Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 26 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 20 sockpuppet investigations
- 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 25 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 10 requested closures
- 91 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 7 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics
Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.
- As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an
Undercover commie wikipedian here
noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join themto defend the motherland
and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies. - The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
- Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that
we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind
andLet’s start editing it 👍
. - More recently, the subreddit has discussed
trying to infiltrate wikipedia
and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the wouldhave a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential
.
I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tenditious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).
- That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?
- My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described
psy op
seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)- I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly
. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). SilverserenC 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Another thread today, celebrating the ban of Oranjelo100 [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: You and I appear to be mentioned there too in the comments. The title "includes only one more CIA to go," which implies that they may be planning to ban another user (the OP on the Reddit post keeps calling me one, and I have definitely seen random IPs engaging in personal attacks over the past few weeks or so). It's a community with an extremely online focus, so I do not expect this sort of stuff to go away any time soon.
- On a separate note, the thread also appears to be smearing the now-banned Oranjelo100 by posting pictures of another thread involving a vandal IP and attributing it to Oranjelo100. They also say I have proposed to twice ban edits(???) on the Uyghur genocide page for a year, when I don’t think I have ever requested full protection on the page for a year. If it isn’t incompetence (and the amount of digging through Wikipedia and citing policies by u/No_Static_At_All doesn’t appear to indicate that incompetence is likely) it would seem like an attempt to rile up the base towards some WP:NOTHERE end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- To update the above, a couple of posts over the past five days have been made that seem to be directly targeted at me, and both of which are spreading disinformation regarding my editing habits. One of the posts (reddit archive) is regarding yet another topic sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. The other post just appears to be a straw man post (reddit archive) that wants to smear me by making false sockpuppetry and CIA operative allegations and vaguely pointing to Operation Earnest Voice. Again, this is from the same redditor, /u/No_Static_At_All. The following of my edits by a non-Wikipedian would be rather strange, so I'm having suspicions that the user may be an editor that following around my edits and using the subreddit to try to stir up their reddit buddies. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- More harassment from single use accounts [3][4], both now blocked. Thank you @Sasquatch: and @Zzuuzz:, I hope this thread sheds a little light on those two seemingly random incidents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year
Supportretract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)- Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions
What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that any of such accounts would be banned on the ANI because they would have some supporters. One needs a qualified judgment by one or two admins here, and that is exactly what DS provides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Do we have links to ANI discussions of this happening? Or are we just assuming that ANI won't do anything, and so aren't trying it in the first place? Looking at the evidence above, it's a bunch of blocked socks at SPI, one ban at ANI (unrelated to the genocide), a bunch of reddit posts with no evidence of any disruption onwiki, several harassment/DE blocks, and some talk page comments that were never reported to ANI... Really struggling to identify any evidence suggesting there exists disruption that's actually reported but not resolved by admins / ANI consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that any of such accounts would be banned on the ANI because they would have some supporters. One needs a qualified judgment by one or two admins here, and that is exactly what DS provides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. — Wug·a·po·des 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Why not? If adopted here, that would be a community sanction, and Arbcom would not have to do anything with this. But the individual admins would be able to do a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support It seems like the right solution at this point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is every bit as contentiously-edited as, for example, the Israel-Palestine dispute, which is under similar discretionary sanctions. I am not surprised to see these people proposing entryism and even becoming admins on Wiki and I think we should try especially hard to guard against this. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support It's clear this article is being targeted by a coordinated off-wiki meat puppet campaign, so this makes sense. — Czello 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- DS is not particularly useful for offwiki meat puppet campaigns. Firstly because editors need to be WP:AWARE first, and secondly because meatpuppets tend to be site blocked. DS is more useful for established editors for whom topic bans may be better than site blocks. If the issue is solely about page protection, then something like WP:GS/PAGEANT for that purpose should be created. With all due respect, I think this proposal is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to do something about the issue, without fair consideration as to what 'something' will actually help. If this sanction is implemented I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were an empty or near-empty user sanction log after a few months or a year. See above, where many of the votes either don't provide a rationale as to why this proposal will help, mention a concern not solved by DS, or are purely idealistic (eg so that the remedy will be community-derived rather than ArbCom derived). The stickiness of GS authorisations, such as WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ and WP:GS/UKU, which fail to be repealed due to vague unspecified 'concerns' (even though the log is completely empty of admin actions going back to 2014), should urge caution before instituting useless sanctions regimes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- It depends. Perhaps some of these "meat" accounts hide their tracks well. But some others act almost openly, by starting their editing as a "new" account from aggressively reverting edits by others to whitewash CPC and slander reliable "West" news organizatiions as propaganda outlets. At the same time, such "new" accounts are showing an exceptional knowledge of WP policies and practices. If that happens, I think such accounts should be blocked on spot, which will be much easier with DS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is a good candidate for community discretionary sanctions. Hopefully we can handle it through the community rather than having to take it to arbcom. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support way overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support: I've seen a lot of problems in this area. ProcrastinatingReader makes a good point above, and sanctions might not be the solution here; at the same time, the worst they could do is be useless, and the best they could do is help to fix the issues. jp×g 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Consistent source of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: administrator investigation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some accounts active in the Uyghur genocide topic area are also active in the COVID-19 origins topic area, and their views are very much aligned with the Chinese Communist party’s narrative. There needs to be an administrator investigation into what is going on here. Tinybubi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Tinybubi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what specific data or other non-public information that admins would have access to that would enable an investigation, and I'm also not sure what the scope of an investigation like this would be. Do you mean to suggest a sockpuppetry investigation, or is there something else you had in mind?
- I'm also not sure that supporting the natural origin hypothesis of COVID-19 (if that is what you mean by
the Chinese Communist Party's narrative
) is evidence of malfeasance, especially given that various versions of that hypothesis appear to be clearly within the mainstream scientific views on the matter. Do you mean to suggest that somebody involved is spreading misinformation relating to a non-China origin of COVID-19, or is it their spreading of one of the standard natural origin hypotheses? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible new tool/technique/procedure
I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.
Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...
- "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."
...instructions.
I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.
My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?
If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. Here are some examples:
- [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
- All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.
- They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.
- There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.
- The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with
tboverriderights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with
- Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some examples on other pages:[16][17][18][19][20] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wow. another one.[21][22] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- That message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. That MediaWiki page first checks if it is transcluded a cascade-protected page other than itself (and produces no output if so; the message that one sees when trying to edit a cascade-protected page is MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). Then, it checks to see if the appropriate protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wow. another one.[21][22] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some examples on other pages:[16][17][18][19][20] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * it has begun... 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I much prefer cricket (note that this is also a time consuming enterprise - if England don't pull off that thing which only they are capable of doing (being terrible at a game they invented), they've still got 3 more days to go against NewZealand...) to crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've got it. Izno (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I much prefer cricket (note that this is also a time consuming enterprise - if England don't pull off that thing which only they are capable of doing (being terrible at a game they invented), they've still got 3 more days to go against NewZealand...) to crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that "anyone can edit". I hate this idea. This is just a band-aid "solution" designed to circumvent community consensus by ensuring that anyone who might actually use an edit request on certain pages are unable to do so due to a lack of knowledge. In essence it's just blocking edit requests for certain semi-protected pages.
- Maybe we should be focusing on implementing a better solution that actually directs users seeking to edit semi-protected articles to potential options other than "submit an edit request". Looking at the editnotice, I see a big wall of text full of boring stuff about what protection is and wikibureaucracy. Then I see a big blue button saying "submit an edit request". The average person is going to assume the only way to propose changes to the article is by clicking the big blue button. They are usually not going to click on the wikilinked "discuss this page with others" that doesn't really clarify that a normal talk page thread is where controversial changes or less specific ideas should be proposed. And even if they do, I have to scroll down through a bunch of hatnotes, see sections, etc etc and have no idea how to do any of this talkpage etiquette without reading wiki help pages that aren't linked anywhere for me.
- I would like admins to consider potentially changing the template to make the blue button "open a talk page thread" (which directs the user to create a new section on the talk page) and shift "edit request" to a white button, as well as a brief explanation as what opening a talk page thread entails. This makes it clear that the preferred and normal option is to open a talk page thread while still allowing users to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply)Template:Z181 09:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)- It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply)Template:Z181 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)- I will be happy to post an RfC; this is the first hint that I have received that anyone might find this template change controversial.
