [another editor and Newimpartial] don't think of women as actual people like all misogynists, [...] you've done it for the same reason all misogynists bully and degrade women: the personal sense of power it gives you [...] [Newimpartial and another editor] enjoy smacking a woman into place and telling her it's good for her [81]. This would warrant an WP:NPA 31-hour block were it recent. I should note that I've frequently disagreed with both users before, as I'm sure they would be quick to point out, so this is just a comment by someone who sees both of these usernames everywhere in his watchlist. — Bilorv (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Eep. Though my memory of July 2020 is hazy, I highly doubt I would have made it a one-way IBAN had I been made aware of that. Will convert to a 2-way IBAN with immediate effect. Off I go to amend the log. Thank you, Bilorv, for the much needed cogency. El_C 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

El C I have no intention of contesting the two-way Iban, even if it's over a comment from year ago and I've gotten far worse since (and even if Bilorv has represented themselves as an uninterested party, and not one of the group of four editors who is routinely on the other side from me in the Graham Linehan article, the only article (I believe) we all edit - very contentiously - together. The two-way ban is fine by me. I still want action taken on the six Iban violations AND on the other user's egregious and repeated slander of me yesterday, in direct violation of having been told at the last ANI to stop making those same remarks to me. Let me point out that I have not repeated my violation to them in a YEAR. They repeated theirs to me (accusing me of transphobia against "both a "transmasculine writer" AND falsely accusing me of specifically targeting "trans and nonbinary users") - with no proof on either count - YESTERDAY. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, that attack happened in April whereas I imposed the one-way iban in July. Me converting it to 2-way has to do with the fact that had I known about it (which I didn't, I checked), I would not have formulated it as one-way. But, as far I am concerned, this is likely my last action relating to the dispute between you two. Again, for reasons which are my own, I do not wish to engage it further at this time (outside of whatever clarifications are sought from me about it). El_C 03:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you do keep saying that. Whatever your reasons are, best of luck. The Iban change will make no difference to me since you had already specified that we had to act like we were under a two-way ban even when we weren't, so I already was.

I will state again that I have not repeated that violation in a year, despite no admins ever telling me not to, while they continue to repeat the exact same egregious violations against me over and over, right to the current day despite being told by multiple admins not to and being warned multiple times that it was in violation of the Iban. And that should not be given yet another pass. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

[Wow, it seems that every time I'm about to submit a response to one of your comments, I edit conflict to see it double in size. Oh well.] Well, you've pinged me three times today to three different pages about this, so I really don't feel too bad for repeating that a second time. Also, no luck required. Doing nothing is a breeze. El_C 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Girth Summit

I'm not going to attempt to address everything in this exceedingly long thread. The one-way IBan has been converted into a 2-way IBan, which is what Newimpartial wanted, and which Lilipo25 says is fine by her, so that's all good. To go back to Newimpartial's original post, they ask a few questions which are fine in and of themselves, but which do not in my view get to the heart of the reasons I believe that they had been in violation of their IBan. Specifically:

• If EditorA has an IBan with EditorB, I don't think it appropriate for EditorA to comment on a talk page thread started by EditorB concerning some changes that EditorB wants to make to an article.
• If EditorC starts a talk page thread which exclusively concerns changes to content that EditorB has written, and there follows a lengthy discussion between EditorC and EditorB, I don't think it appropriate for EditorA to comment on that thread.
• If EditorA thinks that EditorB has breached the Iban, they may report that breach in a limited factual statement. They should not report stuff that has nothing to do with an IBan however, like failure to assume good faith with third parties. Apart from obvious vandalism, they should not be making reports about EditorB's behaviour at all, and should leave that to other editors.

Now that it's a two-way ban, I'd expect both editors to abide by these restrictions; if I'm out of step with the community on the boundaries of an IBan, I will be happy to be set right. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed your prior interaction analysis between the two of us, I see no examples where I have participated in discussions covered by the first bullet corrected; see my reply below. Concerning the second bullet, you and I have previously disagreed about whether a section to which I contributed, then reverted, earlier this month exclusively concerns changes to content that EditorB has written[82],and I have no intention of repeating that argument.

But there remain two other examples of the second bullet that I think are worth considering, beginning with the original one where your take differed from that of El C, as described above. In that instance, I offered +1s on two occasions, first in response to the following comment:

first comment endorsed
I'm concerned with including anything that has been mentioned in reliable sources and removing anything that has not been mentioned in reliable sources (or anything covered only in sources that do not mention Linehan by name).[83]

and later (after El C's "ruling"), in response to a second comment:

second comment endorsed

I've re-added the second PinkNews source with the briefest description I can manage, given the following: the first sentence has remained in the article after much discussion and a weak consensus (I don't buy "4:2:2" because this isn't a vote but it seems there is more argumentation in favour of inclusion); the incident isn't really "complete" without mentioning that the account was banned and (according to Linehan) replaced; and we want (i.e. have a stronger consensus) to keep this material to a sentence (which I've accomplished with a cheeky semi-colon).[84]

The text of my two endorsements was, Exactly my view and This compromise seems reasonable to me.

In the other case (which occurred after I read El C's take and before you offered yours), the original post pointed to an edit by my IBAN partner:

comment reacted to

How do we feel about this edit? I was thinking about partially reverting it as it removes several references but I wasn't sure how much to restore or how best to do it. Maybe it was somewhat overcited before but the references seem valid and the removal seems overdone. Maybe we want some of those references back? Maybe they should be moved into the body and out of the intro? What do we think is best?[85]

And I responded, I still think, without infringing on my IBAN: My own preference in such cases generally is to have abundant references in the body rather than the lede. The caveat I would offer in this case is that if most of the available RS agree with a certain characterization, then it would be UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE to exclude them as redundant, since it could affect the reader's perception of the available sourcing.[86] I don't see any "interaction" there, nor any commentary on the other editor or their edits: even reading this weeks later, it still seems to comply with both policy and the pillars.

And that, aside from my failed appeals for a 2-way (to which the third bullet relates), is all of the "interaction" on my part, AFAICT. So I still find El C's view that IBANed users are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits to be a more plausible interpretation of WP:IBAN's prohibition to interact with each other and make reference to or comment on each other than a section-level ban based on the content of the opening post or what else had been said in the section, so long as the editor does not, in fact, comment on their IBAN partner or their IBAN partner's editing. Certainly in terms of the goal of building an encyclopedia, this makes more sense to me, but I would still very much like to hear what other admin think on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) corrected Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise for you and me to get into a back and forth on this if we ever hope to get other people's views. Briefly, therefore, this is the edit you made which I felt was covered by my first bullet. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Girth Summit; I thought I had been exhaustive, but evidently I missed the link to that thread (which was in your different take diff I cited above). I am not at all sure whether I even recognized when I wrote that, that the section was opened by my IBAN partner. The comment I was replying to was this:

comment replied to

No, The Independent does not quote one person, it quotes at least two, as evidence of its perceived anti-trans stance. Your reading of The Scotsman is totally bizarre. The "but" is referencing the two-paragraphs-earlier self-description; the rest of the sentence refers to the above paragraph. Whether TSP's proposed wording is accurate or not is not the point of my comment—just that yours definitely isn't. And, of course, it is quite convenient that the sources that you removed from the page support TSP's wording that you are now challenging, like this.

And the "your" referred to in that comment was my IBAN partner. But my comment was this: That PinkNews piece certainly adds weight to Avery Edison's view that the LGB alliance is transphobic by commission and not simply by omission. On the other hand she is neither an organization nor a politician, AFAIK, so that source in itself doesn't support TSP's proposed language (TSP being the editor whose proposal was under discussion). Once again, I do not see any "interaction" there with the person from whom I was IBANned (and again this was in the period when the latest instructions I had were those from El C, referenced above). So it still seems to me that the actual comment I made followed both the letter and the intent of WP:IBAN, although it certainly does run afoul of your first bullet, Girth Summit. I hope the specific examples encourage, rather than discouraging, other admins to comment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

First, I have now converted the original July one-way IBAN to 2-way (AEL diff), with a note that any non-fault implications have been rescinded. I've done so per Bilorv (credits ping) revelations of Lilipo25's egregious attack of Newimpartial on April 15 (diff). Had I been made aware of it back then, I never would have gone with a one-way IBAN later in July.

Note that Newimpartial had said to me yesterday [on my talk page]: but I did mention the April attack already back in April on your talk page. And I was, like: no, you didn't, I just checked my talk page archives and there's nothing of the sort there. But, they did mention it, in fact (diff). Well, long story less long, it turns out that on April 19, while I slept, Lilipo25 posted a complaint on my talk page (diff), but after a heated exchange with Newimpartial, ended up removing the entire section, along with both of their comments (diff).

So, again, until yesterday I was none the wiser about any of it. The April 15 attack —which I likely would have sanctioned Lilipo25 for at the time, even when finding about it 4 days after the fact— the April 19 exchange on my talk page. Neither of these. I'll spare linking to where this was discussed on my talk page yesterday between Newimpartial and myself (easy to find, in any case), as it basically just involves our lengthy trial-and-error process whereupon we ended discovering what actually was what. But I will provide a permanent link to my discussion about it with Lilipo25 (after myself and Newimpartial had concluded). Not to jinx it, but... //Out (For real this time, hopefully — gods of chance: please have mercy! I tremble before thy wrath.) El_C 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

All I can to this is that the comment I made a year ago in a very heated exchange with Newimpartial was inappropriate and I do regret it. It's why I haven't repeated it for a year, despite no admin telling me not to and despite Newimpartial continuing to post the same abusive accusations to me over and over throughout that year, even though they've been told by numerous admins to stop.

As for the removal of the complaint I made against Newimpartial on El C's talk page: I apparently decided I wasn't up to yet another war with Newimpartial at that time and removed the whole complaint (I don't actually remember any of this as it was some time ago), but obviously shouldn't have taken out their replies with it. However, Newimpartial was very aware that I removed that whole complaint - they were watching the page and replying back and forth with me - and did not either report it to El C or repost that comment.

More importantly, the Iban was in fact placed several months later after more exchanges between us on El C's page. Newimpartial had the opportunity then to show El C the comment - as, indeed, they showed El C many other comments of mine that they deemed important in opposing the original Iban - and again, did not, even knowing the complaint where they had sent it to El C months earlier had been deleted.

I have stated that I am fine with a two-way ban and I am, as it changes nothing from my end. El C had already told us to act like it was a two-way ban so I was. My only concern is that Newimpartial has not abided by the ban (six breaches in the past few weeks alone) and has continued their same abuse and slander of me with no deference to it. There is no reason at all to believe this is going to stop at any point, as they never receive any consequence for it, no matter how many 'final' warnings they've been given. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who is completely disenheartened at the idea of trying to parse this entire section: A 2-way is o much simpler. I would be happy to just block someone for violating their I-ban when I know it doesn't matter if the other person has been unfairly baiting them. I can frickin' just block that person too. —valereee (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Complaint

• Let's face it, this thing is now so long, there's no chance anyone will ever be willing to read through it sufficiently to give a fair opinion or decision. At any rate, as I posted on my talk page yesterday [87], I have been threatened by an admin (Newslinger) with whom I disagreed about a source on the RS page that they would share a 'report' they say contains personal information about me and that was emailed to them from another editor seven months ago (although they did nothing with it until the first time I disagreed with them yesterday, when they opened an SPI against me [88]).

• Newslinger wouldn't tell me at first what kind of "personal information" was in this report, making me physically ill with fear. I am a radical feminist, and radfems are frequently doxxed and threatened with everything from rape to death by people who don't agree with our opinions, so keeping my anonymity is paramount. After I posted that I would leave Wikipedia as soon as the SPI was done in order to keep my personal information from getting out, Newslinger finally posted that the report they had was only about twitter postings, but now they claim they have received a second email report with secret information about me from another editor and I don't know what's in that one, so I once again feel sick. Newslinger has closed the SPI before it was ever actually acted upon, and so for my own safety, I will now retire from Wikipedia, effective immediately. It's a horrible way to end two years of editing. Regardless, I now withdraw my complaint against Newimpartial. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Lilipo25, I am sorry that my filing of the sockpuppet investigation had caused you distress. The report has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee, whose function is to "oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite", and which will handle the case from here on. For the avoidance of doubt, the only "personal information" in the report is content from social media that constitutes off-wiki canvassing (meatpuppetry) in the gender and sexuality topic area. — Newslinger talk 08:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Request topic ban for User:Asad29591

Asad29591 joined in September 2020 and has been POV-pushing (In this sock investigation GeneralNotability said the user is "certainly" POV-pushing, "but that should be addressed in other fora"). Edits are supporting his religious beliefs (See Orthodox Baháʼí Faith and Baháʼí divisions for background), which is fine, but edits have been far from adhering to policy. I recommended reviewing policy on his talk page in September and October.

I've brought policies to his attention and repeatedly asked him to review NPOV (See here, here, here, and many edit summaries). His responses have been incoherent and kind of belligerent. On January 15 he asked the teahouse for advise: "I have noticed that my edits are being reverted by a editor without giving me a valid reason for the same." and that the editor (me) was trying to "supress my my point".

He typically edits every day or two. I have reverted most of his edits. I think he honestly believes he is in the right and being persecuted (an honest review of histories and talk pages will reveal he is not). It has not really bothered me because of the infrequent editing, but I think the edit warring and months of inability to improve deserves a topic ban for maybe a month. Editing pages unrelated to his beliefs could improve the quality of his contributions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP: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.

---

There is a backlog of 25+ requests at WP:RFPP. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Woody and Ritchie. For the record, the statement "There is a backlog at RFPP" is pretty much a tautology (that might be a good thing, because a few hours to see if things continue is not a bad thing). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 4 March 2021 (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.

Clear bias from the Praxidicae and Izno

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 fact that I have been singled out and blocked as a result of edit warring, which I admit to, by Praxidicae when others have exceeded well over three revert limits and escaped even a warning, is disgusting. The following users all made far more that three reverts during the edit warring and haven't even been warned; User:WikiFlame50 (9 edits), User:DarkGlow (7 edits) and User:RM-Taylor (6 edits). WikiFlame50 actually enlisted RM-Taylor to join in the war on their behalf, and then began removing information that I had posted from RM-Taylor's talk page. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am completely biased against editors who revert other people 32 times on articles about shitty soap operas. Block me. CUPIDICAE💕 00:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

PS, hot take bro. I'm not an admin. That evil admin Izno blocked you. You're lucky it wasn't indefinite but since you insist on digging this hole, I'd like to propose an indefinite block given this user has edit warred across a variety of articles and 32. 32 reverts. It's insanely disruptive and this editor doesn't appear to get it. CUPIDICAE💕 00:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Readers will be interested in User talk:Connorguy99#March 2021 2 and WP:AN3#User:Connorguy99 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial blocked 48h) for background to this complaint. --Izno (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You can try to demean people all you like by calling it a "shitty soap opera", but others would demean how upset you are over a handful of edits. Now that a rather foul-mouthed confession has been offered, I want to know what is going to be done about this bias. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Added User:Izno to this complaint. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Connorguy99: you appear to have been edit warring on that article for several days. Think yourself lucky you only have a 48 hour partial block from it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I lost count of the reverts you made - you're lucky not to be fully blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, I am not entirely convinced it's a good idea for someone who, by my quick count, has reverted 47 times on List of EastEnders characters and Ian Beale in the last few hours, to be opening a discussion on an admin noticeboard about a 48 hour partial block being unfair, but *shrug* Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Almost an hour of blocking for every revert... – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I firmly believe no action should be taken against these users for “bias” as they only fulfilled responsibility in fixing a dire situation. WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DarkGlow you are nearly at double digits if you consider your reverts from both pages, and WikiFlame50 you are in the 20s! And WikiFlame50 encouraged a friend to help him spam revert, so I consider their friend's reverts as their burden too - bringing them close to 30 reverts. Yet only I am warned? Connorguy99 (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you should have been reported for edit warring a long time ago,and received a lengthy block. Bluster isn't a valid defense. The discussion is closed for your own good. Drop it. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2021 (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.

Ban removal request of Bus stop

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.

---

As a courtesy, I am posting below a statement from Bus stop from UTRS in which they request their ban to be removed. I make no endorsement in doing so and have no views on the matter. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Einstein_and_Jewishness I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Wikipedia. Thank you. User:Bus stop— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

Relevant UTRS. SQL^{Query me!} 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• After their November 2020 AP2 topic ban: "My commitment of course is not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future." After their September 2019 ban from AN: "I commit to no more bludgeoning." Fool me once, fool me twice, but three times? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Bludgeon in excelsis. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose removing site ban - The site ban was only imposed on 19 February . It's much too soon for any consideration of removing the ban. They should come back a minimum of six months from now. If they file another request before then, the community should consider formally imposing a time limit of 1 year before they are eligible for re-instatement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Performance art? Is that quote real: did Bus stop really continue banging on about Einstein and Jewishness? Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason why we should believe that Bus stop would be capable of avoiding bludgeoning.Doug Weller talk 09:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - from reading all the information about this case I see no reason to believe that Bus stop can be trusted to cease their disruption/bludgeoning so soon after being banned. I agree with BMK, come back in six months and take up the standard offer. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lift a ban on someone whose response to a discussion about their bludgeoning was to escalate the bludgeoning in the discussion about the bludgeoning to the extent that they had to be blocked from taking any further part in it? And after two previous promises to stop bludgeoning following two previous (and relatively recent) topic bans? And after exhibiting exactly the same behaviour for years without any sign of any willingness or ability to stop? No, Bus stop really needs to learn that there are serious consequences to continuing with this obsessive and disruptive behaviour, and lifting the ban after yet another "Sorry, I won't do it again" will not achieve that. I think we'd need an absolute minimum of the six-month SO period to let the consequences properly sink in. (Oh, and making this request so soon after the ban shows serious bad judgment, in my view, and suggests a failure to reflect properly). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Asking for a removal of the ban not even 2 weeks after it's implemented? Way too soon, I would agree with BMK about the 6 month wait. My other concern would be that they already have had 2 ban for this same beahvior. It hasn't changed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• While I'm not concerned people here are going to unban Bus Stop, it's worth stating for the record that this user has sent ArbCom roughly a dozen emails about the block, sometimes two or more a day, demonstrating a complete lack of clue (especially when they wonder why they're getting blocked for spamming from the system when they're spamming the system.) Any declaration that they have learned the meaning of bludgeon should be taken with little faith when their actions demonstrate the opposite. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and as per Beyond My Ken, a minimum of six months before we'll consider an unblock, extending to a year if they violate this restriction. That would apply across all media; UTRS, ArbCom, etc. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose we've heard this story before several times. Take your time off, spend six months not socking or doing anything else and then come back and resubmit under standard offer. Request then would still need to be more convincing than the repeated I won't do it again. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Six months is the absolute minimum. It's clear they haven't learnt anything yet about why they were banned.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only a 6 month minimum as suggested, but the request per OTRS is just more example of what got Bus Stop banned in the first place in terms of a combination of bludgeoning, IDHT, and seemingly not having a clue about the reasoning for the ban. --Masem (t) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• thanks, @331dot:, for making this unban request possible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• comment Wait, multi ArbCom appeals of a CBAN for bludgeoning, saying "I won't bludgeon"? Okey dokey. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The Einstein page wasn't even the problem, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. It is too soon, there is no indication that the behavior has been corrected, etc. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because Bus stop has several times committed to no more bludgeoning, per GorillaWarfare and others above. He sounds convincing now and sounded convincing then, and I do think he meant it all three times — meant it in the moment — but it's getting more and more difficult to believe the bludgeoning will actually stop. Also, asking after a mere two weeks is a little ridiculous, as many have pointed out. Bishonen | tålk 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose because I agree with every comment above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the block/ban of Bus Stop was correct. If you look at their history, they used to be a constructive article-space contributor. However the current history shows they mainly edit talk pages, for what I would characterize as argumentative entertainment purposes. They are the master of discussion bludgeoning, with many past apologies followed by more bludgeoning. Rinse, repeat.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Bemused. Hard to describe the feeling I got when I looked at my watchlist for the first time in over a week, and Bus stop was at AN again. It seems like a very Wikipedia-style thing to do: look at a thread, see that 17 people have opposed something and none have supported it, and feel oddly compelled to add an additional oppose anyway. I'd close this early - in spite of the sinking feeling that some rule somewhere says it needs to stay open X hours - in order to save the 18th thru 50th Wikipedians from themselves, but someone would likely revert because of The Rules, and then even more time would be wasted arguing about that. So I'd like to gently suggest that no further comment is needed here unless someone supports lifting the ban. I'll start it off, and avoid the impulse to pile on, by summoning all my will power and not casting a vote. Though the impulse to pontificate was harder to resist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Bus stop's IDHT is frankly comical. He really doesn't get it does he? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (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.

Problem with editor (Vandalism + Calling everything "right wing propaganda")

Boomerang TBAN from American politics. Collapse as courtesy — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a problem with @Fram:, who is determined to prevent the creation of an article called "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" and called it "Right-wing propaganda article" in an edit summary. What happened in order: -I created the article with 3 RS (NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal) + Fox News article which isn't considered RS. -I add it to Portal:Current Events since it was gaining mention on a lot more RS (will mention later). -I add more information which included an ABC article (Considered RS) -Fram moves it to draft state with the edit summary "Extreme POV / slanted article (and title)". -I move it back to article space as the article being moved had no discussion and was messing up the format on the Portal:Current events. -I started a discussion on Fram's talk page to talk and ask why he thought it was slanted with RS from both political sides. See User talk:Fram#Question to why you move article to draft. -Fram reverts my edit on the Portal:Current events with no edit summary. -I revert his edit back on the Portal due to no edit summary. -Fram moves it to a draft with the edit summary of "Right-wing propaganda article". Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing". -I move it back to article space. -Fram reverts my edit on the portal with the edit summary of "Article is in draft space as a NPOV violation" -I add a vandalism warning to his talk page (level 2). -Fram removes the vandalism warning from his talk page with the edit summary of "Removing Fake Warning". -Fram warns me on my talk page (see User talk:Elijahandskip#WP:NPOV]]). -I message him that it isn't "right wing propaganda" as multiple RS are reporting on it. -The article is back in draft state & removed from the Current event portal. -I start the admin board. With all the moving and stuff, I can't link every single change, so here is a list of the places for it. [89] , [90], [91], [92], [93]. Need an admin to solve this problem ASAP. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I honestly really don't care too much about the article now, but I am concerned with the edit summary "Right wing propaganda" as it made headlines in tons of RS. A google search of "Dr. Seuss Cancelled" brings dozens of news articles from the RS (Both political parties and AP News, which is basically neutral). That is a big red-flag for me. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Just a brief word from an uninvolved onlooker--while this has certainly received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, framing it as "cancellation of Dr. Seuss" strikes me as not the most neutral choice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Dumuzid Yeah, in hindsight, I see that. The adminboard isn't for the article problems. I am more concerned that an editor is calling all RS "right-wing propaganda". Depending on this noticeboard (Basically if the topic isn't perm blocked) I will work on creating a 100% NPOV draft article to move to article space. Still thinking about the title, but in the current state, I am honestly worried about any new draft just being speedy deleted by Fram due to the crazy edit summaries he is doing. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) It probably belongs in the main Seuss article, with "cancelled" attributed as someone's opinion (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:YESPOV), —PaleoNeonate – 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC) When you create an article with a title making a claim only used in Fox News + an opinion piece in the WSJ, and with the first line a BLP violation against Joe Biden sourced only to Fox News, then you shouldn't complain that your article gets moved to draft space or is considered right wing propaganda. Claiming here that "Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing"." is rather disingenious: you used Fox News to attack Biden, you don't deny that Fox News is (very) right wing, you just deny that it is a RS. Fine, but then why use it? If you agree that Fox News isn't a RS, then you shouldn't have started this AN discussion (or tried repeatedly to get the page in the mainspace and in the Portal Current Events), but should have replied with an indication that you would drop the unreliable POV source and edit the draft article accordingly. Fram (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Note that the same editor just a few days ago had to delete their article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Biden Agenda. There seems to be some common theme here. Fram (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Fram:, so you are saying that because of a Fox News article and opinion piece, you called the other RS "right wing propaganda"? Also the other article is irrelevant in this discussion. This is about you and me fighting in this article and you calling AP News "right wing propaganda". This topic is notable and is slanted just due to the nature of it. I will rework the draft article excluding those 2 sources as I have 5 RS still. If we have a problem again, I will go higher... Elijahandskip (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Where did I say that all sources in that article were right wing? What I said was that the article you wrote was a right-wing propaganda piece, mixing some neutral sources about one event (the publishers decision to stop printing some of Seuss' books) with severely biased ones, deciding to present the POV of those latter sources as the basis for your title and for the rather inflammatory start of the article (a start which wasn't supported in any of the RS). So yes, I stand by my opinion that you created a right-wing propaganda piece where you added some RS to give your BLP violation / attack piece an air of legitimacy. Fram (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (ec)And looking at their created articles, I note the following deleted ones; Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, Bidenism, Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer, Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. Perhaps it's time to think of a post-1992 US politics ban? Fram (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) They seem to like the "sensationalist" article titles, they created Assassination of Luca Attanasio ignoring an ongoing discussion of the use Assassination too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Agreed. And there's quite a bit of rhetoric in their editing history about Wikipedia being biased against the truth, which is not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Fram: & @Joseph2302:, I withdraw my adminboard notice about Fram. There is no reason to go to a ban on post 1992 topics. All I do on Wikipedia is help improve current event topics. Back in April 2020, I helped revive the WikiProject of Current Events from years of hibernation. I understand that I caused problems in the past with those topics and I got warned for those topics along with other editors. I only want to help improve Wikipedia and I really enjoy understanding Current events. So please, let us forget this happened, move on, and continue improving Wikipedia for the better. I promise to not try and create any drafts or articles about the Dr. Seuss issue, but instead, will use RS to help improve articles. I really am sorry for problems I cause on Wikipedia. I just think differently than most people, but I still want to help improve Wikipedia for the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I'd agree with a TBAN from post-1992 politics. This is the same user who has a history of naming Wikipedia editors on his personal blog (which he only stopped after two discussions and significant admin pressure), maintained links to sketchy sites on his userpage (taking down the one to Breitbart again only after admin pressure), and has set up his own alternative Wikipedia where his deleted articles have gone to live. I don't have the sense that there's much potential here for NPOV editing of American political issues. For a relatively new user, he's already generated quite a bit of timesink. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Please no. I really am sorry. I will take a break from editing Wikipedia and will come back and I promise that I will edit with NPOV. Current events is why I edit Wikipedia. Please, give me another chance and I promise I will not disappoint. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I've been concerned about Elijahandskip's judgement in US politics related topics since I first came across a bizarrely formatted RfC at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, in the course of which Elijahandskip criticised editors by name in their off-wiki blog. Elijahandskip then added to me to a list of editors on their user page who "who show a strong biased on a talk page or edit summary have a potential to have edit wars with Elijahandskip", presumably based on the fact that I (along with others) advised them to remove the blog post. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden I voiced my concern, also later expressed by another editor, that adding the article (which was eventually deleted as being factually incorrect/misleading) to the current affairs portal, driving up views to the page, was a serious misjudgement that might border on advocacy. Elijahandskip dismissed my "accusation" as invalid because "we have had problems in the past" and demanded an apology. I can't speak about their contributions outside of political topics, but within US politics I don't believe Elijahandskip has the required competence to edit constructively, and they've repeatedly demonstrated an adversarial attitude of viewing collegial criticism as evidence of a liberal conspiracy among editors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Conspiracy? What conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Is there any way I can prove I am competent to edit US politic topics? I want to try to show that I can. I am afraid that if I do get banned, I will never have a chance to show that I have matured. My last problem was back in January and since then, I have been working hard on constructive editing which included 4 ITN nominations. Today was miscommunication between me and Fram and I foolishly involved others when I needed to talk to him. Just let me show that I have changed is all I am asking. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Preventing the creation of an article about cancellation. Somehow, there's a common theme in that action. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Please don't ban me from editing Post 1992 Politic articles. I promise you that I have matured from where I was back in November to January which is where most of my problems occurred. I can't prove that I have matured other than talking about my contributions in February. 4 successful ITN nominations with one of those being an article I created. As I stated earlier, miscommunication lead to this and I don't want a stupid mistake to ruin what I have been trying to improve on over the last month. Please. Just give me another chance to help prove to you guys that I have matured. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Well, if you annoy enough editors, enough times on this general topic (post-1992 US politics), the end result will be a topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Elijahandskip You ask how you can prove that you are competent to edit in this topic area. I think that a good way to start would be for your to read through the comments that Fram and other editors have made, take a bit of time to digest them, and then explain why that draft is unfit for publication as an article. As things stand, I'm not sure that you understand why it's unpublishable, which would indeed mean that you aren't competent to edit in that topic area. GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) The draft in question is Draft:Cancellation of Dr. Seuss/2 which is a really shoddy piece of work in its current form that begins with a cheap shot against Joe Biden for not mentioning Dr. Seuss in a proclamation about children's reading programs, as if he is somehow obligated to mention that author. Consider this editor's insistence that this matter is widely discussed in reliable sources, mentioning the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. The fact of the matter is that ABC and NBC simply reprinted the Associated Press story. That's one source not three. Selection of the politically charged term "Cancellation" for the title indicates a complete failure of the neutral point of view. Wikipedia needs conservative editors who are competent, careful, collaborative and mature. This editor is none of those things, as their user page shows. Support topic ban from post 1992 U.S. politics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (Edit conflict before Cullen328)Girth Summit (Pinging due to edit conflict) I have read through all the comments (Starting with the draft in question) and I would like to explain why it is unpublishable as an article. So the whole problem appears to be the title & lead sentence which was "The cancellation of Dr. Seuss began on March 1, 2021, when President of the United States, Joe Biden, erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day which is a day to honor Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2.". As far as I can tell, the rest of the information has no problems with Fram (Saying him as the others joined after I started this discussion). The title "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" 100% violated NPOV as it directly isn't a cancellation of Dr. Seuss, just the removal of publication of some books. Early on in this discussion (before Fran's first reply), I acknowledged that it was a poor choice of words to use. Now let me talk about the lead. It was a horrible lead that was mixed with opinion and facts. The opinion part was "erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day". Joe Biden never removed all (All being the key word) Dr. Seuss books from the "Read Across America Day". The lead was also sourced to two non-RS sources. That was a major problem. The lead should always be sourced with RS and all information on the article should be sourced with RS for that matter. I do see how Fran's and other editors thought I was attacking Joe Biden as I made a false statement in the lead about him cancelling Dr. Seuss books, which he never did. I also made a mistake on the WSJ article as I forgot to check if it was "news" vs "opinion". The Fox News article shouldn't have been added since the WSJ was an opinion piece. I know Wikipedia has no consensus on Fox News (Per the discussion here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303), but I don't see a problem adding it when (when being a keyword) an RS backs up what it said. Because I didn't check the WSL article out, I foolishly added 2 non-rs together and called it RS. That was a mistake I made and in the future, I will make sure to check the articles out more closely before adding them. Hopefully you (the editors involved in this discussion) can see that I understand the mistakes I made and that I am sorry for making them. I caused massive problems on Wikipedia from October to January (totally about 112 pages worth of discussions from comments I made). But, I have been really working to improve on my bad reputation and do constructive editing on Wikipedia. Hopefully you guys don't decide to ban me on Post-1992 US political articles and can see that I am truly sorry for this. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Adding since I had a new comment from Cullen328. Cullen328 exactly stated what I said was my mistakes. I do understand the mistakes I made, but I really don't want a stupid mistake of miscommunication to cause me to lose all that I have tried to build back during February. So from the bottom of my heart, please, let me have another chance on Wikipedia and I promise I will not let you (editors in this discussion) down. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) support TBan. This answer touches on some of the things that are wrong with that draft, but it's really only scratching the surface. Add to that the fact that just a few hours ago, the user was so convinced that the article was legitimate that they were willing to edit war it back into article space, accuse Fram of vandalism, and start a thread here. I think that 6 months working in less contentious areas would be in the user's own interest - seriously, this isn't intended to punish you, this will help you hone your skills and become better at this. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Just as an FYI, the date was chosen because it was Dr. Seuss' birthday and Presidents make note of that in the proclamation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) This should be closed also. Original reason was withdrawn 8 hours ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I'm not going to IAR here; the top-level thread can be closed by someone who is actually uninvolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Although a TBAN was imposed, I am concerned, based on many of the frantic responses above and below this, that Elijahandskip lacks the emotional maturity required to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. The off-wiki score-settling is certainly not a good look. If any further disruption occurs outside of this subject matter, we ought to consider the need for additional sanctions. For now, perhaps a warning would suffice.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) A double "punishment" would be too much. The section below was about me. This section should be closed as it was withdrawn almost a day ago. This has just turned into a mess. A tBan is a major wakeup call to me. Honestly, I am considering this staying open an entire day more than it should have been like bullying. Basically no matter how much I would change, people will use this large discussion with tons of ban supports after the discussion should have been closed against me. This is just sad...Elijahandskip (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) AN/ANI discussions (really, this was better off at WP:ANI to begin with) of issues regarding editor conduct are not closed just because of withdrawal of the original complaint. All parties should expect to have their conduct examined. See WP:BOOMERANG.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah, but a TBan for 6 months is a huge thing. If I get a 2nd warning on top of a TBan for the same thing, that is pure bullying definition... Elijahandskip (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Elijahandskip Drive-by suggestion from an uninvolved editor. You have made your point. Now would be an excellent time for you to drop the stick, walk away, and beginning editing constructively in other topic areas. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) AP2 topic ban imposed (AE) 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 note that I have imposed a 6-month WP:AP2 WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN on Elijahandskip (logged AE action). As I note in the log, if this discussion reaches consensus for a different outcome, will amend accordingly. El_C 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support 6-month ban, which will allow Elijahandskip time to demonstrate by editing other articles that they've taken in the comments here and used that feedback to adjust their editing behavior. This seems necessary as Elijahandskip's responses to Fram's critique of the article were unreservedly combative until a ban was mentioned at which point they did a complete turn-around of attitude. It shouldn't take the possibility of ban to make Elijahandskip listen to other editors or to discuss disagreements or to respond to criticisms. Schazjmd (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support Elijahandskip has stated they want to work on current events; there are plenty of those that don't involve American politics. Editing in other areas for six months will give them a chance to demonstrate their growth and competence. Grandpallama (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support AP2 topic ban for 6 months, an appropriate response to the editor's behavior. Also, has there already been a discussion about their username "Elijah *and* skip" indicating an account used by more than one person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC) They confirm on their user page that they are one person.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support the imposed AP2 break is needed, though 6 months feels long to me; I'd be fine with 3 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) At first I wondered the same, but this, this, this, and this changed my mind; I now worry, conversely, that 6 months may be too short a time to build and demonstrate the necessary maturity and competence to edit in this area. Grandpallama (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) @Grandpallama: I don't want to cause trouble, but you linked a message I asked to an admin to help me avoid future problems and you call that a problem. That is just sad... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I've noticed that some users have a strong emotional aversion to the idea of a topic ban or other sanction being imposed. They are more likely to stick around and edit other topics if it's a voluntary decision rather than a ban. Based on their comments above, I wonder if this might be the case here. So what about an alternative: would you be willing to voluntarily stop editing articles related to American politics for a while (say, six months), working on other topics in the meantime? The effect is indeed largely the same, but no sanction would be logged, and there would be no more or less automatic block if you fail to stay away (but, realistically, you'd be bank here in the same position). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Ah. Based on the supports I misunderstood the purpose of this section to be a proposal rather than notification. My mistake. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Why is this still open? I withdrew the original reason for the noticeboard. This just seems to have turned into a lot of editors who want me banned. I have alreayd been banned and accepted it. Can and admin just close this before more editors make me feel worse than I had to be. (6 support votes after the ban was 100% uncalled for as the discussion should have just been closed after I withdrew and the ban notice was put out. I mean come on now that is ridiculous. (Not the support votes, the fact it was left open for the support votes). Elijahandskip (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Well, I was saying that the ban was more harsh than it needed to be, but if you don't want an "appeal"/discussion of the ban and want this closed it should probably be closed by someone uninvolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, an appeal is 100% useless and I do deserve the ban. In a few months I might try to appeal, but I have to prove that I can change before appealing. (Also I did appeal but withdrew it. The appeal was for technicality since my 3000+ byte message was posted 1 minute before the ban, so I tried to get it removed so that new very long thing could be taken into consideration. It was denied by the banning admin so I withdrew before it became official.) I just want this discussion to be close as it is now at 8 hours after it should have been closed... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2021 (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.

Ian Fleming infobox feud

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 I ask an uninvolved admin to close the RFC Talk:Ian Fleming#Should there be an infobox?. It's been 30 days, and I've had to full-protect the article for 24 hours (see above thread) after editors are edit-warring over the infobox, and I was pinged to the discussion, so I'd rather somebody else did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:17, 4 March 2021 (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: Foodprofessor

User is suspected to arm only one person's reputation, Sylvain Charlebois by changing endings. The page fully explains circumstances of an investigation 3 years ago. Foodprofessor's changes are not reasonable, wishes title to imply guilt, but charges were drop three years ago. Name of user also suspicious as Sylvain Charlebois is known as the food professor as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relevant diffs to Sylvain Charlebois: [94], [95] and [96]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified User: Foodprofessor of this discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sylvain Charlebois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janvez (talk · contribs)
• Foodprofessor (talk · contribs)

This is a bit suspect because the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) writes a blog called "The Food Professor", and a new account (Foodprofessor) uses that name while adding a heading "Bullying and Harassment Allegations" to the article diff. I'm not sure if that warrants a user-name block but it probably does. Janvez might be a bit close to the subject but a couple of their edits that I checked look reasonable. @Janvez: Consider reporting at WP:BLPN in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Or WP:COIN, I have the impression that there are multiple editors with a conflict of interest, considering the single purpose accounts, —PaleoNeonate – 08:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit was not intended to imply guilt. I suspect User: Janvez IS the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) and has been creating and editing his own Wikipedia page for years under this username and several additional unregistered IP addresses. Most changes on the page are associated with an unregistered IP address which traces back to Nova Scotia where his campus is located. In addition, User: Janvez and his aliases only ever make edits on topics related to Sylvain Charlebois and his perferred topics. Does the BLP policy allow for users to use a page as an infomercial to advance their agenda? Foodprofessor (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Janvez Made changes to many pages over the years. Generally suspicious of user:Foodprofessor as I'm aware Sylvain Charlebois was in the news globally of late, criticizing the dairy industry. User Foodprofessor who could be related to dairy just appeared recently, edited the page on issues which happened 3 years ago. A dispute was resolved 3 years ago about this very section. Not necessary to go through this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense. Why are we wasting our time here? 73.81.116.196 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, first accept my apologies because English is not my natural tongue. I'm a sysop on fr-wp. Janvez (talk · contribs) is know on fr-wiki as a SPA who keeps writing promotional content on Sylvain Charlebois, who created 4 sock-puppets to influence a debate read RCU and who keeps doing edit warring against any criticism. Because this SPA only brings promotion, edit warring and sock-puppets, I eventually blocked them on fr-wiki recently. There was edit warring en fr-wiki with Janvez vs GenesisPRO (talk · contribs) and DALalumni (talk · contribs) (undergoing RCU). Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Weirdly, a COIN thread was opened by Foodprofessor. Claiming COI on the part of other users.--- Possibly (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. RCU on fr-wp: DALalumni (talk · contribs) is probably GenesisPRO (talk · contribs) - read. Best regards, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 China-India skirmishes

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

This IP is persisting with WP:FORUMy posts at Talk:2020 China-India skirmishes. I would also appreciate if admins can start monitoring this page since the conflict is heating up, starting today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § SethRuebens unblocked

Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again

• COVID-19 misinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (& see history), recent WP:POVFORK creation written by now-tbanned editor
• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [97]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.

There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at WP:AE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or Poland, would provide support to editors and slow down the overwhelming rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion at ANI currently re a particular editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

lol on Valereee's source restriction. My claim to fame. Given that it's currently at ArbCom, I'd say @Wugapodes would def be the better person to place it on those pages while I await my fate. Or doom, whichever. :D —valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's also SPA disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (while the mainspace redirect had to be protected by Valeree). I did the instinctive thing, but that obviously came back negative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, thank you very much for the trust expressed by this single ping.

Per WP:GS/COVID19:

• Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community, or 01 January 2023, whichever comes first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC) see "02:48, 13 February 2021"

  Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked from editing for 2 weeks for violating the topic ban from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC) see "02:48, 13 February 2021"

• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• COVID-19 misinformation is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Wuhan Institute of Virology is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is semi-protected indefinitely.

Additionally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about canvassing.

This can probably be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much ToBeFree. This should aid with a bunch of the disruption, but I'm not sure all of it as some ECP users are responsible for some of the lengthier disruption, for example at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. I still think ideally a solution should be devised for that, otherwise it'll almost certainly flare up again once this thread is archived. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Billybostickson had not been formally notified about the sanctions in this area, so I have replaced the sanction and the block by a warning with a proper notification. I had seen a {{GS/alert}} regarding these sanctions on User talk:PaleoNeonate and User talk:Hemiauchenia, but Billybostickson hadn't received one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This, to me, does not seem like a great thread. I will start by saying that I have not edited any of the articles in question (outside of, perhaps, reverting vandalism on RC patrol). I am not a virologist or a doctor. I am just a guy who's a Wikipedia editor for fun. However, I have not been seeing a "discredited conspiracy theory" getting "pushed by SPAs"; indeed, I don't think I have seen anyone seriously say that the coronavirus was created in a lab and then released on purpose for some reason (which is absurd and no sources say this happened).

The thing I've seen is a litany of discussions started on various noticeboards, talk pages, MfDs, etc, in which the same accusation is made (namely, that everyone on one side of this debate is a SPA or a sock or a meatpuppet). That may be true, at this point; I'd say most reasonable people have gotten sick of it by now (I certainly have), and the only people left are people who care to an extreme degree about this. From the WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS kerfluffu ("does the origin of an epidemic need to be backed up by refs that meet medical sourcing standards, since it involves humans, who have bodies, which are studied by the field of medicine?") to the WP:ANI kerfluffu ("is this person being disruptive?") to the other WP:ANI kerfluffu ("is this other person being disruptive?") to the WP:MfD kerfluffu ("should this draft in userspace be deleted?") to the multiple Talk:COVID-19 misinformation kerfluffues, to this one now at WP:AN, it is hard to imagine someone who wasn't a tendentious (or at least strongly opinionated) editor even being able to remember what all of them were about.

Since I do not feel up to the task of copy-pasting the exact same posts into a dozen different discussions about the exact same thing for weeks on end, I will say again, for the record, that Wikipedia's job is not to be an authoritative decisionmaker on controversies where reliable sources have not reached consensus, or to reflect the truth: it is to report facts. The facts here seem to be that, at one point, a number of credible people thought this was a possibility, and now a smaller number of them do, while others do not. Can we not just say that and get it over with? jp×g 22:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on something else

I would like to thank User: SQL for removing the block and ban which ~ ToBeFree used to unjustly (in my opinion of course) gag me at the behest of User: Random Canadian. However, I would also like to thank ~ ToBeFree for remedying the mistake and attempting to provide a relatively coherent justification and for answering my 6 questions about the block and ban. After a friendly discussion with ~ ToBeFree and in line with his advice I would like to add again what he deleted twice on this page (my response to a false claim by User: RandomCanadian and User: PaleoNeonate:

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.

Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.

To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do. Billybostickson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billybostickson: I didn't remove anything. ToBeFree undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that ToBeFree, my mistake. I will ignore the arrogant response by Paleo I disagree with ProcrastinatingReader who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.Billybostickson (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post this, which is another wall of text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional user space copies

• User:ProcrastinatingReader has found two more examples of a very substantially similar nature to the draft at MfD mentioned above. I have bundled them with the original nomination since it's extremely unlikely the outcome would be any different if they were nominated individually; and also because they are substantially similar. If anybody here feels that the bundling is incorrect, feel free to undo that and start individual nominations. In any case, I don't think we'll want to be playing whack-a-mole with this kind of nonsense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't find them. Did you mean PaleoNeonate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

<humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

DRN thread

• FYI, User:Billybostickon has now filed a thread at DRN, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. This should also be seen in light of continued discussion/disruption on the Covid-19 misinformation talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The DRN thread has been closed, as the filer has been topic-banned and also blocked for 2 weeks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• We need several topic bans and/or WP:NOTHERE blocks in the area, rather than wasting more time, thanks for the progress, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment about DRN

Editors sometimes open threads at DRN about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are wikilawyering. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So: Please be aware that forum shopping is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Off Wiki Recruitment

There has been discussion of related Wikipedia articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see [98] for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See Special:Diff/1006867793/1006871631. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: It was ScrupulousScribe, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of WP:ABF - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to Special:Diff/1006869407/1006871631? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

note: an RfC has been started at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This (posted this afternoon) is egregious and well beyond the pale, particularly as it seems to target specific editors (myself included). I'd have removed the offending comment here (since it's strictly not related to the discussion) but obviously I'm better not doing that, especially since the original poster is stubborn about it. @Barkeep49: (or ArbCom in general, you happened to be first on the list) Is there anything that can be done about this kind of off-wiki behaviour, or are we stuck here waiting for these NOTHERE nuisances to show themselves? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This thread is rather long and my attention occupied in other ways. However, my quickread of this situation is that it's not in ArbCom's remit at the moment as there isn't offwiki evidence that needs to be considered about specific editors. It seems like there might be bog standard administrative actions available here (i.e. doing some extended confirmed protection to thwart newly registered accounts) and since you're already at AN - which some administrators might see it - hopefully you'll get some assistance. Feel free either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page with a concise summary if I've gotten this wrong. Just a note that I am on the lookout for someone to get elected to ArbCom next year who will appear before me alphabetically because I seem to be first on the list for many people. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Normally it's fine to delete WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA style posts (WP:TPG), except sometimes if other editors answered, remains to determine if it's really in the "Removing harmful posts" category (I don't really care if it remains, it at the same time exposes them)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban or NOTHERE block for Dinglelingy

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

Their activity on Wikipedia has only been to promote specific sources and views on COVID-19. Behavior has also been suboptimal including accusations and WP:WIKILAWYERING, this despite previous warnings. They've been warned about WP:PA/WP:FOC and WP:SPA/WP:HERE by myself here (it wasn't the first behavioral issue but it was after I noticed this uncalled-for comment). Warned again by Doug Weller here after accusing editors at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. They've already received the GS alert for COVID-19 in January from El C here. Despite these they are keeping up, now at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation like: 1, 2. It may be time for the unevitable... —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems there is something unsavoury happening here. So Dinglethingy (a likely sock and/or WP:SCRUTINY-avoiding returning user of some kind, judging by their edit history) writes[99] a diatribes prominently naming several editors. This then gets screenshotted and posted on twitter by a "lab leak" proponent[100] and subsequently there is a call to arms suggesting the proponents create "the GameStop of lab leak".[101] It would be good if an admin could untangle what's going on. And it would be good if Wikipedia does not become the attempted venue for the "GameStop of Lab leak". Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• The user known here as BillyBostickson is also back at it (after having earlier made their account private). And yes the call to arms is very worrying. Although we can't directly link any user here to a twitter handle (except the previous); I'd say that overall, this constitutes a sign of clear complicity in an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. I support both options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate & Random Canadian Kapo" bahahahaha clearly he is very mad, at least ScrupulousScribe was civil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate"??! When "PaleoNeoNazi" is just right there?! (No shade to PaleoNeonate, of course). JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Anybody with a Twitter account should ideally report the offender for abusive behaviour (I've reported the matter to ArbCom here); though I don't know if our definition of "abusive behaviour" is more stringent than that of social media platforms (probably). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: BillyBostickson has been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee, likely thanks to your complaints. Well deserved, in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

In case anybody was following here but not on the subpage, there's a thread at AN/I; just here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You though it was over?

There's still some activity on the talk page of the (former POV fork, now redirect); Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis; mostly additions of "sources" to an impressive looking table (hint: MEDRS are very scarce...). The talk page shouldn't be used as an indefinite incubator/LINKFARM for a page for which there is no consensus for existence as anything but a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also note the suspicious creation of a user sub-page by an IP (seemingly logged-out, probably block evading user, since IPs can't send emails to users) here who also asks the editor in question about emails (given what we know about canvassing...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Automatic (Blind) reversion of sockpuppet edits

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 noticed several edits on my watchlist that were within minutes and reversions of a user who it turned out is a sockpuppet. When I queried, I was told that the edits can be reverted on sight, even if it reintroduces bad edits. I was pointed to the banning policy which says it can be reverted on sight. However, the "exceptions" state, "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons." Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits So which is it, revert on sight no matter what, or be smart about it? Here's the huge list of reversions, [102] See this one where it reintroduces a BLP violation: [103] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor involved User:Watchlonly is a sockpuppet of the prolific puppetmaster User:יניב הורון, whose SPI archive can be found here, with its extensive list of socks. Per WP:3X, this editor is de facto banned from Wikipedia, which means that every single edit they made should never have been made. On the theory that it's more likely that puppetmasters might stop socking if we didn't continually reward them by allowing their edits to stand, I frequently revert as many edits made by prolific sockmasters as I can. If asked about it, my standard response is that any editor in good standing can restore anything I've reverted if they think the edit is worthwhile, and by doing so taking personal responsibility for the edit, without the least objection from me. This is allowed per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF:

"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5.".

I explained this to Sir Joseph on my talk page, but they decided to come here anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If one of the edits I reverted restored a BLP violation, and Sir Joseph noticed it, the proper response on their part would have been to notify me in one of the three messages they posted to my talk page, [104] and I would have corrected the problem immediately. Instead, their battlegroundy response was to file an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to not reintroduce a BLP, which is why you shouldn't blindly mass revert hundreds of edits. I don't have a battleground response, I'm just asking if the exception policy doesn't apply and we should, as you say, be allowed to revert on sight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the puppetmaster not to edit here in the first place. The onus on you is if you see I've made a bad edit, to either inform me of it so I can correct it, or correct it yourself and them inform me of it. What it does not call for is blowing up a trivial situation iinto an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but posting a "query" on AN instead of working with me to correct errors is indeed a battlegroundy response. You posted two comments on my talk page, got two responses, never mentioned any specific problems which needed to be corrected, and then your third comment was that you had posted here. That's hardly working to fi a problem before coming to the noticeboards, that's trying to get someone into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not according to Wiki policy, see the "exceptions" section of the policy you quote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipolicy says you shouldn't try to fix a problem with another editor before coming to the noticeboards? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. That's why I came to AN to ask the question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a "pissing match" if you had simply come to my page and said "Hey, I see where your reverting the edits of a sock, but did you know that in these edit X, Y and Z, you restored a BLP, or restored a typo or whatever." But you didn't do that, did you? You never gave me the chance to fix any problems you saw, you just wanted to make trouble for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Final comment to you, hopefully. That's exactly the point. The onus, as per policy, is not for someone to go through your mass reversions to see if all are OK. The onus is on you to see if they're OK before reverting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

But when you did find problems, you didn't tell me what they were so I could fix them, which would have been the collegial thing to do. Instead, you saved them up for your AN report in order to bolster your attempt to get me in trouble. This entire report is a sizzling piece of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, for which Sir Joseph should be trouted, at least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I pasted the "exceptions" part in my post.

You quote the sentence but don't quote the exceptions part.

Here it is again:

This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.

Your reversions reintroduced typos, vandals, and BLP and other false statements. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, it's just a difference in priorities. Revert it if that's your thing. Take edits as they are if that's your thing. If someone reverts a sock and the revert introduces an error, fix it. A lot of time being wasted on a sock here it seems. WP:RBI and all that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally in favor of mass reversion of edits by banned users, but should also try to look for BLP vios being restored. If you miss some say sorry and correct it and move on. And yes, tell the person they missed it on such and such edit. nableezy - 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Best revert every edit....don't give the editor a sense that a portion of their edits will stand because of sheer volume. Make it clear to them that there is no point editing here because of the community sanctions and that every edit will not stand so don't try.Moxy- 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If their version stands eventually, even if it's reverted and subsequently restored, they get the sense that they did something successful. We must decide which is more important: correctly identifying Sara Netanyahu as Bibi's wife and not his cow, or discouraging sockpuppetry. 147.161.13.172 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The views of the sockpuppet are not important, that's part of the "I" from WP:RBI. What's important is the time and efforts of productive editors. Dealing with sockpuppets can be tiresome and long work (Beyond My Ken was dealing with over 100 affected articles), and we do not want policies and practices that add to this burden. Agree with nableezy, if something is missed correct it and move on. CMD (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If a sockpuppet is making good edits, the best thing to do for the project is to talk to them and try to convince them to come in from the cold. The endless game of Whac-A-Mole is a waste of time for everyone. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from ordinary vandalism and incompetence and the occasional PoV SPA, I would say that the vast majority of editors who get blocked or banned make quality edits to Wikipedia. The sanctions that are placed on them are due to behavioral problems, not -- for the most part -- because of bad edits. Any editor who has been indef blocked or banned can ask for clemency and a return to the fold, and they will (usually) be given a fair hearing by the community -- indeed we have the WP:Standard offer as part of our normal processes -- but the impetus to do so must come from them. We cannot be in the position of begging people to return after misbehaving badly enough to be chucked out, doing so would make a total mockery of the idea that sanctions act to protect the encyclopedia from damage. Let a puppet master have a real change of heart, and decide that it's more important to them to contribute to the project legitimately then it is to continue to play at sockpuppetry -- and I suspect that it's like an online game to many of them -- and make their case to the community. Until they do, and the community decides to give them another chance, they remain beyond the pale and are not deserving of our leniency, especially when, like יניב הורון, they come back again and again and again and again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And if Sara's article says that she is Bibi's wife, that's a win at יניב הורון's game. It encourages him to continue next time, and he may succeed at getting more edits ultimately being kept. 147.161.8.176 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, will you please explain why you did not discuss the problem with Sara Netanyahu with Beyond My Ken before bringing the matter to this noticeboard? Wouldn't that have been the collaborative thing to do? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I brought the matter to ask the question, not necessarily about one edit, of which there were a few that were false. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit in-transit right now, so writing somewhat in haste, but what is up with this IP vandal above (diff) commenting on this conversation (twice)? Am I the only one who picked up on that? El_C 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• When a sock has made a large number of edits it seems to me unpractical to check every edit on a case-by-case basis, as well as having the effect of punishing the victims of long-term abuse. I think BMK's mass reversion is acceptable, though less optimal than checking for BLP violations if they have the time. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• When someone cares so little about the project that they have used at least 55 different socks, we don't want them "in from the cold". We want them to bugger off and stay gone. I would still look quickly at their edits before reverting them, but with little empathy. The best way to deal with edits that are actually good is to take responsibility for them by reverting twice. Zero^talk 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another fire-and-forget comment. I'm not saying Sir Joseph is easy to get along with, just using my last interaction with him as an example (here), but this is a totally legitimate matter to query admins about on the admin board. They did not mention BMK in their OP. It's just a general query. So, I don't understand the vehemence against with which they are told to resolve it with BMK, somehow. What is there to resolve between the two of them right now? They had a conversation on BMK's talk page (direct link), but Sir Joseph wanted further input on how to correctly approach this sock and socks, in general. End of story. Also, Levivich, this notorious sock —which in this particular iteration was fuckin' EC'd— is probably too far gone to save, certainly in the usual way. But who knows. Maybe one day...? Seems unlikely, though. El_C 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK wasn't mentioned by name, but Sir Joseph directly linked to BMK's contributions as the edits in question. Those are essentially the same thing. Grandpallama (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "this notorious sock" now part of Levivich's full title? "Dangit Levivich, This Notorious Sock, 5th Baron Sockington" ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Still here, so I'll follow up quickly. So what? Sir Joseph isn't asking for action or even an admonishment against BMK. They can query a general question that pertains to their dispute. There isn't some sort of invisible DR forcefield preventing it from being a legit query. Again, this is a non-issue. El_C 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah. If you just want to ask about policy, you post here without Sir Joseph's final two sentences. When you include those final two sentences, it's not just an innocent query anymore. (C'mon, El C, asking admins to look at a huge list of reversions is more than just seeking a policy clarification.) Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Grandpallama, that is not a connection I draw. I, for one, don't see how that automatically translates into a request to warn or act against BMK. Whose approach here was right, as far as I can tell. Certainly, edits from such notorious socks are to be reverted on-sight. If there are occasional casualties (even serious BLP ones, like here), that's just the cost of this business. Yes, it's good to maybe peek to see that all is well, with this or that page subject to such mass reversion, but depending on the volume, that may not be practical. I really don't know if there's much more to this than that. //Out the door. El_C 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not bringing this because of a person, I'm bringing this query because of a policy and the exception to that policy to see what the best way to deal with it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C You know I have great respect for you, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Sir Joseph came to my talk page about this issue, but never mentioned any specific problem, instead saving that for his "policy query" here. The link he posted here changed the entire nature of the report from an inquiry about policy into a report about another editor's behavior, and the fact that he didn't mention me by name in the test of the report is not relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK thanks, and it's fine that we agree to disagree, but as an uninvolved admin, I don't consider this to be a lapse on Sir Joseph's part (and, again, noting that whenever such lapses are exhibited on his part, I'm not one to shy away from pointing these out). El_C 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I too revert all (known) sock edits on sight, and I work on the General Ripper principle when it comes to reverting these edits - "if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions afterward. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness" And per Zero0000 - sometimes revert the revert if it's actually a good edit, but these are few and far between. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

When I happen on this kind of blanket reversion of socks, and see that some of the reversions actually made the article worse, I undo them with edit summaries such as "restoring last version by X" (where X is not the sock, this is only possible, when the sock reverted a bad edit done immediately before their edit) or I write a descriptive edit summary such as "fixing typo", "restoring referenced content" or whatever, but I try to neither mention the sock (whose edit I'm actually reinstating) nor the blanket-reverter (whose edit I'm actually undoing). I just did this with five of the ca. 130 sock-reversions talked about here. It's takes a bit more time (and I didn't check every single edit), but it's the only proper way I can think of performing this trade-off between doing what's right for the article in particular and doing what's right for the encyclopedia in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

^^This is what I do, or would do, the few times I've run into it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• We see this discussion a few times a year and it's always the same arguments. Yes, policy says that you can blind revert everything if you so choose, but a skilled editor *should* look at each edit individually and if reverting the edit makes the encyclopedia worse (ie: introduces factual inaccuracies or BLP violations), then really it should just be left alone. We aren't slaves to the revert tool nor are we more virtuous if we cut our noses off to spite our faces, all in the name of fighting sock puppets. We can and should use our judgement. If you revert an edit an it introduces a BLP violation or other issue, you own that mistake because you choose to introduce it into the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, that is what I am saying, but even more so because policy actually doesn't say you can blind revert. The exceptions make it clear that you need to make sure those exceptions don't apply. If they don't, then go ahead and revert, but you shouldn't just pull up the contributions page and revert all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  And that's why you saw a specific error I made, but never brought it to my attention, despite having initiated a discussion on my talk page, but instead put it in your pocket in order to use it against me in a AN report disguised as a policy query. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  And, BTW, these two edits [105] and [106] make it quite clear that I was not "blind reverting". I saw a problem that I had made and I fixed it. You apparently want me pilloried for being human and missing some other mistakes I made, but instead of helping me, you decided instead to throw stones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  DennisBrown Yes, I "own" the error, but when another editor sees the error and doessn't tell me, I have no opportunity to correct it. Or, if they fix it and don't tell me about it, I can't thank them for it -- which I would have done. The question in this instance is not whether I made an error or not -- I did -- but exactly how that error was dealt with by another editor. In this case, it was used as a cudgel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would agree that taking here seems a bit unnecessary, and that any problem with an editor (particularly an established editor) should be taken to their talk page first. ie: Use the path of least drama first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple separate questions that need to be asked here, and I will do so with a brief explanation:

• Question 1) Should a person, in the act of reverting a sock puppet, make at least a cursory check to see if their reverting of that sock puppet would actually create more problems then leaving the edit?

• Answer 1) Yes, that would be best and ideal.

• Question 2) If someone comes across a place where the editor in question #1 didn't check closely enough, and ended up reverting where they shouldn't have, what should they do?

• Answer 2) Fix it themselves. If you see something that needs fixing, the lowest effort and least disruptive way to handle it is just fix it.

• Question 3) What should be done with the editor that reverted where they should have?

• Answer 3) Absolutely nothing. If you already fixed the problem yourself, then there's nothing left to do. If you'd like, maybe a pleasantly worded note would be optional, but that should be the end of it; even if they don't respond to your note in a way you would like, the most important thing is there's nothing else to do except fix the error.

If we focused more on improving Wikipedia text and fixing problems when we encounter them, and less on playing the "punishment game", Wikipedia only gets better. --Jayron32 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That ideal solution gives sockpuppets enormous room to jam Wikipedia by eating up serious editors' time. If, rather than mass revert, one were obliged to scrupulously examine the merits of each particular edit (dozens), committed wikipedians who have other things to do would be sucked into a timesink, with the sockpuppet chuckling. Fuck'em. Revert everything, and whatever is left over to be fixed, will eventually be fixed. Zero tolerance.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to make Wikipedia better, no one is forcing you to do so. You aren't being paid, no one really needs you here. If you aren't here to improve things, at the very least, just stay out of the way of people that are trying to do so. --Jayron32 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no way one can get from what I wrote to what you inferred, I suggest you take a course in elementary logic or do some remedial reading. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting sock puppets of banned/blocked editors is making Wikipedia better. If it's not, the person shouldn't be blocked/banned. That said, I more or less agree with what you (Jayron) wrote above. I don't see that you are calling for people to be "obliged to scrupulously examine..." but just saying that it would be ideal to make sure you're not harming an article by reverting, but that there's no penalty if you don't. That sounds right to me, but caught between doing nothing and mass reverting, I'd prefer to see erring on the side of the latter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't read what Nishidani wrote as not wanting to make Wikipedia better, just different priorities. On the one hand, many editors and policy see not allowing sockpuppets to edit here, and discouraging them from doing so, as very important in order to make Wikipedia better, on the other hand, it's fair to think about how one's editing time, effort and energy are best allocated in order make Wikipedia better. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would wish that there were no implied criticism by Administrator's or others towards those following agreed process in directly reverting sockpuppets. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(in case I'm meant among 'others') I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just fuzzier on the issue, particularly when it comes to things like the BLP violation mentioned in the original post. My first reaction to this thread was to go and fix some of the stuff. I really didn't mean to imply criticism toward those following proceess. The process just isn't as clear to me as it obviously is to others. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Policy itself is a little fuzzy because policy is designed to mirror actual practice, and there isn't a single mindset when it comes to reverting socks. What I spoke of earlier is a compromise position: If you're going to revert all the edits, you need to make sure you aren't doing damage in the process, because many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits, so not all of them will need to be reverted, and in some cases, you might accidentally violate policy by reverting if you introduce BLP violations that the sock was fixing. There is no "good" answer, so again, it's all about judgement and avoiding being focused purely on punishing the sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's good to be reminded that Wikipedia's policy and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive, and what follows from that is that they should be updated with some frequency to match what editors actually do. Too often there's a lot of resistance to adjusting them to new conditions, and guidelines especially are often approached as Holy Writ.

BTW, Dennis, it's nice to see you around again, you've been missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

From Dennis Brown above "many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits". And that is the point of some banned editors. Make good edits that get reverted so they can boast about it on other sites and laugh at the "twisted knickers" we all get into, me as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Response to all above: I don't believe I ever said we shouldn't be reverting the edits of sock puppets. We should. What I said was, and let me make this abundantly clear, that if someone messes up and reverts an edit that re-introduces a problem into an article, the proper response is to just fix it and then to do nothing else. In other words, don't report people to ANI for reverting sockpuppets. As in, this thread should never have been started. Like, you're all LITERALLY lambasting me for pre-agreeing with you 100%. Like, I already clearly stated the things your arguing against me for. I'm not sure why you are doing it. Please find someone who says something you disagree with before starting an argument. --Jayron32 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ken is correct. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• The policy is clear on this. Anyone is authorized to revert ban evasion. No one is required to do so. Try not to re-insert policy violations. Really simple. If someone accidentally reinstates a policy violation, you can just re-revert. Maybe let them know so they can keep an eye out. You don't run straight to the dramaboards pretending like the policy is ambiguous or contradictory. You don't post diffs of an editor making a mistake, and imply they're not "being smart", and then when they defend themselves imply they're trying to have a "pissing match" and claim that you're simply asking a question. Holy crap, what a toxic thread. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  The policy is also clear that it has an "exceptions" section which people seem to ignore. And the fact that several people here, admins included, disagree with you, it's not correct to say the policy isn't ambiguous.

  I also never implied anyone wasn't being smart.

  I asked if people can blindly revert without checking, or be smart (as in the adverb) about the reversions. Perhaps you should read El_c comments because if someone is making this toxic, it's not me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The policy does not have an "exceptions" section, you're lying.

The policy says to use "care" when reverting, which you've equated to "being smart".

You're highlighting a good faith mistake, implying that the editor did not "take care", and thus was not "being smart". I will correct myself, because the allegations were unfair. This thread isn't toxic, your OP was, and your subsequent responses were. Shame on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar, which is a PA.

"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5."

Click on "exceptions" for exceptions.

I could write 1+1=2 and you'd complain so feel free to have the last word. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I also posted on AN and not ANI because I wasn't bringing any person or drama. I was querying about the policy. You need to make drama, but that's on you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Drama is caused by people doing the opposite of WP:DENY. Encouraging socks only encourages them and they never stop. That is corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I only skim-read the above discussion, but my basic philosophy is to look at the edits in question and only revert (or delete in the case of G5 pages) if they do not improve the encyclopedia. In my view, reverting an edit that improves the encyclopedia does not conform to the philosophy in WP:DENY, as they can then complain, with justification, that "evil abuez admins are stopping me from improving wiki" and get people on their side. By ignoring the edit, but blocking them for sockpuppetry anyway, they get less ammunition to fire back at us. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And I endorse what Jayron32 and Swarm have said - if somebody's revert makes the encyclopedia worse, revert it back using an edit summary that explains why in the context of the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those supporting Ken - revert socks per DENY, even if the edits are good. Anything else encourages them to continue socking. If they want to edit constructively then they need to so from their original named account, having sought an unblock. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 March 2021 (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.

Controversial moves and parallel drafts

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.

---

Not that I like having to come back here again, but I have no choice, I have warned @Starzoner: many times but he doesn't seem to mind. I don't understand why he insists on creating parallel drafts instead of just extending existing ones. I will cite some examples below. He also didn't care for Administrator Liz's warning. The worst part is that he recognizes that the merger of the history has already been rejected twice (I applied for it the first time) and still insists on continuing to work on his draft. I will cite some examples of parallel drafts that the user creates:

• He created Draft:The Wolf-Man (upcoming film) knowing that Draft:Wolfman (film) already exists, a draft created months ago by @Rusted AutoParts:.
• Also created Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2 knowing that Draft:Untitled Bong Joon-ho film already exists, a draft that I created months ago.
• Created Draft:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (upcoming film) knowing that Draft:Wonderful Wizard of Oz (upcoming film) was created first for @Some Dude From North Carolina: (Here anyone can see how Some Dude created the article at 19:15, 9 February 2021 but then he was redirected to a draft that Starzoner did not created but moved from another existing empty draft created at 19:05, 17 December 2020.)

I find it very unfair that I continue to do this kind of thing despite thousands of warnings from me and other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redux of previous threads and attempting to run me off from this project. Anyone who sees this thread should see his talk page where people expressed frustration, including mine. Also, regarding the Pet Sematary, he should have realized he broke the terms of use and attribution policy when he redirected my draft and copy pasted all the content there. I've been the victim of multiple insane threads where he's trying to get me blocked for no reason other what?

simple: competition to his articles. Now that he found the need to come here again, I'll stop editing filmography topic.

Ping Black Kite, BD2412 as who had responded to other threads.

Also, I wonder if the recently adopted Code of Conduct could result in sanctions against Bruno.Starzoner (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I will leave this and this link that I archived, where you can see how Starzoner immediately after my claim and sent to delete these two articles.Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to move on and stop fighting here on Wikipedia, and even move on from editing here on Wikipedia, if and only if means bringing peace here to the site. Frankly, I'm tired of being dragged here for the purpose of wanting to be "first", despite being the reportee in 2 prior drafts.

I am really tired of being stalked daily in my edits.

I am tired of being watched every day/

I am tired of being threatened every time.

I am tired of being reported here every day.

I am tired of being the victim of unnecessary threads everyday.

I have done is slightly change my approach everytime, but this is not helping the case.

I may just move on from Wikipedia because of the acts above. Starzoner (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blaming other people isn't a good idea here. You were warned about this previously, and I deleted something like 3,000 empty drafts that you had in your user space for no reason whatsoever except to "pre-date" other people's drafts. So here it is

• Do not create any more draft pages that duplicate others.
• Do not create speculative drafts with no content (or useless content, such as "Upcoming film"). Only create a draft when there is encyclopedic, sourced content to put in it.
• Do not redirect other people's draft pages to your own.
• Do not do anything that attempts to take credit for creating a page when you were not the original creator.

• I hope this is clear. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to comment firstly that Starzoner is generally a net benefit to the project, and I hope they stay, and secondly that it is permissible and often even laudable to get a jump on preparing content that will ultimately end up constituting needed articles. Of course, it is pointless to create blank or no-content pages for the purpose of being the "creator" of what eventually becomes an article, but this is an uncommonly silly dispute to be concerned about. BD2412 T 21:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this thing seriously brought to ANI? I've had issues with Bruno about their draft creations being particularly lazy and in general just find them a bit greedy about boxing others out in creating drafts as well but it's not an issue that requires ANI unless you and Starzoner started having massive edit wars or got particularly nasty towards one another. Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It seriously was, and it's not the first time. I think there's some merit to the OP's concern, but they unfortunately have BLUDGEONed every conversation and not let anyone else actually get a word in edgewise to discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (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.

Orland Park Place

Could someone please un-salt the title Orland Park Place? Pokemonprime (talk · contribs) has created a draft in his sandbox and would like to move it into article space. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, done. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Block of User:Geo Swan

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.

---

Geo Swan (talk · contribs) created Dan Trotta (now deleted), apparently as a result of an off-wiki dispute they had with the subject of that article. HJ Mitchell deleted that and gave an only warning, with the note that he'd probably had blocked indefinitely if he'd been able to explain himself during the fall-out. Geo Swan continued editing today, without even acknowledging what had happened. You may see some of the background at User talk:Imissdisco. I don't necessarily want an indefinite block on Geo Swan, but I do want them to account for themselves for what HJ Mitchell called "outrageous". Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Assessment' and rehash Geo Swan is a well liked editor who has done a lot of work in BLP's. Sometimes, unfortunately, he does things he should not. I'll try to link to last years debacle where he kept sealioning and bludgeoning and forum shopping Geo Swan insisted on the inclusion over of content that had been removed about a non notable person who wished to not be endangered by having her name broadcast all over the internet. (Part's in my talk archives.) I would recommend a WP:TBAN on BLP's indefinitely. If this were Geo Swan's first misstep, we would need to extend greater leeway. Unfortunately, Geo Swan has shown again a shocking lack of restraint or good judgment where BLP's are concerned, especially in a user for GS's tenure. (afkb) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• It appears the article was started in the middle of a commons deletion request, where there was a disagreement between these two parties. –xeno^talk 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • User:xeno, yes, thank you--I forgot to mention the business on Commons, in my rush to get to class. I appreciate it. I don't know if they took action over there, but I did post a note on their admin board last night. And let me take the opportunity to add that I asked Harry via email about why he blocked in the first place (cause I didn't see it initally), and we discussed the matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Re. Commons, well, as far as defending the project's reputation goes, they clearly considered blocking the BLP complainant the best way forward. Although that probably says more about Commons' priorities than anything else. ——Serial 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As I write this, the article has been copied onto a site called wikialpha (What is that site? Does it host attack pages?). I can find a few sources about Dan Trotta here, but I don't think it would survive an AfD. So I don't think it meets WP:G10, but I think HJ Mitchell can legitimately invoke WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:IAR and delete it. If the subject of a BLP does not want an article about them, and there is not extensive coverage to write about them sensibly, do not create one.

As for Geo Swan, I think they should come here and explain themselves, then we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

They can't, they're blocked... GiantSnowman 16:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's nothing obviously negative in the deleted version of Dan Trotta, but the Commons discussion does put it in a troubling light: creating a Wikipedia article about a non-public figure who clearly doesn't want one, to make a point about who "owns" our coverage of living people, would be a bright-line violation of WP:BLP and the Harassment policy. This is a good block, that should stay in place at least until Geo Swan has explained himself. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close thread. There is nothing to discuss here at this point. We cannot review the indef block of Geo Swan until they appeal it. And as long as they are blocked, there is no need for any further action against Geo Swan. Any review of the deletion belongs at WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe Drmies is just following the advice at WP:WHYBLOCK, After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the thread was started by the blocking admin. Still, I decline to review a block as long as we don't know whether the blocked user desires such a review. Sandstein 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• GS indicated on Commons that they knew it would be a dick move on their part if they created it, and yet they did, days later. I'd say this is a good block. Full quote from GS If this image was in use, say in a brand new wikipedia article on Dan Trotta, we would almost certainly decline your request for a courtesy deletion, because it was in use. For about 30 seconds I considered starting a nice fair article on Dan Trotta, but I didn't do so because it might seem like a dickish move on my part. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)CUPIDICAE💕 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would be happy to change to a partial block for article space so they can discuss the matter here.16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leave thread open. I don't think Wikipedia should be used by its editors to harass people. That's just wrong on so many levels. There is much yet to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock on the basis that they reply here only - Editing anywhere else would result in indef. If after a week no response then I guess reblock for x amount of weeks/months. Certainly agree with the above his actions have been unacceptable and he needs to do some talking. Sweeping it under the rug helps no one . –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse as per SN - At the time of writing the above I felt they should be given a chance to explain why they did what they did but I guess no amount of talking / sorries will ever help fix the damage and hurt they've caused. We're all here to write articles - Not use the website as a way to weponise people. It's unacceptable and shouldn't ever be tolerated period. –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one should even be thinking of unblocking GeoSwan for any reason. They have literally done the worst thing a Wikipedian can do—weaponize the project against a non-Wikipedian, who in another theatre would be termed a civilian. This is one of the worst offences on the books (second, I guess, to off-wiki harassment). This represents a fundamental loss of trust on GS's part, and our response needs to be proportionate to that. Support indef block; also support standard offer, which should be the minimum on the table. As noted above, they knew perfectly well they shouldn't create the article—but they did. The project, to put it politely, needs to protect itself from that kind of dearth of judgment.
  It's bizarre people are talking about partial blocks, for behaviour with such obvious real-life and potentially legal implications. If GS wants to say anything here, he can do what every other blocked user who still has their talk page access: write there to be transposed here—as Drmies original block instructs. ——Serial 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Oh, I'm fully cognizant of the legal ramifications. GS and I have gone a few rounds on BLP before. IMHO, they'll be fortunate if this does not wind up at Trust and Safety. My partial block suggestion was to allow them to respond here. Due to my past interaction, I cannot credibly advocate a CBAN, but your points are well taken. And I prefer to think of myself as "unique" rather than "bizarre". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent block done here. This honestly is quite possibly the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia to someone else. There's no call for it, none what so ever. I'm in the camp of giving people second chances, but this one...I don't know. There are so many ramifications that could come from something like this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block That argument on Commons was ugly and unseemly. And then to retaliate by writing an article about someone who made it clear they didn't want the attention? That's way, way over the line. Repulsive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block. This is bad on so many levels. If you're looking for policy violations to cite, WP:BLP, WP:POINT, WP:INVOLVED, WP:HARRASS all come to mind. My only question here is what the off-wiki aspect was. Are we talking about the spat on commons about deleting the image (which would be bad enough), or was there some additional IRL interaction (which would be far worse). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it started on Commons, then slopped over to en.wikipedia without IRL interaction. HJ Mitchell warned Geo Swan: "Do not write Wikipedia articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere (...)" which, I assume, Drmies interpreted or paraphrased as 'off-wiki' here. I might be wrong, and I don't think it will change the outcome of this thread either way. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Sluzzelin, I actually don't know if the online dispute was the one on Commons--Imissdisco's comment (on their talk page), "GeoSwan created this page after an argument we had online", doesn't specify, but worse, Geo Swan didn't take that opportunity to explain. In fact, they didn't take any opportunity to explain, at all, and went and filed that huge report that would draw anyone's attention at AIV, which is where I found it. So, in addition to Harry's comment, "do not use your superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute", I would say that Geo Swan also abused his superior knowledge of the processes on Wikipedia, and the temperament and likely responses of the editors and admins who, like me, are inclined to look at a set of edits like Imissdisco's as just vandalism, essentially. Note Geo Swan didn't even post on Imissdisco's talk page: they just let the Recent changes patrollers and others handle the matter via templated warnings. And I fell for it too, with my block--but I made it a partial block to just stop the disruption of the article which wasn't obvious to me as an attack page or a negative bio. So that's even more incriminating: it's an abuse of writing skills and of process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block It's a willful violation of COI used to rebuke another individual. If they do in a reasonably neutral fashion, then they've not burnt their bridges irrevocably, but it does warrant the block. I have no complaints if someone wants to unblock under the sole condition of commenting here. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• If they are unblocked a BLP topic ban needs to be considered in the light of this incident and last year's refusal to drop the stick over getting the name of an individual connected to Derek Chauvin into Wikipedia, contrary to WP:BLPNAME.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just thinking, this block seems to be connected to an isolated incident. A siteblock seems punitive, what's preventative about this action? It seems the user has moved on and isn't going to repeat this kind of behavior again. Heymid (contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. Not an isolated incident. This linked ANI thread is but one. It references a thread on my talk. It is quite comprehensive in addressing the matter at hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• A professional entertainer is not a private individual, and I see nothing in the deleted article so scandalous as to constitute an attack page that would justify deletion at the subject's request except going through a BLP discussion. (I see Drmies is of the same opinion). As for the deletion, and protection. HJ Mitchell, you did the deletion and protection. Do you truly consider it an attack page? Or as unsourced negative information? I'm not commenting on any other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A screenwriter nor director is really not a "public" figure even if they may be a well-documented name as these are behind-the-scenes roles. Some are, people like JJ Abrams or Vince Gilligan who frequently appear in front of fans and the camera, but there's no indication the person Geo Swan wrote up had similar public presence. We should present they are not a public figure unless that can be readily documented, and as such, BLP protections should be held to their utmost --Masem (t) 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The issue here is not whether the article should have been deleted or not. We were dealing with a member of the general public here who knew nothing of our internal processes or policies, had a legitimate concern about their privacy, and was obviously not happy. Whether you're an admin or not, when you're interacting with somebody like that, you're acting as a representative of the project. Sometimes that takes the thick skin of a rhinoceros and the patience of an ox. If you don't possess those qualities, you shouldn't be in that role. It seems like Geo Swan did everything they could to deliberately make a delicate situation worse. They correctly identified an action which would be inadvisable, then they went ahead and performed that action. That's the core problem here, and that's what Geo needs to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • To me this looks pretty obviously like a bad faith article creation (dubiously notable as well) in order to justify keeping the image. The situation seems to have been inflamed by Geo Swan's assertion that the user was an imposter of Trotta, (though I suppose that is highly unlikely, but possible) raising some similar requests on Commons from photos uploaded from the same photo group, 1 2. Strange hill to pick to die on. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block, mainly beause this is the second time there's been an issue with this. In the George Floyd - related issue, GeoSwan's additions of a BLPNAME were revdeleted and they were advised not to take the issue to AN or ANI because it was a high-traffic page [107]. What did they do? Took it to ANI. Here, they created a page for a barely-notable person (non-notable IMO) just because they'd had a disagreement with them on the Commons page. There, GeoSwan said themselves that it would be a dickish move to create the article [108]. Then, guess what? They created it. If GeoSwan is to be unblocked, I would expect it to be with a complete BLP topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The only interaction I have had with Geo Swan is at Talk:Hani Ramadan where he chastised me for removing Jihad Watch as a source in a BLP article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but how is that relevant? Drmies (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This thread has had other comments surrounding BLP editing by Geo Swan, so I thought this interaction was relevant to bring up here. Jihad Watch is an islamophobic conspiracy website and a totally unreliable source for a BLP article, and nobody should be criticised for removing claims sourced to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • That is correct. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yeesh. Another example, though somewhat less problematic on its own: It looks like after this other deletion discussion was started by a subject of a photo (not Trotta), Geo Swan responded by immediately putting the image in-use on Wikidata (where there's less of a notability threshold) thus removing the possibility of a courtesy deletion.
  I get that it can be frustrating for article subjects to say "please don't use that properly licensed photo of me, taken in a public place where I knew my photo was being taken, in a country where consent isn't required ... because I don't like it", and that in many cases there's often nothing really to be done other than suggest they release a better one (preferably with more guidance to help them to do so than in the threads I've been reading). But in those cases where it's not in use, or when a better image can be used, let's remember to err on the side of decency? Creating an article (or even a Wikidata item) in response to a request for courtesy deletion is a weird kind of antagonism (intended or not). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, if one of y'all knows anything about Commons or has power there, I'm not happy with that's happening there. Taivo blocked Imissdisco and is unwilling to reconsider, and I'm wondering if the Commons move on Geo Swan's part, which started this all, isn't a good reason for them over there to do something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Standard Operating Procedure for Commons, unfortunately. There are some good people there, but a significant number simply don't live in the real world when it comes to things like concern for BLP subjects. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block per those above. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Geo Swan, whose comments prior to creating the attack page indicate they know what is wrong with the way they acted. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose a valuable contributor because they were unwilling to admit wrongdoing or make some changes in behaviour. I recommend in future writing your comment without posting it, and coming back to it when in a different mood whenever things begin to get heated—we always know deep down that what we are doing is not good before we press "Publish changes", but sometimes our emotions get the better of us. — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2021 (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.

GS block review epilogue

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 sorry I know I'm not supposed to wade in but I just wanted to say thank you to those who helped me with this. I'm definitely not happy with some of the language I used, but I was desperate and felt completely powerless. I made some mistakes, but all I wanted was to garner a bit of control over what I felt was a retaliatory action. Sorry to have made more work for you all, I can't believe this started because of a stupid photo. This is supremely embarrassing. I appreciate everyone's kindness and patience with this.

Am I being paranoid by asking about possible retaliation by Geo towards me for my part in this? Probably an impossible question to answer. It's just this has me a bit spooked. I know he's posted about me on wikialpha, so it just has me wondering. Anyway. Should be great fodder for my next pilot ;) Imissdisco (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be included in the record here that a user named Geo Swan recreated the article at wiki alpha, which I won’t link to. This is to make it clear in any attempt at an unblock request that (presumably, could be a false flag) GS has continued this behavior off wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave Imissdisco some I'm-not-a-lawyer info. Hopefully that will get worked out. Just in case it was GS, (Don't think it's their style. Could be a Joe Job.) I called upon them to get it taken down. Hoping for the best. To my knowledge, GS has not yet returned. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

It will be interesting to see if GeoSwan abused his position at Wikialpha by uploading that article. But seeing as how he is—ooh, get this!—admin, CU and 'crat there, I think that's unlikely. I also think, needless to say, that since GS crossed the Rubicon, as it were, by weaponizing an external website in pursuit of an on-wiki feud, a C-ban discussion would be wholly appropriate. ——Serial 16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, Interesting. I found that, and blindly assumed wikialpha was a site like Deletionpedia that scraped articles before they got deleted, or just a straight Wikipedia mirror that happened to grab a snapshot at the right time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(long, protracted sigh. followed by an obscenity) ( another sigh) (clears throat) It was my impression in our dispute last year that GS has a poor understanding of the potential legal ramifications of their "boldness" regarding BLP. I wish them well in their editing away from this project. But there comes a time when "boldness" becomes recklessness. I hope they do not find this out the hard way. And I feel for anyone harmed by their recklessness. Gad! Here's a thought. Were they trying to uncover the name of Chauvin's wife for a page at Wikialpha? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WA actively encourages their users to browse the articles listed for deletion here on Wikipedia, and even have a Save Article feature to preserve and publish them there. I'd also note that on GS' discussion page on WA, he was asked to delete an article in December 2020 on WA, at the request of the subject, and on that very same day, edited the WP article that mentions that subject, ensuring the links still worked, and added archive links as well. It doesn't appear he originally added the content here on WP, but is it a coincidence that he suddenly took an interest here, making sure the links worked, and adding archive links. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that it is the same editor in both places. From the time stamps, he actually created the article at WA, and then copied it here to WP. I agree that this kind of harassment on and off wiki merits a C-ban discussion. Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If you check the wikialpha history, it lists Geo Swan as the creator and editor of the page. It's him/her. They edited it just yesterday morning, in fact. I guess this could be an imposter but that seems strange Imissdisco (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This has gone far afield of what I originally intended-- a post hoc update. The original thread was to confirm the block. It is now moving in the unintended direction of a CBAN. Please start a new thread at ANI, referencing this discussion and extension If a CBAN is really something you want. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2021 (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.

On abuse of administrators

Just to note here, that in the last 12 hours I got a few replies from two unrelated blocked users, all addressed to me personally, with both users suggesting whom I should have sex with (one repeatedly suggested my mother, and another one some gentleman whom I have never heard about). All these edits have been revision-deleted, so there is nothing more to do here, but when we are going to have the next discussion on admins who are doing whatever they want and get unlimited power and are only interested in this power, and that everybody wants to become admin but is deterred by RFA, please remember that what the most active admins experience is daily verbal abuse. And I still consider myself lucky that this was confined onwiki, and none of the users (yet) tried to contact me off-wiki with these suggestions. This happened to me in the past as well. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I come to think of the hostility that is every day shown towards teachers, policemen, guards, and other people entrusted with keeping some kind of order. Somehow, teaching as a profession helps me put it into perspective. I will always be appreciated by many but hated and despised by a few both as a teacher and as an admin.--Berig (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Some administrators who work in highly controversial areas of the encyclopedia are subjected to constant harassment and abuse. I try to stay away from the most controversial topics, but have still had my fair share of abuse and harassment. "Self hating Jew" comes up about as often as "Christians" declaring that I will burn in hell. The only thing that really bothers me are credible threats to murder my granddaughter, accompanied by photos of her scraped off of Facebook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this on-wiki stuff is not really serious (I have got more serious threats by e-mail, and had to report them to the police, but not in the last few days), however, this certainly does not motivate me in any way. Again, there is nothing to really do about this. I am not going to resign my tools because of this kind of abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a proverb that I find some consolation in: "it is never too late to give up". We do this voluntarily, and as long as it feels worthwile we stay.--Berig (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I spend a lot of my time trying to keep two sides apart, and retain neutrality, regarding Northern Ireland topics. I get called everything by both sides constantly. Water off a ducks back at this point. Unfortunate though that people think it's acceptable to do that sort of thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally, on Slate yesterday: The Tensions Behind Wikipedia’s New Code of Conduct Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• We have multiple filters for blocking inappropriate edits; can we not block emails to other editors that also contain offensive words or phrases? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In your preferences on the User Profile tab, there's a check-box for "Allow emails from brand-new users". Filtering on offensive words could lead to the Scunthorpe problem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've chatted to GorillaWarfare about off-wiki harassment in the past, and they have advised me in a couple of cases where I have had abuse that the WMF are looking into it. Unfortunately, if somebody scrapes pictures of you off social media and dumps them on an attack site, there isn't really much they can do if it's not illegal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry you had to deal with this, Ymblanter. I've thankfully only had rare "mid-level" issues, normally it's just the casual angst and insults for me. Beyond the Scunthorpe problem, people also use emails to me to raise other individuals' problematic edits, including duplicating some language used. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you all should receive some sort of stipend or other compensation for all the abuse and harassment you are subjected to on a regular basis. Given that this is a volunteer project and that adminship carries even greater responsibilities than simply editing, I cannot imagine how anyone would willingly put themselves through such hardship in addition to their existing career without seeing some form of recognition -- positive recognition -- beyond just a "keep up the good work chaps" from the folks who actually draw a salary.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got an "angry" message earlier today from an experienced user about how I needed to wait for consensus before acting on a normal ANI report. Only if it falls within DS would I be allowed to act singlehandedly, I was told in no uncertain terms. Attached with that message was an "overt threat" to either take me to ArbCom or —and this is new— they'd run their own WP:RfA, somehow (?). I just gotta quote the comment in full: Fuck your collapsing. Without discretionary sanctions, you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic (diff). Anyway, yeah, I've been threatened with an RfAR enough times, but never an RfA! Don't think it would serve as a good mission statement for one's sought adminship, though. El_C 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a truly entertaining RFA, to be honest with you.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I can't think that making lurid statements and threatening vexatious Arbitration requests is going to go over well at RfA.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, my point got lost in my shouting. I was trying to say that admins should generally wait for consensus in controversial cases, though counter-intuitively that isn't the case for the most contentious areas (DS), because the cost of inaction is higher there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's another editor that will always get an oppose from me at an RfA. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Gaining second-mover advantage over El_C. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• UTRS seem to cater to a slightly different clientele who have an unhealthy fixation on racial identity and female genitalia - UTRS appeal #38724, UTRS appeal #40091 - I fear they may lack skills in crafting a persuasive unblock argument. Cabayi (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Some top quality rebuttal there - it must have been a tough call to decline their requests with rhetorical skill at that level.... Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hey, no fair posting juicy stuff that we non-admins can't read! Don't you know we're only here for the smut? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish I had some advice or something more productive to say, but I don't. All I can say is that I know how you feel, and it's absolutely unacceptable what many editors have to go through for choosing to spend their limited free time providing a free source of knowledge. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup

Some pretty nasty comments in the history there, maybe they should be striked out? Govvy (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they just were. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on Mike Lindell and My Pillow

Apparently, Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow, made a speech at CPAC where he called Wikipedia "very corrupt" for having "taken over my Wikipedia", by which I assume he means "his" Wikipedia page. [109] (Once again, a public figure misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, taking it to be a promotional medium, and believing that they can control "their" Wikipedia article.)

Both articles are semi'd but additional eyes on them would still be a good idea, in case anyone gets the idea that settling the score would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RE: "taken over my Wikipedia" (emphasis added) — unforgivable lowercase. It's My Wikipedia, to you, philistines! You'll sleep soundly knowing the project is in good hands. I know I will. El_C 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Just in the interest of good recordkeeping, noting that I am the one who indef semi'd My Pillow (logged AP2 action). And, unrelated-relatedly, I've also indef semi'd the Jewish space lasers redirect, of which I am the creator (diff). An unlogged and INVOLVED AE action — the corruption on my part is almost unbelievable! Erm, I mean, firing lasers: pew-pew! El_C 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "my Wikipedia" vs. "My Wikipedia" - this was from a spoken speech so we can't tell if he capitalized it or not. In his mind I'm sure he capitalized it (possibly ALLCAPS). The philistine Philistine philistine is the transcript recorder. You can't get good help these days. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am the philistine here. According to Wikipedias articles, Philistines are an ancient people and are capitalized; philistines are people too lazy or ignorant to know the difference. Self-description acknowledged. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

==Rusted Autoparts== This guy is being disruptive and thinks only that he is right and report people who are against him. Nicky Fury (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Johned 40 minutes ago and the only edit is to come here and criticize me, this is clearly someone’s sock puppet. Rusted AutoParts 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article to deletion

• Draft:Frank McKnight - hoax article to deletion. 78.133.206.183 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article deleted as both of the refs were leading to 404 pages that did not exist. Also I find a bit of irony of a hoax page being created by someone with the name "FakerGuy" RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and brazen incivility at WandaVision

I am reporting two editors, User:Scenarioschrijver20 and User:Anubhab030119. The former for disruption and the latter for abusive behaviour. A discussion was had back in January in regards to the main cast of the show. This discussion was closed after Scenario started filibustering the discussion after many other editors disagreed with them. The discussion was revisited today and Scenario returned to the discussion and proceeded to resume this behaviour. I archived the discussion as it was clear the same road was about to be walked but Scenario reverted it twice [110] [111] a clear act of defiance to continue their filibuster and indicates they will resort to edit warring. I asked they restore the archive but so far it’s been ignored. Anubhab decide to invite themselves to the discussion simply to attack the site and myself and @Favre1fan93:. “nonsensical Wikipedia”, “So let favre and rusted and other dumb people continue following their "rules" like a dog behind their master.”, “Haha, this rusted guy must think he is so "powerful" because he can revert other people to inflict his own nonsense. Carry on with your childish insecurities mate.”. While I was filing this report they proceeded to go after @Facu-el Millo: “Here comes another "expert".”. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anubhab has added another And no, I haven't bothered to read some pointless article on a pointless website. Those rules are for you guys to bark about, doggy. Go fetch.”. They also edited my above comments. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As was said by users such as @Favre1fan93: also back in January. It was decided to wait off any cast discussions until after the final episode aired which was last friday. Rusted also did not give other users the opportunity to respond in the new patiently waited to start discussion, which is why I reverted. Reporting me for disruptive behavior seems childish in this case. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When a discussion is archived it is closed. It does not get reverted because you wish to keep talking. If you feel so strongly you open a new thread even though it would be inappropriate. You do not edit war it back open. Rusted AutoParts 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion should include more people. You decided to archive it without giving other people the chance to answer. Seems undemocratic. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You were making the same arguments and doing the same frustrating practices as the prior discussion. You kept pointing to arguments that myself and other editors already addressed in the prior discussion. It’s clear where it was going so I closed it. It’s not undemocratic. The point remains you don’t undo an archival. It’s disruptive. Rusted AutoParts 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No dude, I was making different arguments. Archiving something you don't give other people the chance to respond to seems disruptive as well. Also it was decided to wait off the final episode. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Diffeeent arguments for the same point. Each argument you made was disproven or debunked, so it came back to the same as before, where you’re refusing to get the point. Another editor even said you were beating a dead horse so it’s clearly a sentiment held by others. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No that's just plain wrong. It's a fact that noteable actors get main billing even if they are not main characters. And also it was decided to wait till last friday for the final episode so that we would have all the information. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re now carrying the discussion over here, more evidence of filibustering and bludgeoning. The issue at hand is the disruptive editing and your removal of the archival, not whether actors in a show are main or not. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No I'm just telling you why I reverted it. You love throwing those out. And my removal of the archival was due to you not giving other people to respond because you think you are right and can just go around and archive everything. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion. Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted....r kto chudir bhai giri krbi sala kutta choda? Khankir cheler mto garpeyaji kore jachhis tkhn theke....fot banchod fot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhab030119 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) ”Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted .... how many chudi bhai giri karbi sala kutta choda? Ever since he was mediocre like a prostitute's son ....” the translate came out a bit rough but they’re evidently calling me mediocre and my mother a whore. Rusted AutoParts 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Rusted Autoparts Did you know it's okay to have a thought, but not speak it out loud? I'm thinking things about you right now that I'm much too polite to say. Also, I joined Wikipedia because of WandaVision and came across this discussion. Surprised to see that some people are so small-minded. I have blocked Anubhab030119 for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Nicky Fury, you are hereby warned to refrain from personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC) This was my honest opinion. We do still live in a free country with rights is it not? To clarify this: "Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint." This is a ground rule of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Fury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Nicky Fury, no, you are wrong. This is not a public venue for free speech. It is a private website for the purpose of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. You can exercise your free speech rights elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked, obvious sock of someone who somehow thinks there is free speech on Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC) The amusing thing is they originally got the quote correct, then specifically edited it to remove "by the government" from the end of the quote. Thereby proving the point. Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Scenarioschrijver20 for 2 weeks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scenarioschrijver20. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice about Tulsi Bhagat's request for global rollback

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, I would like to let you know that Tulsi Bhagat requested global rollback via [112]. The global rollback flag grants autopatrol on all Wikimedia sites, including English Wikipedia, with no possibility to opt-out.

The requestor previously had that flag, and it was revoked in June 2020 for repetately creating Gautam Kumawat on English Wikipedia, misusing the autopatrol bit granted as part of global rollback.

Since the previous removal involved English Wikipedia, I would like to explicitly invite English Wikipedia to the global rollback discussion, to voice your thoughts.

Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The request has now been withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering their WP:UPE, what's their status on ENWIKI? Are they not CBANned? If not, why not? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

He was not CBANned (not even locally blocked), though he was globally locked for a bit and got most advanced user rights removed. As far as I can tell, there was never an AN(I) discussion about formal community sanctions for Tulsi. Blablubbs|talk 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this the last about it? –xeno^talk 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes.

I first came across him at User_talk:Tulsi_Bhagat/Archive_1#November_2019 but I was too new and had perhaps a bit too much AGF and veneration for long-term editors of WMF projects, so I backed down as soon as a third party came to his defence. I was then especially concerned about how he received advanced permissions despite history: IRC? I hope that platform does not have an official status for onwiki business. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's more than just the hat collecting, global lock and using autoreview that was paired with GR rights. We are forgetting the dubious crosswiki spamming about Tulsi Bhagat by other users. I have a hard time assuming good faith on that end considering the nature of the content and rather dubious black hat SEO involved in getting that pushed everywhere. CUPIDICAE💕 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that’s more recent. Was there a discussion about the editor’s involvement, or are you applying the duck test? –xeno^talk 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a mix of things that I probably shouldn't discuss on-wiki but it's fairly obvious there something more going on between the accounts (I don't think one is the sock of the other) but nothing that can ever be definitively proven because of the nature of Wikipedia. I guess I'm just saying if anyone is looking at the history between the editors involved in what I linked, it becomes fairly obvious. CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 7 March 2021 (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.

Didn't see this until after it was closed, but for the record (@Martin Urbanec) following Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72 my bot automatically unpatrols new articles created by global rollbackers that are not locally autopatrolled, so while technically projects cannot opt-out of global rollbackers having autopatrol, in practice it shouldn't be much of an issue here on enwiki. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology

Hello, I have been asked to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology after my close of the discussion based on the discussion on my talk page. Can an administrator please help with undoing the close? Thank you. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have undone your closure and relisted the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Enos733 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IPs and partial blocks

There is an IP address which, intermittedly over the last 3 years, every few months, has changed one particular BLP's middle name from "Carl" to "Calzone". Aside from that contributions from that IP address have been a mix of constructive and non-constructive edits. I believe the IP address is registered to the university where the person whose biography is being vandalized works, meaning it's likely more than one person editing from that address.

I'm tempted to block that IP address from editing either the university's article or the BLP in question. However, I'm not sure the disruption rises to the level that the blocking policy envisions. Moreover, as an alum of the university, there's an argument to be made that I shouldn't act as an admin on those articles.

So I'm bringing this here for advice from other admins - would you implement a partial block in this situation? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A partial block sounds fine, to save constantly having to revert. Fences&Windows 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've done it, for two years. That should be long enough for them to forget this obsession. Fences&Windows 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

UAA 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.

---

Could someone please take a swipe at UAA? There are over 40 open reports (not counting bot reports), and many of them are straightforward.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:44, 9 March 2021 (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 delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe.

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 delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe. I don't like the term of Bangladeshi. It should be from West Bengal, India. 206.51.203.238 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bangladeshi" refers to someone or something from the independent country of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. "Bengali", "Bengalee", or "Bengalese" refers to someone from the Bengal region of South Asia, which includes both India and Bangladesh, or someone of the Bengali ethnic group. "Banerjee" is "a surname of Brahmins originating from the Bengal region of the Indian subcontinent", which includes Bangladesh.

In your editing of Banerjee, you are attempting to change the wording of a direct quote. Don't do that.

Banerjee has been ECP'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (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 to restore of all revoked permission by User:Nick done by using WP:ADMINACCT

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.

---

• Amkgp (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Yesterday most of the permissions were removed after decline at here citing myself as an untrusty user. For your reference and clarity, I am enclosing links to my all block discussion. See block1 and block2. I (was) an active new page patroller (you can verify from my contributions Special:Contributions/Amkgp) and AfC reviewer (See User:Amkgp/CSD log and AfD log also), (was) an active page mover (especially use it in draftify of undersourced new articles), an active pending changes reviewer and file mover (in fact yesterday I helped to reduce a backlog and you can see permission was granted and a brief discussion took place User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions already). Beside these I used to help at WP:DYK in making prep sets. I have also helped to promote Mahadevi Varma and Sidney Hill to GA status. I am also a WP:TEA host and help editors when ever I am able to help. I also help in copyright file tagging at commons when I get a chance. See c:Special:Contributions/Amkgp. I was really socked to see that I was stripped off most privileges that I earned after spending long time here in en-wiki through positive contributions and trust only. I tried to resolve with revoking admin Nick but it seems to go nowhere. Please see the entire conversation below. In one of the replies the revoking admin says I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly, and their track record there is not in question but marks me an unreliable user. Till date I never misused any of the tools nor have tried to harm the Wikipedia project itself. I have always taken Wikipedia editing seriously. I therefore kindly request for restoration of all the removed rights, so that I can contribute as I was doing before. Thank you.

Moved from User_talk:Nick#Why_my_rights_were_removed_?

 – — Amkgp 💬 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've followed the saga on Nick's talk page somewhat, and I would like to chip in. Let me preface this by saying that your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated – you've been doing some great work at DYK, for example, and I don't believe anyone, including Nick, would deny that.

That said, I do understand why Nick might feel that there are issues with community trust. You were recently blocked by Moneytrees for unattributed (and often raw) machine translations (some from languages you do not speak), and other copyright issues. I had brought the issue up on your talk page shortly before, and in response, you promised to add attribution templates where required. Moneytrees later blocked you after more copyright violations had come to light. You acknowledged the reason for this block and promised to do better, and got unblocked. After the block was lifted, you accused Moneytrees of tool abuse and affirmed that you had done nothing wrong by saying I am well aware of the copyright policy, donating material to Wikipedia, public domain stuff etc. It seems you caught me as the wrong person in the act that is not a violation. The pages you highlighted edited by me were indeed within limits and were merely long single sentences or citations/book name/patent names etc. (Permalink to entire discussion.) When I pointed out that I thought this accusation was unfair and mentioned some other articles that needed fixing, you summarily reverted me. The articles mentioned there were, by the way, later attributed by Moneytrees ([113][114][115]), after you had failed to do so. One of the concerns you raised when discussing your block was that it might interfere with future requests at WP:PERM.

This ties in with the second elephant in the room: Editing logged out in projectspace. While checkusers may not connect IPs to accounts, I found three such instances based on behaviour; each time, you requested admin eyes on WP:PERM, and each time you had a pending request there. I will not link to these instances to preserve your privacy; if you prefer, I can provide the diffs here. You later stated, in your discussion with Nick, that you had made a constructive request at AN, while forgetting to log in. Before the last occurence, which led to your CU-block by Tony, you had been explicitly warned to stop doing so. And while I do see some infrequent logged-out editing by what appears to be you on the ranges involved, it's rare enough that it strikes me as unlikely that you'd forget to log in when posting at AN three times. On each occasion, the posts to AN were the only edits made by the relevant IPs. All of these things seem to tie in with concerns about hat collecting that editors have raised – I am specifically thinking of this interaction with Swarm at PERM/AP.

As for the specific issue at hand, I do think that the things I have outlined here show a pattern of behaviour that may lead editors to believe that you are unfit to hold certain permissions; I am specifically concerned about copyright issues here – your statement to Moneytrees about your edits not actually constituting copyright infringements is unequivocally untrue, and you reaffirmed this understanding today, by stating that Firstly I was never warned and secondly for cases that detect 10-15% copyvio on Earwig copyvio tools. one liners and quoted text are generally allowed. This concerns me, especially considering that people who heavily work AFC and NPR should have a very solid understanding of copyright, so I do agree that it warrants discussion whether you should retain those rights at this time. The same goes for individuals applying for the autopatrolled right – given that some of your creations, such as this translation (which was initially unattributed) still contain obvious machine translation errors, I would not be comfortable granting that to you (if I was in any position to do so, which I am not).

In short: I do appreciate your work here, but I also think that Nick did the right thing by removing (at least some of) your permissions, especially NPR. I am not familiar enough with your work in file and page moving to assess the others. Advanced permissions do require community trust, and given your past actions, I can understand that people are hesitant to trust you with some of them. Certainly, accusing Nick of making false allegations was not called for.

I hope this can be resolved amicably. Best, Blablubbs|talk 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You had seen Special:Diff/1011233333, thanked me for it, wrote Special:Diff/1011235141 ("I have nothing to say anymore") and now this. I'm out of advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick made the right call. You can continue making useful contributions without page mover, file mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer permissions. You're going to need time (6 months at the barest minimum ) to build trust back up and convince the community that you understand why you were sanctioned and that you're not going to continue making those same mistakes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what possible problem there is here, apart, maybe, from the fact that you are still allowed to edit. You have shown that you are untrustworthy, so you are no longer trusted with any advanced permissions. All very simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned by problems identified by Blablubbs, particularly the copyright and the editing while logged out. It's somewhat ironic that Amkgp mentioned on Nick's talk page that they were concerned that re-requesting permissions normally would look like hat collecting, because, well... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore this thread, but equally, I don't want to make the situation worse for Amkgp. My concerns are explained in detail on my talk page - primarily logged out editing and their slightly fuzzy understanding of copyright, which I do believe makes it inappropriate for Amkgp to retain the page curation/movement and file movement tools. I do understand my outlook may be particularly risk averse, as a result, I'd just like to record that I'm happy for other administrators to restore any/all permissions if they do think I've been overly cautious/harsh, similarly, as I said to Amkgp, I have no objections to them filing for any/all permissions at WP:PERM, where there can be discussion on individual permissions. Nick (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Immediately re-requesting the permissions at individual WP:PERM subpages, now that the discussion on your user talk page happened and the discussion here at WP:AN exists, would practically be forum-shopping and perhaps simply be declined as such by me. It's a friendly offer, but I'm afraid Amkgp might take it in the moment they read it, and that doing so wouldn't be productive at all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reasoning here by both Nick and Blablubs seems good. Their prior failures on copyright etc would hold up for most rights, but I could have seen a reasonable case if they had just asked for the PCR userright. However, their approach and potential ANI logged out activity makes me reticent to provide the less sensitive userrights. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• As I have previously observed as a PERM admin, multiple times, the OP is a known hat collector, and in my opinion is the worst we have ever seen in the history of this project. They would probably already be partial-blocked from requesting permissions by me if not for my own inactivity, pursuant to my warnings to them. Nick's denial here is clearly in line with normal PERM standards and practices, and the OP's complaint is clearly in line with their desperate drive to hat collect. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion. The discussion seems to go nowhere what I requested. Therefore, I would request this thread to be closed as there is no point of wasting further time on this when the revoking admin has cleared his position and rationale behind his action and other participants too have expressed their views and concerns. — Amkgp 💬 04:44, 10 March 2021 (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.

Someone please conclude this requested move

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.

---

• Talk:Yaghnobi_people#Requested_move_25_February_2021

Thanks! Wario-Man ^talk 08:25, 11 March 2021 (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:Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Beyond My Ken claims almost all my edits as 'POV' and is interrupting them. And as you can see from his contribution, he constantly attacks me with slander or false information. I think we need to take action on this part.--Storm598 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2021 (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.

Racist stuff on my talk page

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 hide/delete [116] and [117]. I have already reported that user to ANI. Wario-Man ^talk 06:05, 12 March 2021 (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.

REFSPAM and MEAT for Ian Urbina, likely PAID

Background Info

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamCardigan
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blake Shawl
• Ian Urbina

Involved editors

• LiamCardigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khloe Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gary Oakman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoeyMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emmatucker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Holla9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nicole Hartman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I plan to block the above-mentioned accounts for WP:REFSPAM and, based on the preponderance of evidence, undisclosed WP:PAID. I originally filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamCardigan based on an AIV report from Pepperbeast. LiamCardigan, Khloe Bear, and Emmatucker67 all were adding references to Ian Urbina's work without any other substantial contributions. Pepperbeast pointed out Blake Shawl and the socks associated there as well as JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman, Holla9211, and Nicole Hartman after the initial SPI I filed.

Unfortunately, Oshwah found no CU evidence connecting the accounts, so I strongly suspect MEAT with PAID given that 10 other accounts were doing the same thing.

I recall this happening with another journalist (I don't recall the name off the top of my head), so this seems it may be a wider problem. But for now I wanted to report here and have others please review my forthcoming blocks to make sure I'm not making an error.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notifications in a few minutes., EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Notifications completed. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Question: What is the connection of the Ian Urbina article's two primary editors, User:Eli779632 and User:Gravitymonkey -- both of whom have only edited that article, and nothing else on Wikipedia -- to the editors you blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Those two users notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• User:Gravitymonkey here -- not sure if this is where to respond (I'm not familiar enough with editing here to be useful, which is why i haven't contributed much since working on the Ian Urbina page). Should I respond here, Beyond My Ken? Gravitymonkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Gravitymonkey You could start by answering whether you have a conflict of interest in regard to Urbina, and whether you have any relationship with User:Eli779632. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken I do know Urbina, we've met via email back in 2005 when I served as a source on some of his work at The New York Times (won't go into more detail), and occasionally communicated via email since. I did start a bunch of work on his page a few years back, as you noted. I don't know who Eli is -- I've never met/communicated with him. Are you requesting that I add COI tags or similar to his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitymonkey (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Gravitymonkey It's just my opinion (I'm not an admin), but I think you're OK as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• @EvergreenFir: Thanks! Could you also have a look at Giantwombat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? The user has added lots of links to news articles by Ian Urbina (but also some other journalists). Maybe PAID not just by Urbina? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Spotted another one... user:Onaroadcalledoppenheimer PepperBeast (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Falun Gong: 0RR without explanation or expiration date

A little background before I get to my request: As some of you know, among other topics, I'm a regular over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, particularly topics related to folklore studies. Late 2019, I encountered a huge amount of advertisements from Shen Yun while visiting the US. This featured lots of colorful costumes, featured heavy emphasis on 'tradition', and was heavily marketed as a 'cultural experience'. I soon found that behind this dance company is a new religious movement called Falun Gong, which had not only been aggressively supporting extreme right-wing groups here in Germany by way of its various news outlets (like the The Epoch Times) but also soon started making headlines in the United States in their tremendous support for fringe stuff.

When I encountered it, somehow English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article made no mention of important topics like Falun Gong and Shen Yun's compound and de facto headquarters, Dragon Springs (as you can see, we now have an entire article on this). The article even somehow managed to avoid referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement despite a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed academic sources describing the group as exactly that at every turn. These are just a few of the issues from which the article suffered.

Compiling numerous peer-reviewed sources and media reports, I quickly experienced why scholar James R. Lewis wrote that English Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong and its propaganda and media outlets (like Shen Yun and The Epoch Times) appeared to be "little more than mouthpieces for the FLG [Falun Gong] point of view" (2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 81. Cambridge University Press.). The reason why was pretty obvious: These articles have been (and are) absolutely crawling with single-purpose accounts whose core goal is clearly to make pro-FG edits whenever and wherever possible. Some of them have been camped out on these articles for around a decade. They're all too happy to brigade and lawyer away anyone who might want to introduce a source or claim that would not meet the approval of self-created narratives. I've witnessed exactly the sort of behavior Lewis describes in his assessment and the attempts at character assassination and similar I've seen also check out with the various accounts out there by scholars of being harassed and/or threatened when researching the topic.

Absolutely nothing has been pleasant about any of this. On the up side, these articles have seen major improvements over the course of 2020 and many great editors have since gotten involved, making this sort of brigading and lawyering much more difficult to manage. So, while the SPAs are still now and then making attempts at reverting these articles to their previous states, the old norm appears to have been smashed and the SPAs seem to have lost the field to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

So imagine my surprise a couple days ago when, after signing on as I normally have since 2005, I checked my watchlist, and made a straightforward revert ([118]) only for me to receive a message that I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours by @Guerillero:. As admin Guerillero—whose name I did not recognize—informed me, Guerillero had added me to a special list back in July of 2020. Anyone on Guerillero's list was apparently forbidden from performing any reverts on this page (yes, that's right, 0RR), it is indefinite, and, no, according to Guerillero, he certainly did not need to discuss or explain it. Guerillero did, however, notify me that he had dropped a template on my talk page back in July 2020, during which time I was no doubt being bombarded with the usual harassment from SPAs and missed it or I would have immediately appealed to avoid absurd situations like this one. As I had apparently not reverted anything on that article since July 2020 (or you'd have heard all about it from me at that time), it sure seems like there was never any reason for me to be on this strange list to begin with. I still have no clue why I would be included on this list—the article already has a very visible 1RR policy. Guerillero's block was soon lifted by @Bishonen: and various other admins lended support for the removal ([119]).

I fail to see how this in any way assists Wikipedia. In fact, stuff like this actively discourages the editors who we really need on these articles. Could someone please remove my name from this ridiculous and arbitrary list so I don't have to deal with this nonsense again? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment as-to whether your block was justified, but Falun Gong is an extremely controversial topic visited by many SPAs and an admin-imposed 0RR is justified. 0RR for all editors, not just editors on some list you claim exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"List [I] claim exists"? The list is right here, which I linked to above. The article is set to 1RR. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I was mistaken. I thought 0RR applied to all editors at Falun Gong, it does not. I think you need to appeal at WP:AE, though I will not stop you if you want to appeal here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: You are going about this the wrong way. Discretionary sanctions exist for very good reasons. I have no idea why you were caught up in a 0RR restriction but the fact is that you were. Rather than starting a general discussion regarding your misfortune, you should ask somewhere quiet about how to appeal. The first step of any successful appeal is to work out what happened at the time. Perhaps, to an uninvolved administrator, it did appear there was excessive reverting, and they reasonably concluded that handing out half-a-dozen restrictions was desirable. Try to see it from their point of view (AGF: they are not mad, they are not trying to get you, they would have had a reason). After that, have low-key and polite discussion with the admin about what you would need to do for them to lift the restriction. Point out some of what you said above (fringe, SPAs). Then wait for their reply and politely engage with what they say. I, or others, can say how to proceed if dissatisfied after that but those two steps are very important. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The admin who made the list, Guerillero, told me to come here or go to AE. I figured I'd come by here first. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The unblock request seems a bit worrying? The request asked for an appeal to be copied to AN/AE and was denied and told to wait until the block was over? Yes, it’d probably have taken longer than 24 hours to reach a consensus to unblock anyway, but this seems effectively like unappealable blocks (minus the IAR unblock). As for the 0RR, is there a good reason for keeping it up? Why was it imposed originally? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only have time to skim but edits around time of 0RR ban seem fine. So support lifting that restriction. Also ArbCom should maybe create a reasonable quick process to undo short AE blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The 0RR restriction should be lifted, I don't think it should have been set in the first place. I have edited that article from time to time but hadn't realized it had been imposed, if I had I would have objected. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's time to lift the 0RR restriction. Background: Guerillero discusses his 0RR sanction of six editors in this ANI thread from July 2020. Guerillero's post is here, stating that he has placed "most everyone involved in the [Falun Gong] article under a 0RR sanction" in an attempt "to keep the article from becoming a mud fight". Perhaps unfortunately, nobody there took him up on his offer to answer questions about these sanctions. The six people are, I think, three from each side, per BF's description above of the sides. So, on Guerillero's part, it looks like an "0RR 'em all indefinitely and let God sort 'em out" approach in what seemed a desperate situation.

Speaking now only to the sanction of Bloodofox, Guerillero's 0RR sanction notice on BF's page on 27 July 2020 is rather short on information, the only explanation being "edit warring".[120] BF had made one revert at Falun Gong on 27 July, one revert on 7 july, and one on 5 July, all with explanatory edit summaries. So, clearly the sanction was not for edit warring in the classic sense. Was BF supposed to have got consensus on talk before reverting to Binksternet on 27 July? If so (and if not so, how?), it seems quite draconian to give him an indefinite 0RR restriction for violating the somewhat notorious "consensus required" condition (a condition I myself would never set), especially without any warning or recommendation to self-revert. The "mud fight" issue and Guerillero's post in the ANI thread makes it more understandable; still, seen from BF's point of view, not really understandable at all. Apparently he either rode right over it, or subsequently forgot about it, because he violated it by a revert on 28 February and was promptly blocked for 24 hours by Guerillero, again without any previous request to self-revert. I lifted this block, although it came with the pomp of a "reminder to administrators" that I might "at the discretion of ArbCom" be desysopped if I did, since it's an AE block. (Guerillero has however made it clear he has no interest in taking that road.) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

• Firstly, the user is entitled to appeal any AE sanction here, and personaly, were I ever hit, that's exactly where I would do so as well. I also get irked by claims that individuals receiving short-sanctions should either be obliged to appeal while the block is on-running, or wait until until it's over - both are, to me, unacceptable limitations. Given the circumstances (that is, long after the restriction was imposed) and non-problematic nature, I feel an immediate 24hr block was unnecessary. I also don't feel this sanction (as vs the base 1RR in place on the article) is beneficial and also advise it being lifted. A good case could be made for the removal of all the 0RR on the page, but I don't know enough about the status of the other editors to make an evidenced call on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• For over a month, what would happen on Falun Gong is some form of Alice would make a controversial change, Bob would revert it, Clara would revert Bob back to Alice's version, Daniel would revert Clara, 24 hours will have passed so Alice reverts Daniel back to her version and the article would be full protected my myself or El_C. After a few go rounds of this and having to indef full protect the article, I placed the most common parties of this under a 0RR to break the back of this behavior. I was able to unprotect the article and it worked until 28 February 2021 when the pattern started up again. My feeling was that a 0RR would be better than a topic ban, because it would allow people to edit the article but stop the edit war. This may have been an over step on my part, but I did it to try to keep a contentious topic stable. As for my block, I have no intention of dragging Bishonen to arbcom over it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would have no strong objections to lifting the 0RR on the non-SPAs on my list. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I also think this would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me Nosebagbear (talk)

Since I was pinged, a couple of notes. I don't think I noticed at the time that Guerillero converted my one-week full protection to an indefinite full protection, then downgraded that to ECP, accompanied by the aforementioned 0RR sanctions to select users. But I don't think it matters (my knowledge of any of that). I trust Guerillero's judgment, overall, in any case. Also noting that WP:AFLG is probably one the AE topic areas I'm least familiar with (to the best of my knowledge, have never logged anything on that front, which says a lot). Finally, to Bish's point about CR — I tend to view it as the nuclear option (same with EBRD, except it having more radiation fallout, IMO). I think I've maybe added CR to pages once or twice (or three times max) during the past year, which, again, says a lot. El_C 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update: has been gracefully lifted by Guerillero (Special:Diff/1010887537), —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Brewers in Nottinghamshire

I've just spent the whole day on a project to help round out the information on brewing in North Nottinghamshire. Someone came along and deleted two profiles already and then marked another for speedy deletion. They say it's promotional. It is not. It was written neutrally. I am not the brewer or in any way associated with the brewer. There was a request to add more information about local brewers - the list page has a huge number of brewers on it without profiles. I feel like I've completely wasted my time. I also feel that the criteria is completely inconsistent because how can you write about any company if it is deemed promotional. And you will note that I followed the stame structure as other brewers who have not been deleted. My understanding was that if there was a problem - eg promotional content - that this would be flagged up on the talk page and discussed. I have no idea how to recover the content that has been deleted. I have no idea how to ask for help. It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here. The profiles are Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery that have been already deleted. SandrinaHatman (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

SandrinaHatman, Hi, I'm sorry to hear about this. I have a keen interest in brewery and pubs and have written or improved several articles on the subject including the bulk of Curious Brewing and Fremlin's Brewery. I had a quick look for sources for the Welbeck Abbey Brewery and see coverage in the Daily Telegraph, Nottingham Post and Worksop Guardian, which should be enough to write a small encyclopedic stub. If the breweries are covered in Amberley-published books, that will help. I'm a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what I can do about recreating these articles and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: aren't you rather crossing the line of your interaction ban with Praxidicae by getting involved with this ? Nick (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So what do we do? We just put up with people deleting things willy nilly Nick? Can you please tell me how you're going to help? I spent hours going through press to find the information and properly cited it all. Thank you to Ritchie for the suggestion but I wanted to contribute profiles of small to mid sized brewers because there are 2000 of them and only a handful have profiles. I'm effectively being prevented from doing that. And the Fremlins article was fab Ritchie and very interesting. I just improved Goachers a bit and will be uploading another photo that my friend took of The Rifle today.SandrinaHatman (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandrinaHatman: What has this to do with Ritchie333's interaction ban, which I was asking Ritchie about ? Nick (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: Prax is the person who nominated the three articles for deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa and SandrinaHatman: I think the point is if there's a problem with Praxidicae's editing or admining, then anyone without an iban is free to discuss these problems, including I assume SandrinaHatman, and try to help in any way allowed by our policies and guideliens. Anyone with an iban with Praxidicae isn't free to do so, and should stay out of it not least because it leads to these asides which risk distracting from the potential actual issues. That particular comment of Nick was meant to solely focus on the appropriateness of Ritchie333 participating in this discussion and getting involved with articles that were deleted by Praxidicae. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced those were G11 speedies, to be honest. The prose was written pretty neutrally and lists of beers that a brewery sells are not unusual in a brewery article. Whether they're notable or not is quite another matter, but that's not what they were deleted for. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, was wondering about that - we've got I think pretty much every Scottish whisky distillery and would have lists of their bottlings, so are breweries really that much different. Nick (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a lot of ambiguity to what counts as "unambiguous promotion" in practice. As soon as there's a hint of promotion, many patrollers will tag for speedy deletion and many admins will oblige, even if it could have been saved by toning it down and providing better sources. The defence is to use unimpeachable sources, avoid puffery, and not write anything that could be perceived as soliciting sales. Fences&Windows 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently I created a page about a Belarusian businessman, it was subsequently nominated for deletion.

I want to make a point of mentioning that one of the criticisms was that corruption of said businessman was not covered in the article and therefore it was WP:COI. See [121], and the points made there by that same user. In other words, some editors found that the content was too neutral and did not include coverage about alleged corruption.

At 14:10, 6 March 2021 I inserted a comment on the deletion discussion page, which I can not reproduce accurately because Nick deleted it, wherein I referred to the subject, as a "wallet" linking an opinion article written by leading Belarusian authority Andrei Sannikov. The origin of my use of the word "wallets" comes from a Google Translation of that article as I do not speak Russian. In it Andrei calls for increased sanctions on powerful business people in Belarus.

After Nick removes that reference, which is quite surprising to me, I respond to Nick at 15:18 by suggesting that there has not been a violation of BLP. Nick does not respond and I continue a debate with another user who initiates a minor edit war about whether or not the Belarusian businessman should be mentioned in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.

At 17:02, almost two hours after I responded to Nick's actions, Nick asks on my talk page that I explain my use of the term wallet. I continue the debate in the minor editing war. But at 17:47, exactly 45 minutes after having asked the question, Nick simply declares:

I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page.

In other words, Nick can not articulate how BLP has been broken, but wants me to clarify my use of terms and not only is he not prepared to wait an hour for my answer (despite having taken almost two hours to follow up to me), he sees the appropriate response to be a ban on editing BLPs for a whole year.

I have raised the issue with Nick on his talk page and he has asked me to note that another admin emphasized to me the importance of not making accusations of corruption but I have not done so which makes the point moot. [[

I have explained to Nick that I have used the terms "politically exposed person" and incidentally "wallet", simply because I read that opinion piece earlier today, in discussions. This does not break BLP.

A politically exposed person is defined by the World Bank as "individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs" and since Zaytsev is a verified associate of Viktor Lukashenko it is reasonable to refer to him as a politically exposed person. Just to further the argument, Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to [his affiliation] with the Lukashenko regime." [122].

Even if it was found that I have violated BLP, then I would argue that everything I have done is with good intent and I have argued by case going by due process. Nick on the other hand has shown little regard for process, given no explanations and meted out a disproportionate punishment. --Jabbi (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't disproportionate. You ignored warnings, edit warred, created numerous BLP vios that had to be revision deleted and then continued with WP:TE. This has been explained to you on your talk page, both article talk pages and the AFd in question. I'd recommend a boomerang here. CUPIDICAE💕 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, funny to see you here. Again, what warnings? The edit war you refer to was initiated by you and concluded with you saying you don't care anymore, the content you tried to remove still stands. Can you point to any BLP vio? Is there anything contentious other than the discussion about peps/wallets? Please put forward arguments, and if you can be bothered, include diffs. Otherwise, your contribution is rather like hot air. And, not disproportionate? I have a good record apart from this, is a year a short time? What's the big concern? Finally, the edit war is unrelated to the BLP issue under discussion here. You raised the issue there about content unrelated to Nick's ambiguous charge of BLP and were found to be in the wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really disruptive now. You literally acknowledged these warnings. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now (and have been for some time) and I'd suggest at this point someone offer an involuntary break until Jabbi can thoroughly read policy, their talk page and reflect on it.

Warning 1 by Nick at 14:49 following Jabbi's BLP violating comments which were subsequently revdelled after my comments to them at the AFD.

Acknowledgement of warning 1 by Jabbi at 15:18

my concern and warning about BLP at 15:50 about a comment made by Jabbi at 15:47 and after a lengthy discussion about BLP, which they also acknowledged being aware of, my comment was a result of concern about them introducing the BLP violating material to a different BLP but about the same subject at AFD.

After their comment about merging said material into Viktor Lukashenko I grew concerned and noticed an existing BLP violation there (one of many which I haven't addressed yet) and adequately explained my removal in my first, second and third edit summaries, as well as on the talk page. To which Jabbi claims I provided no explanation. I even provided the specific text of the BLP policy, despite their earlier acknowledgement of understanding it and highlighted the applicable part twice.

And finally, their final comment on the mainspace BLP indicates their agenda and inability to adhere to WP:NPOV by trying to connect a non-notable businessman to a dictator. How is documenting the son of the dictators involvement with a notable business figure undue weight? --Jabbi (talk) 12:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). This wasn't an innocent addition of a name to an article, as evidenced by their revdelled comments, comments here and elsewhere, itw as an attempt to again connect the dots to corruption despite lacking any reliable sourcing to do so.

So how many warnings do you need, exactly? This doesn't even delve into your persistent edit warring and POV problems nor your repeated personal attacks. If you really think you weren't adequately warned or this wasn't clearly explained to you by at least two different people, perhaps we should be discussing what level of competence is required to edit BLPs.

If anyone reviewing this needs me to lay out more diffs, I can but I think a review of the general discussion, edits and edit summary as well as their talk page is sufficient evidence that this ban is more than warranted and necessary. CUPIDICAE💕 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, I have conceded in a comment here below that there is one, singular BLP violation. There is one revision deletion on a talk page related to that single violation. Otherwise, a discussion about references to the above Sannikov opinion piece (that is "wallets") can not be considered a BLP violation as it does not imply anything unlawful, only being wealthy and therefore influential because of Lukashenko's patronage. The article about the original business man has now been delete, that is fine, references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet you so markedly still miss the point. references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. At least we agree on that much, and how appropriate, another BLP violation in this very thread. PS: to your comment below, I am not male and I am not required to be uninvolved to comment here or suggest an outcome. WP:INVOLVED applies to admin actions generally, not discussions regarding disruptive behavior of editors. CUPIDICAE💕 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, can I please ask if you are aware of any specific concern about BLP violations on my behalf? I ask because I suspect the only reason you asked me to confirm that I should not allege corruption is because of context of Nick's actions, rather than anything you would attribute directly to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to others, User:Praxidicae, is not an uninvolved editor and his unsupported views here should be disregarded. --Jabbi (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I would have done the same thing. Revdel followed by an WP:ARBBLP ban, due to prior BLP problems. For admins, the diff in question is here. I'm also struck by the OP's use of the phrase too neutral — I think that's a first for me. Like, what is meant by "too neutral"? Surely it can't be lacking in editorializing. Anyway, just because the owners of Belorussian businesses (in general) may need to keep decent contacts with components of a shady regime, does not necessarily follow that they are doing anything shady themselves.

So, accusing someone of being a money laundering "wallet," doing so on the basis of a machine translation from an unreliable source — that a serious problem. That could be ruinous for such a borderline-notable living person as Alexander Zaytsev. So, fine application of the BLP hammer on Nick's part. Jabbi, more broadly, about righting great wrongs. We have a standard of reliability for sources on the project. We can't pick and choose to lower it for this or that country due to its poor press freedoms performances. That's just not a thing. El_C 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

But in the article in question, there is no direct accusation of money laundering. I should clarify, the implication in the article is that in order to be successful in business in Belarus, you need patronage from Lukashenko. This is a given, therefore, wallets, just mean rich people. Not necessarily criminally so. This is a connotation you are yourself bringing into play. Can you tell me where in the article by Sannikov money laundering is mentioned? And when questioned about my intentions, I explained my understanding of the term as being equivalent as pep. Is then a year's ban not disproportionate? --Jabbi (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it was said in the deletion discussion, but, you know, reporters can click on links. Everything said on-wiki is public and subject to BLP. El_C 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, where is the link between wallet and money laundering? I don't know where you get that from. Taking circumstances into account, i.e. this is not a wilful defamation, is a year's ban normal? What I am trying to say, Sannikov's article does not suggest money laundering. What's the problem with a rich guy being called a wallet? --Jabbi (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you had clicked on the link I provided you could have seen discussion on the afd where a user accuses me of making "the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption..." What I meant by "too neutral" which is clumsily worded, is that I did not include sources on corruption. --Jabbi (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You said, and I quote (in part): in the article I have linked independent journalism covering probable money laundering by Zaytsev in neighbouring Lithuania (underline is my emphasis). El_C 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But this is unrelated to the discussion around wallets. That article is about Zaytsev's dealings in Lithuania. [123]. This has got nothing to do with the BLP vio Nick based his decision on. --Jabbi (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But a year's ban. That's a bit heavy. --Jabbi (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, would not have set the duration to expire, but I guess Nick is a nicer guy. El_C 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds strangely vindictive and counter-productive given the circumstances. That fact that you justify Nick's actions using personal characteristics rather than objective facts is disappointing. --Jabbi (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Arbitrary and unreasonable," even? Oh well, at least it's brief and forthright. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, there are several mitigating factors I contend; 1) a prior discussion in the same vein, 2) it is a talk page, 3) I have shown caution in main space edits, 4) a long history of valid work and 5) rather clear indication of good will. I understand if you disagree but to me this matters. If there is strong intent to spread misinformation here, accounts can be circumvented as I am sure you realise. I respect the consensus here as elsewhere, but again, I think this is disproportionate. --Jabbi (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, Jabbi, I feel that bringing up mitigating circumstances (of whatever nature) sidesteps the point here. Which is to always err on the side of a conservative BLP approach, especially for borderline-notable living persons (i.e. WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BURDEN). Let's not forget that there is a real human being at the other end one of this. One who, again, is not even remotely notable as, say, a head of state or high-end celebrity. Hoping this salient point resonates this time. El_C 13:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, the thing about setting a clock is that it's obviously less useful if the sanctioned individual doesn't appreciate the gravity behind the violation, which greatly increases the likelihood for the violation to repeat at some point after the sanction lapses. To me, that's sort of a fact. El_C 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse sanction. Jabbi| is making this all about them. This is about protecting BLP subjects from possible defamation, protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, and ultimately, protecting Jabbi. Clearly they do not understand what they did wrong or the consequences. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You seem not to have read my arguments about what edits and references to sources said. You endorse a year's ban for a single violation done when there is good intent? --Jabbi (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am having trouble understanding your sense of justice. I have many thousand edits on my record, mainly on my Icelandic Wikipedia. Never had a vio. And now there is a single vio, just one, where I use the word probable. There is no repeat offence as the use of the term "wallet" can not be seen as a BLP vio, or else explain how. --Jabbi (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

the fact that you think it’s over one edit and one word is indicative of the problem here. Your edits on other projects are irrelevant, policies are different and certain articles and categories of articles are authorized for discretionary sanctions here by arbcom motion and community consensus. You were repeatedly informed of this, acknowledged it, said you understood and continued anyway. This isn’t about justice, it’s about disruption and protection. This ban was necessary to stop the disruption and protect the integrity of the project and biographies of living people. CUPIDICAE💕 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, maybe badgering the respondents to your own appeal isn't the best look, or is conducive to it succeeding (even in ameliorating it somewhat)...? Just throwing it out there. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, there is no justice at Wikipedia. We aren't interested in justice. We are not a police force, or court of law. We are interested in solutions and fairness, which are very different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel unjustly treated here. I think I will cease participating completely in Wikipedia. As a parting wish I would just ask that someone finish Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alexander Lukashenko/1. Thanks for everyone who's contributed here. Goodbye and good luck --Jabbi (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel wronged to such an extent that I feel I have to defend myself. I hope everyone understands. My responses are sometimes curt, or sarcastic, this is to my detriment and I can only apoligize for that. However, like I say, I feel that some statements here are factually incorrect and others value judgements that I disagree with but respect. --Jabbi (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering the violation, coupled with the tone and tenor of many of your responses here and elsewhere (their aggressive and dismissive nature as well as their WP:BLUDGEON'ing frequency), I think you've been treated with general courtesy, overall. Being blunt, at times, is just par for the course for these sort of discussions. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a social-justicy safe space, where discussions inevitably become muted as contributors are forced to walk on eggshells. I was gonna leave your above comment unanswered, but seeing as you still continue to engage here, even after this announcement of your departure from en, I thought it'd be worthwhile to set the record straight. El_C 13:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What I've corrected is the accusation of several BLP violations. I am content you are referring to a single violation. And to be clear, I understand what it is I did that broke policy and why. I will learn from that if I decide to edit again. I do not need a safe-space, but being up against many and feel wronged in some way can be frustrating. --Jabbi (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, what I got from this thus far is that you've committed multiple and egregious BLP violations, even if these only concerned this one borderline-notable living person (by way of WP:BLPCRIME). Possibly, there are other BLP violations which concern other living persons...? I don't know. El_C 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You've not spoken of this before. Nick certainly only reverted one edit. Is there anything specific you think violates BLP? Now I don't want to argue ad nauseam but charges such as these have to be 100%. My argument is that in the removed edit there is certain context put forward that violates BLP, I accept and understand that, it was a mistake. Consecutive references to the Sannimov article, taken on their own, are however not such violations. Or do you disagree? --Jabbi (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familiar enough with your editing history to comment further on that at this time. So, I'll let those who do take it from here. But these were egregious BLPCRIME violations, which involved multiple revisions requiring revdels. For whatever that's worth. El_C 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick only removes 2 successive edits made in a short timespan by me as can be in the talk history. There's no multiple revisions. The way you use that word egregious repeatedly is a bit dramatic. remember, in my quote I say probable, emphasis mine. --Jabbi (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, only a passing familiarity, but you can now add an additional "wallet" revdel to the mix (admins only). Anyway, I'm not sure why, after everything, you think calling the response to your BLPCRIME violations "dramatic" helps your case here, but whatever. El_C 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine as long as you don't use it the third time. I'm not making light of the singular BLP violation, it's just that I work at a university library and I rarely come across that word. No one notified me of additional rev-dels. But this brings us back a full circle to my original question, Why is it a BLP to call someone a wallet with reference to Sannikov's article. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Jabbi (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine, regardless. In answer to your question: it was because of the money laundering connotations. Also noting several additional revdels, but I won't bother linking to them, this time. El_C 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What money laundering connotations? If the only mention of a BLPCRIME is in the first original revdel by Nick. What connotation is there to money laundering if I am only referring to Belarusian business people described in Sannikov's piece as wallets? Have you really thought this through C? This is the question I put forward in the beginning of this thread. I'm glad we've finally reached a place where we can discuss it. Also, how many revdels did you commit and how many are there in total if Nick did one and let me know on my talk page? --Jabbi (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Like, hinting of playing host to a shady crypto wallet for whomever...? I dunno. Doesn't matter, sounds shady, is the point. Also, why do you need me to count the revdels for you? I don't really understand what you're asking me. El_C 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading a translation of the Russian article, but from the context the reference to wallet seems to have troubling connotations. It suggests at a minimum crony capitalism, where these business people are benefiting from corruption in the country e.g. being awarded state contracts, and not because they are truly the best business but simply because they are friends with the right people. In return, these business people help out the politicians and their families financially as needed. So while the politicians may not themselves have tremendous amounts of money in their bank accounts or whatever, they have access to tremendous amounts of money via the business people i.e. their wallets. Probably this money probably isn't just used for direct personal benefit of politicians, sometimes e.g. around election time or otherwise when there's need to try and show something to the people, it may come back to the people in the form of projects supported by the state or pet projects of some politicians e.g. to act as their legacy, which the state can't afford. So instead these "generous" business people and their companies are the ones who finance these projects, ignoring the fact they are primarily rich of the backs of the state anyway, so it's really ultimately mostly state money even if the ownership is in some companies name. Again I can't be sure if this is what the author of the article meant since I don't understand Russian and it's risky to try to understand an article based on a machine translation, worse when you don't understand the social-political background behind it. It seems clear that Jabbi lacks that too though. It makes no sense to suggest there's no shady connotations. Rich business people don't act as "wallets" for politicians if they're not getting anything in return, there has to be some quid pro quo. At least it must come in the form of no persecution, but frankly that suggests a power imbalance which is unlikely i.e. the business people do have tremendous amounts of power and aren't likely satisfied with just being allowed to exist, they must be getting something more in return. It may very well be that it's impossible to be a sufficient successful business person in Belarus with getting involved in that. If it is, then it is, this can be mentioned in relation to specific individuals if supported by suitable reliable sources. Otherwise no. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The op-ed is short and general, does not refer to specific individuals or suggest criminal activity. If I may quote recent academic paper, I can with ease provide more if required: "One can witness the politicisation of SOEs, their role being a source of resources to be distributed for meeting political goals. The politicisation of SOEs à rebours is paramount, their rents originate from their privileged position set up by the state – although SOEs seem to play a passive part here (unlike, e.g. in Poland – Kozarzewski and Bałtowski, 2017), being mainly an object of the state’s economic populism actions. The latter seems to be one of the cornerstones of Belarusian economic policy, with the authorities trying to create the widest possible clientelist base." and also: "State authorities may give large private enterprises a monopolistic position on the market in exchange for profit sharing with the state (going far beyond ordinary taxation).". Make no mistake, Belarus is an authoritarian state. Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, in this specific case, I was referring to a business man who has a verified background of being an aide to Viktor Lukashenko, making him fall under the definition of a politically exposed persons, which is also the view of Vytis Jurkonis, an academic who specialises in the politics of the area [124]. --Jabbi (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, as Nil Einne rightly points out, the meaning of "wallet" in the article is highly contextualised. I have however, from the very beginning, consistently explained what meaning I attributed to it, see: here & other now references to wallets deleted. --Jabbi (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally, have you considered at all the possibility that in Russian, "wallet" is simply slang for a rich dude? --Jabbi (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A further source, from 2011: "Corruption. The country’s continuous push for liberalization of the business climate was offset by the strengthening position of the Belarusian KGB. The latter has emerged as a top patronage network in the system of power, capable of eliminating bureaucratic competitors for the distribution of rents, as well as obstructing the prosecution of those suspected of graft. Belarus’s corruption rating remains unchanged at 6.00." The most recent Freedom House report states: "Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? 1 / 4 The state controls at least 70 percent of the economy, and graft is encouraged by a lack of transparency and accountability in government. There are no independent bodies to investigate corruption cases, and graft trials are typically closed. Presidential clemency has been issued occasionally to free convicted corrupt officials, some of whom Lukashenka has returned to positions of authority." --Jabbi (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately consistently misindenting C but thanks for correcting it. Now that there is some actual contextual discussion of the BLP violation, which El_C has stated are several and serious if I understand him correctly, in light of the above basic facts about political reality in Belarus, where, the higher you go, the likelihood of serious collusion and corruption is clearly high, how can it be considered wrong to use a colloquial term from a Russian op-ed that, at best, has an ambiguous meaning, in any case, suggesting something shady rather than downright illegal when it is shown that this is the reality in Belarus? Also, which I am getting tired of repeating, (Redacted). --Jabbi (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? In a thread about potential BLP violations, you're putting unsourced BLP violations? I'm usually one to sit out conversations like this (and/or be civil), but seriously... what are you smoking? Primefac (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not on purpose, sorry. But this can be gathered anyway from the context. --Jabbi (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement: I have decided to take sound advice and stop from contributing further for a while. This discussion can be considered closed. I understand what violations I have made. Sorry. --Jabbi (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Czechia RFC instead of RM

Hi, is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look at Talk:Czech_Republic#RfC_about_the_name_of_this_country? There have been several RM requests over the years that have consistently rejected the name Czechia as the title, but now an RFC has been started on the same topic, which looks like an attempt to move the article without going through the proper WP:RM process. Several editors have commented that the RFC lacks standing and is the wrong venue for a requested move, and given that it's the wrong venue it's hard to see that a consensus for a page move could ever be formed in that way. I think the RFC should be either closed or converted into a proper RM, instead of chewing up editor time in this confusing state until its expiry date of early April, but I've been quite involved in RMs on that subject in the past so am not able to perform an early closure myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Argh! Same. El_C 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Double Czech and mate! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The response to your 2nd close is exactly why I do not mention the merits in a procedural close. Nothing good can ever come from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, those responses would likely had come in some way or another, anyway. And it's best to be straight up about everything. Through the years, these perennial Czechia proposals always attract WP:SPAs and inexperienced users. That's par for the course. They're welcome to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it here, but I doubt much will come of it. El_C 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And these proposals always end with the same outcome, because of the English language being what it is — as opposed to, say, Hebrew, where I use צ'כיה pretty much exclusively, due to Hebrew being what it is. Doesn't matter that the Name of the Czech Republic will continue to state in its lead that: most English speakers use [the] Czech Republic in all contexts, therefore reaffirming the WP:COMMONNAME. Shouldn't really be much of a Through the Looking-Glass surprise, and yet almost certainly will continue to reoccur on the English Wikipedia with some regularity. Maybe there should be a FAQ combined with a move moratorium to throttle these proposals a bit...? I'll leave that decision to others, however. El_C 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there is a FAQ, which does speak to that. Silly me. El_C 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine and good, but the reason for closing the discussion has nothing to do with any of that. It was procedural only, since you need to use RM and not RFC for changing the name of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously our reasons differ and I opt for a wider view, but I suppose it's of little moment at this juncture... El_C 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on which of these approaches is the correct one, but thanks to both for looking into the matter.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been a succession of pagename-discussion moratoria on that talkpage, which have done a good job of allowing other editorial discussions to occur. Three weeks ago (and less than two weeks before this RFCish thing was filed) I closed a separate discussion Talk:Czech Republic#Use of short-form name in article (separate issue from title) regarding in-article usage. These have been raised for years, with never a consensus to change and not even usually any strong new evidence. But substantial time-sink, AGF failures, ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, threats to IAR, etc. I propose to implement another moratorium...say for one year. Any objections (or other thoughts about timeframe)? DMacks (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not personally. However, it may be considered fair to allow a new RM before applying a new 1-year moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right about what's fair. To help understand my position, I'll first say I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on this particular naming issue before and I don't plan to anytime soon. I would oppose a moratorium. Given that the RfC was improper, I don't think we should take much from it about the current state of consensus. People may have felt it would be closed given it was improper and there was no reason to waste their time reading, researching and commenting. And so I don't see a good reason for a new 1 year moratorium. Indeed in some ways it's harmful, since we've had no RM yet but technically there's been a few months when one could be started, we risk sending the message that if you want to have an RM, start one the instant the moratorium ends just in case a new one is imposed without a RM. However I'd fully support a 2-3 year moratorium if there is another proper RM, whatever the outcome. I would discourage anyone from starting an RM unless they believe there is some good reason why consensus may change, most likely a change in what sources support. Discussions about the name short of an RM which aren't likely to achieve anything can be ignored or closed as appropriate even without a moratorium. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're not suggesting there should be an RM, but you are also against imposing a moratorium? But that just encourages threads of the sort we've seen here, where people continually discuss the title and even look for other ways than an RM to get it changed, yet involved editors like myself aren't allowed to shut those down because there's no moratorium in place. I think a "soft" moratorium would be best here - all title discussion should be banned, unless it takes the form of a formal RM. And if someone does start a formal RM is started, then it should be a requirement that it present substantive evidence that the situation has genuinely changed since the last RM in late 2019. An RM that simply rehashes the old arguments should be closed quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, think we should do what I did last year with my AE-mandated RM approach for Kyiv (then still Kiev): announce a fortcoming move moratorium in advance (though, with Kyiv, the length was provisional at that point), which ended up being one year in length, but implement it after one more RM (which, for Kyiv, was the 15th RM), an RM which would be set to run the normal length. That is to say: I'm against an early closure on content grounds, as in having the closer decide on the contemporaneous or lack thereof nature of the sources brought to the table as an early-close provision. Otherwise, RMs are brief (compared to RfCs), so one week of that, followed by a one year break between any future subsequent RMs. That sounds like a sound plan to me. El_C 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That Kyiv discussion is a good datapoint that common usage in English sources can change over time, and WP naming changes accordingly when that happens. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And all it took there was 13 years and 15 RMs! El_C 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

With the successful one pushed through by a topic-banned user evading the topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Coincidence? //Puts on tinfoil hat! El_C 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated Request for Termination of IBAN

• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Editor Interaction Analyzer from 19 August 2018 on - updated to include Wikipedia space

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost three years ago and made permanent more than two-and-a-half years ago. A previous request to end the IBAN made a year ago was rejected (see here). I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist equivalent, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I have no intention whatsoever of interacting with the editor in question; the purpose of this request is to eliminate the possibility that an inadvertent crossing of paths could trigger a violation of the IBAN and another block. I request community support for termination of this one-way IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The other editor involved is Rusf10. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the Editor Interaction Analyzer report, it seems as if Alansohn was the first actor in 2 of the 3 interactions that were relatively close together (5 hours, 7 days and 16 days), and the one in which he was the second actor (7 days on Philip N. Gumbs), Alansohn's edit, restoring categories to a redirect, was not materially related to Rusf10's edit, which was to nominate the article for deletion. [125], [126]. I see no instances in which Alansohn has violated his IBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Alansohn It appears to me that the link you provided in your second sentence was not to the discussion from last year about lifting the IBAN, it was to the making of the IBAN to be permanent from 2 1/2 years ago (9 August 2018). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct. The details of the request from last year are here; This link is for the permanent extension of the IBAN. The example of Philip N. Gumbs is the exact situation that I'm hoping to avoid, in which an inadvertent interaction leads to triggering the sanctions specified by the IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The other editor is still active, and there is no such thing as an "inadvertent interaction". The last time this came up, Alansohn claimed that participating in an AfD created by Rusf10 was inadvertent. That strained credulity then and does so now. It is far better for the interaction ban to stand than for these two editors to start tangling with each other again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I know that some editors disagree with me, but I firmly disagree with the "editors are still active, better to be safe than sorry, leave the IBAN in place, it does no harm" position. In effect, it's a permanent sanction that requires at least some ongoing degree of effort to avoid not just accidental breaches (which, btw, I do believe can occur) but also cases people might view as breaches. Active sanctions also affect other editors' viewpoints towards an editor, particularly in the case of a 1-way, and making it permanent without fair consideration of whether a reoccurence would be likely to reoccur is thus unfair. Obviously this is contingent on issues not being raised, but at this point, I'm inclined to accept, per BMK's review. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, and with the expectation that further unpleasantness will lead to an immediate return of the IBAN as well as likely harsher sanctions still. --Jayron32 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose- I said a year ago "Nothing has changed" and that is still true today. He is still misrepresenting the situation and refuses to take any responsibility for his actions. He claims I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended, this is not true. Although, I did not bring it to anyone's attention at the time, he violated his IBAN on June 10, 2020 with this edit when he opposed deletion of Donald Cresitello, an article that I nominated for deletion. Is this an example of what he is calling an " inadvertent interaction", because I will call in what it actually is, a blatant violation of his IBAN. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear and Jayron32:Does that change you mind?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've updated the Editor Interaction Analyzer report above to include Wikipedia space, which I inadvertently left out before. This shows more interactions between Alansohn and Rusf10 on which Rusf10 was the first mover, and Alansohn followed as soon as 17 hours afterwards. These edits must be evaluated in the light of the terms of the IBAN: "Alansohn ... is, however, specifically allowed to respond to any deletion nomination by Rusf10 where he has created or significantly contributed to the nominated article. Such comments must be content-based and not directed at Rusf10 in any personal way." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• For instance, in the June 10, 2020 edit cited by Rusf10 as a violation, Alansohhn made a single comment at AfD, which was not in any way directed personally at Rusf10. Alansohn had made four edits [127] to the article in question, Donald Cresitello, in which he did some copyediting and category work. Whether that fulfills the "significantly contributed" requirement needs to be determined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for updating. In regards to Donald Cresitello, I doubt that most would disagree with me that those four minor edits do not constitute significant contribution. He added some categories and links, nothing more. Not a single sentence of that article was written by Alansohn.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm, thoughts to consider - would be interested in hearing Alansohn's response to the bits above Nosebagbear (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RfPP

Could an admin mosey over to RfPP please - 21 requests currently open, 18 not replied to; oldest req that hasn't been replied to is from yesterday. Thanks Nightfury 15:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

20ish isn't really a backlog for RfPP. That's just a normal day. El_C 15:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never really seen it this large tbh, so I really don't know what would constitute as a real backlog on RfPP. Just seen it and thought Ooh, could do with some trimming Nightfury 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, 30-40, maybe...? Last reported RfPP backlog of note I think was at, like, 80, but that's pretty extreme. El_C 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll have a go at it. El_C 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, El_C. I'll make a note re backlogs in future. Nightfury 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — RfPP backlog cleared. //Wipes brow. El_C 16:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose somebody could create a bot task that every three days, posts on here saying "There's a backlog at RFPP"? It would probably be correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Like. El_C 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Only so long as the bot listed the notice for 72 hours Nosebagbear (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Restriction on My Business Page LeLetoday INDIA

Dear Wikipedia i m writing this to you because i want to write about my page business if and buts and up and down like other do . and i have ecommerce business name is LeLetoday INDIA and as i m trying to edit in sandbos its not allowing me to write so kindly review my content if i posted anything or if i m not posted anything yet so kindly restore my account so i also can use my wikipedia . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝐋𝐞𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐈𝐍 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note this account has been indeffed for WP:NONSCRIPT. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A new account with company's name, "we are"...

Resolved

I think we have some policies on what to do in such a case. User:Aquilapolonica1 claims to represent the small publisher Aquila Polonica and uses the plural "we" in an edit summary: We are the publisher of this book. We've corrected the description. They probably need some COI template on their talk about best practices, but I also vaguely recall that 'we-are-business' accounts with company's name as their username are not allowed? Or do they need to go through OTRS to prove their claim? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty clearly a role account. I blocked them per WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, the best place for a report like this is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and the shortcut is WP:UAA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thanks, I'll try to remember, but so many policies/specialized pages, sometimes one slips one mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, understood. Just a friendly tip. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by changing IP

I opened a case here last week, now the user has a new IP, 88.230.175.158 (talk · contribs), and continues to edit war without any effort to discuss changes: [128]

@Johnuniq: Is longer term semi-protection possible for the page, similar to the PKK article? Soapwort (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Help request regarding fair use templates

In cleaning up after an RM I ran across a missing fair use template at File:FredandRoseWest.jpg.

I'm not sure what to do with a picture that is fair use but with slightly different rationales on two different article pages, which seems to me to be the case here. On reflection I guess this is a rare scenario. I haven't seen it before and neither the template documentation nor other policies and guidelines seem to mention it.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I generally only get involved with images in connection to cleaning up after page moves, so it's not my strong suit. My own photos just go straight to commons of course.

So any advice here or on my user talk page or help in fixing the image description page (as is now my responsibility I admit) would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Regards, FASTILY 23:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I'll know what to do next time. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please delete User:JJPMaster/common.css

As a test, I have accidentally made it entirely impossible to actually do anything with my account, including removing that line from my common.css. JJPMastest (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Next time, simply add "safemode=1" as parameter to the URL. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ToBeFree_(mobile)/common.css&diff=1011887241&oldid=1011887215 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Impolite behaviors by User:The Ultimate Boss

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 am not sure if this is the right place to complain about incivility on Wikipedia, but I want to address my personal experience with The Ultimate Boss. On 3 March, this user opened a GAN review for an article that I created. After 10 days of inactivity, today 13 March, I left a message at this user's talkpage to inquire whether they would proceed with the review soon, given that GAN reviews normally take 7 days maximum. Instead of giving me an appropriate answer, The Ultimate Boss removed my message, with the description "Not in the mood." I was pretty stunned, so I followed up by asking this editor to scrap the review, or ask another reviewer to step in his place. This editor continued to remove my messages multiple times ([129], [130]), without showcasing respect and responsibility for a GAN review that they opened in the first place. When they told me that they had contacted another editor to step in, but did not reveal who that editor was, I followed up by inquiring who that editor would be, to which The Ultimate Boss responded (quote-by-quote): "I do not know. You'll have to figure that out yourself. The whole conversation, which has since been removed entirely, can be viewed in this user's talk page history.

Although this encounter did not include any harsh use of profanity or malicious personal attack, I am pretty stunned that an editor could not show enough respect and responsibility for a task that, I suppose, they have done multiple times (to note, this editor has contributed to quite a few GAs, and has reviewed quite a few GANs as well). It may be noted that an administrator had noted this user about WP:CIVILITY before. I am not sure how to deal with this sort of what I find uncivil, so I want to start a discussion here for The Ultimate Boss, or any concerned editors, to weigh in on how to avoid this sort of behavior in the future. HĐ (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

HĐ I did not have time to review that article because I am planning on making Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon a Good Topic to honor Pop Smoke. I want to finish it before I head for college in the summer. Just note, I did not use any profanity at all. I have learned from my past not to be rude to other people. My loved one who passed from Covid also helped me realize that. But if you want to discuss it with other editors go right ahead. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Kyle Peake was kind enough to take over the review for me. He has more time on his hands than I do right now. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: Yes, I am aware you did not use profanity--which I noted above. What I want to emphasize here is your lack of responsibility for your tasks, and your lack of incivility when you removed my messages repeatedly. We are all busy--I am busy too, but don't let that interfere with your duties here. You should have reached out to me and said that you were not capable of reviewing the GA, instead of waiting for me to come to you, and then got this unpleasant response. HĐ (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing any need for admin action. Looks like HĐ was badgering The Ultimate Boss and The Ultimate Boss was curt with them in return because they were busy with something else. HĐ, we are all volunteers here and you might be a lot less pushy. We get to it when we get to it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I understood. I do see that there is no need for admin procedures--it's just that I was pretty stunned by uncivil behaviors. Either way, I think this has been resolved, so I'd like this to be closed (if possible). HĐ (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2021 (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.

WP:PERM/PCR backlog nearly a month

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've just noticed Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer has outstanding requests from 18 February. I recognize backlogs are a fact of life, and I certainly don't want to pester admins needlessly, but this looked long enough that I feel leaving a note is warranted. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick discovery: WP:PERM/A has similar problems (furthest request without a MusikBot note is 4 February, furthest overall is 27 January). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

On WP:PERM/PCR, I've gone through and reviewed a bunch of the requests from older than a few days ago. Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleared rollback and knocked out about half of the auto-patrolled backlog ... and then realized that by working from the bottom to the top, I reviewed the newest ones first. Sorry about that, but hopefully someone else can finish it off at some point soon (or I can in a few days, perhaps). Go Phightins! 02:31, 13 March 2021 (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.

Something broken with the page copy

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.

---

Something is not working on the article for copy, a disambiguation page. The page layout gets messed up. Hope it is not just me. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. Also, probably not an admin matter, but better queried at WP:VPT. El_C 17:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it is something happening with all disambiguation pages for me. Thanks for the response. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it just had to do with using the Vector layout and the Legacy box checked. I have switched appearances and all is fine now. Can I leave this section here for others or should I delete it? UserTwoSix (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you should pose your query at WP:VPT. No need to delete, but probably should follow up there rather than here. El_C 17:29, 13 March 2021 (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.

Semi-protect Talk:Baháʼí Faith

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 someone please semi-protect Talk:Baháʼí Faith. An IP address has been promoting their blog of conspiracy theories (complete with Freemasonry and Jewish involvement). I commented out the links and an IP reverted me. They first added this, then two more. I commented out the links while leaving the user's argument, and they reverted here. Or if I should leave it, I'd appreciate the feedback. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} also added. El_C 17:27, 13 March 2021 (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.

Adminship term length RFC

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length to discuss adding an term length to adminship, and what to do at the end of an admin's term. Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, how many times do we need to go round this loop? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Should User:Jimbo Wales be unprotected?

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 made a request on User:Ritchie333's talk page to reduce the protection level for User:Jimbo Wales, which was semi-protected indefinitely after persistent vandalism. Ritchie333 suggested that I bring it here to discuss. I don't think User:Jimbo Wales was meant to be semi-protected indefinitely, especially in light of the "You can edit this page!" section of Jimbo's user page. But I welcome others' thoughts on this noticeboard as to whether User:Jimbo Wales should be unprotected or left indefinitely semi-protected. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected - Unprotecting Jimbo's page is just inviting vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly Jimbo's userpage should not be left unprotected from general vandalism, just because "you can edit this page". It would be a waste of admin time and resources to police his page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• If Jimbo wants it unprotected, it should be unprotected. Otherwise semi is perfectly reasonable. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hobit. If Jimbo want the semiprotection lifted, so be it. Otherwise, I consider the odds that a good faith editor will modify Jimbo's user page in either their first ten edits or during a tenure of less than four days to be vanishingly small. Troll odds hover very close to 100%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My main question to 184.147 is "What do you want to correct on Jimbo's user page?", which went unanswered. Until I get a convincing reason why unconfirmed editors need to modify it, I'm not inclined to unprotect after years of relentless vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I never see many "‎Semi-protected edit request"s at that Talk page. Do readers realise that's an option? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

New users don't know that. --Heymid (contribs) 10:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected Unprotection = net negative. Per above --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect and let good ol' Jimbo take care of his own userpage - After all Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. –Davey2010^Talk 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Defer to Jimbo on how he wants to manage his own user page, and in absence of guidance from him directly, keep semi-protected as the status quo doesn't need to be disturbed. --Jayron32 13:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-pp - anyone who wants to change Jimmy's user page can post on the TP and explain why. Jimmy's UP is high profile and a troll magnet, and will remain that way as long as WP is around. Why is this even an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Refrigerator fun for all the family! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected and maybe we need to think about removing that "You can edit this page!" clause. It seems superannuated and arrested to a halcyon era when Wikipedia was less visible and frankly less vandalized.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  At least it ought be edited to indicate why maybe you can't edit this page (linking to WP:CREATEACCOUNT). –xeno^talk 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected. In general there is almost never any good reason for anyone else to edit somebody's user page other than that user themselves. In this case in particular we would almost certainly just be inviting vandalism. If somebody who is not autoconfirmed really has a burning desire to make an edit to Jimbo's user page, they can always make a talk page request. And if Jimbo wants his user page unprotected, he can comment here directly or just lift the protection himself. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-protected Looking through the protection log I see Persistent vandalism: vandalism picked up the day the previous protection expired; leaving it open only creates work for others and I get the desire to keep things open, but only when it's not creating more work for good editors and this is why we can't have nice things… indefinite is the right call.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Has anyone asked Mr. Wales if he wants it unprotected? 331dot (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification sent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, widely watched, useful honeypot. (Unless Jimbo wants it protected). In my book, anyone vandalising Jimbo's userpage (or mine) isn't vandalising an unwatched BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate this logic, but Jimbo is still a member of the community. It seems unethical to knowingly subject a user to abuse just because doing so would be "useful". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Swarm, I have now unlocked my userpage using {{unlocked userpage}}. I hope that allowing trolls to abuse me (from experience in the deleted edits to my userpage, they are quickly reverted and blocked) can help prevent vandalism to pages where it matters. —Kusma (t·c) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  I find this logic somewhat questionable. Jimbo Wales's user page is still relatively highly visible as far as user pages go. Having BLP violations show up on his page from IP trolls, even for a few minutes, could bring about unforeseen consequences for Wikipedia or its reputation.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  WaltCip, from experience, that doesn't happen from short term trolling (we regularly had issue with Google or some other company caching a vandalised form of an article and presenting it to the public). Most vandalism is bot-reverted immediately these days. The Seigenthaler controversy, our largest ever BLP and public relations disaster, happened when a lie about a BLP was visible for months. In any case, I am actually not in favour of preventing all vandalism, as it serves to remind people not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia. I'd rather see some more juvenile graffiti than someone falsifying data, but we are much better at preventing (school blocks) / bot-reverting people writing PENIS on my userpage than people doing actual harm in article space. —Kusma (t·c) 11:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Aren’t user pages protected from edits by IPs and not autoconfirmed editors by an edit filter? Is Jimbo’s user page exempt from that in some way? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not as far as I know; there's an edit filter to stop IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from blanking of other people's user pages, and another that stops non-autoconfirmed users from moving other's userpages, but not for merely editing. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, there is an EF that prevents them from editing other people base user pages, HOWEVER - as JW's page specifically invited this it is exempted. It can be restored to normal by removing the line on the page that opts it out of that protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is also an edit filter in regards to certain words on user talk pages. Amicably corresponded with someone not that long ago, tried to use the f-word (cannot even write it out here due to the filter) or something along those lines on their talk and it told me an edit filter prevented me from saving the edit due to the high risk of it being disruptive. Which i can definitely see being useful overall, if a bit over the top. So, first hand experience would suggest the edit filter goes further than just blanking and prohibits a list of 'bad langauge', seemingly on all pages, perhaps additional things as well. But cannot speak to that, just know it also blocks certain words. Anyway, have a good one. 91.96.136.141 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  On review, it looks like a admin removed that opt-in to edit (but the page is still protected). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly does it need to be unprotected, when doing so, will lead to its protection 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, and welcome every IP that accepts his invitation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-protected: Unfortunately it is a regular troll magnet when it is unprotected, although the indef protection could be reviewed after a while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect - useful honeypot and a fountain of lulz. If the user wants it protected, they can ask. In that case, defer to user's preference. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect - Policy is pretty clear that we should protect pages only if they need to be, and enough time has passed. The man who founded the idea of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (along with Larry Sanger) probably shouldn't have his talk page protected unless there is a valid, ongoing reason to have it so. Otherwise, it seems rather hypocritical. I would also note that Jimbo has the tools to protect his own page if needed for a new threat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, this is regarding Jimbo's user page, not his talk page which is currently unprotected.P-K3 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't looked at either in ages, but Jimbo used to INVITE others to edit his user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah that's still there. Nice idea in theory, I suppose. P-K3 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can still edit Jimbo's userpage. All they need to do is to register an account and become autoconfirmed. It is an extremely low bar. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, by that logic you can gold lock any page and just ask people to pass a RFA to edit. It's either anyone can edit or it's not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That argument falls apart when one observes that the requirements to create an account is not even in the same galaxy as the requirements to become an admin.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected: As an obvious magnet for vandalism. Not buying Dennis Brown's argument that ideology trumps common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• There's a long-standing consensus that the default for Jimmy's user page is that it be editable, but that uninvolved admins may protect it for as long or as short a time as may be deemed appropriate to manage vandalism. It's a proxy for making the main page or TFA editable - no way will we do that but we let the idiots edit Jimmy's page unless it gets silly. Without doubting the good faith of Ritchie333, we should defer to Jimmy's long-held view that his user page should generally be editable, unless he's expressed a preference otherwise lately. So: endorse obvious good-faith semi-protection but encourage early lifting of the protection, or at least contacting Jimmy and asking him. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  JzG, Just to clarify, if by "AGF" you meant I thought it was worth doing and just did it, I was actually responding to a request at WP:RFPP by Interstellarity. I spelled out my clarifications on Jimbo's talk page at the time here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, sure, and you did the right thing. It is periodically protected for various periods due to vandalism, and I've never seen it done other than for good reason. I'm just saying that indefinite isn't forever, and Jimmy has expressed a preference for it to be generally editable. I think we all know this. I don't really see the point of bringing it to the drama board, tbh. It'll get unprotected some time, if Jimmy wants it to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect – Jimbo encourages people to make edits to his user page. Let him decide when it's time to protect the page. --Heymid (contribs) 23:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Pending changes? On the one hand, I agree that having Jimbo's userpage un-editable is a bad look for us given the big "you can edit this page" part. But BLP violations and vandalism on what is probably the most visible userpage is also a bad look. Using indefinite PC protection seems like the ideal solution: it allows anyone to edit while preventing egregious vandalism from being visible to the general public. Enough sysops watch the page that the workload should be managable, especially since we've been managing it unprotected for large periods of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Pending changes might be a better long term option to consider. I don't like a page to be unprotected if it means that very offensive or silly edits go live immediately, even for a short period of time. However, semi-protection does go against the "anyone can edit" text on the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• That's indeed a good idea. Someone should just go ahead and change the protection to PC protection. It can't hurt to try. --Heymid (contribs) 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I want to say unprotect but it'd likely just result in more work for everyone involved. I'm usually against indefinitely protecting pages (or keeping indefinitely protected pages protected for >5 years) because it goes against the mantra of "anyone can edit", but I find myself neutral here. I could understand any outcome. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect User pages should not be permanently protected. It also goes against the spirt of his page. Finally, he is completely capable of taking care of his own user page. PackMecEng (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi protected: I've used my superpowers to look into the future and have seen if it's unprotected it will be a vandal magnet and need to be protected again.  // Timothy :: talk  15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect when the time is right per JzG. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment To everyone suggesting PC protection, note that isn't technically possible as pending changes can only be applied to article and project namespaces (though I've never once seen PC protection being used in the Wikipedia namespace in all my years here). Sro23 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It is technically possible, the site configuration just limits its use to particular namespaces because of previous consensus. But Consensus can change, and if we determine that PC is a good solution here, we can change the site config to allow it. It's as simple as changing this line of code. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, you're free to start an RFC if the software should be updated, let's get the ball rolling on that. But I think we should at least wait for what Jimbo has to say. I know we like to think of his page as one anyone can edit, but when it comes to userpages attracting that much vandalism, it really should be a personal preference the level of protection that gets applied. Honestly, I'm not sure if he even cares, but who knows. It's probably been a while since he even glanced at his userpage, maybe the part where it says "You can edit this page!" is no longer relevant to him. Sro23 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• though I've never once seen PC protection being used in the Wikipedia namespace in all my years here -- a number of the Requested Articles pages are PC-protected, more or less the ones you'd expect to attract the worst spam (companies, bands). I'm amused by the realization that as "an active PCR" and "an active converter of RAs to articles", I might be the person best placed to answer this question. Weird what niches we fall into. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am content with the status quo, which is semi-protection. I believe that past experiments have shown that unprotecting it entirely - something that I would love, really - is not practical or worthwhile. It basically just wastes the time of good people. I like that is says "You can edit this page!" because I like the spirit of that, which is the spirit of Wikipedia. But I also understand the concern that it's not sufficiently clear what it means, so I think about making some update to explain it more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hello Mr. Wales. It looks like a user recently tried to do just that, but their edit was removed here. I agree FWIW, maybe something in your own words in that section of the user page would be good (and unlikely to be reverted! :)) ValarianB (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Jimbo! –xeno^talk 12:15, 15 March 2021 (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.

@Xaosflux: When you added the move protection you removed the semi. I've reapplied the protection, leaving your move protection intact. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I did that on purpose, to make this be a normal base userpage that enjoys semi protection from the filters - following up from the link I posed in the closing above, as the opt-in to bypass that was already removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise that template was a thing. I reapplied the semi I was successfully able to edit the page in incognito (I didn't try to save), which would've been counter to the outcome here. I can't seem to find where that template is transcluded on the user page, so we should probably get rid of that before removing the semi. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: all base userpages are protected from edits by an edit filter, unless the user opts in to the bypass by adding {{unlocked userpage}} to their page. This page does not have that on it, thus it is now normal and standard like all other user pages. It doesn't require a protection level to be placed. If you attempt to actually make an edit to it logged out, you will see the stop (which also allows this specific page to still function as a vandalism honeypot as the filter logs will catch the vandals). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)