- Just to make sure that I ask the right question in the RfC, as I understand it the request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 only makes changing the "edit request" button so that it opens a talk page section possible but does not actually change anything, right? So the objection is to making this an option? Or am I misunderstanding?
- Note that I specified in my original "possible new tool/technique/procedure" question that we require an administrator to evaluate whether edit requests are disruptive on a particular page and make the decision to change the "edit request" button to a "post talk page comment" button on that page. We also discussed trying it on Talk:Minecraft to see if it causes any problems. Given those restrictions is there still someone who objects?--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- You've understood the technical aspects correctly. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chess:I apalogize, as I seem to have misunderstood what was happening here. I was reacting to the implication that only admins can/should edit a template. As the template in question is protected at the extendedconfirmed level, it would indeed take an admin to actually edit it, but anyone can request the edit at the talk page (a bit self-referential, there). - Donald Albury 16:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use
- It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Re the comment above:
- "Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that 'anyone can edit'. I hate this idea."
That would be a valid objection if that was what was being proposed, but the "with no replacement" bit is factually incorrect. I proposed that on certain pages, determined by an administrator to be experiencing disruption that we take away the one-click edit request button and replace it with a one-click open a new talk page section button. We aren't "discouraging unconfirmed editors" doing anything. They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- This thread gave me a really bad idea for handling this sort of situation, which you can read at WP:VPIL#Dealing with off-wiki campaigns with the power of upvotes. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- So basically admins get carte blanche to implement a new tool that takes away the ability of often new users to make edit requests (because let's face it; there's only a handful of non-autoconfirmed editors who would know how to do a manual request edit or are willing to go through the mounds of wikibureaucracy to figure out how to request an edit). This tool will be used by admins to just take away the request edit button if they believe a page is "experiencing disruption". The "replacement" is you just get sent to open a new section on the talk page; the original proposal wasn't very clear on how this was done and it appeared to me as if users just get sent to the talk page without any real guidance on how to suggest changes (just a new section on talk page go nuts!) And of course, this gets implemented because at this random Administrator's Noticeboard thread admins haven't really disagreed with your proposal. Admins not voting to give themselves more power.
- I would like to see this proposal more fleshed out before it even goes to RfC. I'd like to see some kind of central logging for when admins disable edit requests; not just a category of all pages currently under manual edit requests but a central place that logs when, why, and on what pages admins have decided to implement manual edit requests so we can actually have oversight. I'd also like to see something more substantive than just when an admin believes a page is "experiencing disruption". Is it when we get organized groups of people filing obviously frivolous edit requests? Or will this be used whenever new users just make bad edit requests because they don't know what they're doing? I'd also like to see some method to ensure that it's possible to make it so that restrictions automatically expire after a certain period of time so admins don't indef manual request edit.
- That being said I'm not opposed to the general principle of having request edit not be the "default" option anymore. I hope I made that clear earlier when I proposed making the default for all articles to "post to the talk page" and instead make request edit a non-default button. I believe the primary issue with request edit here is that it's seemingly the only option for a user wanting to have a change made to a Wikipedia article, not that organized groups of people are using it to somehow attack Wikipedia i.e. it's an issue with our interface rather than with our users and that blaming the editors is BITEY. I also don't like the idea "They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment." because it implies that new editors operate from an inferior position (needing to be "handled") to "regulars". We're not "handling" new editors we're supposed to try to collaborate with them. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply)Template:Z181 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)- If you don't like the concept of "requests" being "handled", your disagreement is with the English language, not with my proposal. If you don't like the idea that many pages have a number of regulars who typically handle edit requests you should remove all pages from your watch list so as to not be a "regular" on those pages. The reality is that on pages like SQUID and Cockcroft–Walton generator most people have zero interest in the topic while a few of us are watching the page and making sure that it stays accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I like Guy's idea a lot. I agree that it isn't bitey. This also would partially solve a related problem, that of people patrolling requested edits coming into high-traffic pages they aren't familiar with and dropping a not-really-helpful canned response to those few edit requests that are actually good ones. Pinging EEng, with whom I've been discussing that at my talk. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Still getting edit requests on Talk:Minecraft which would have been handled just fine by the editors watching the page as ordinary talk page posts without summoning outside help with the edit request template: [23][24][25][26][27][28] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if that page is being sufficiently watched perhaps lowering the protection level as Ferret did a week ago is the better response. — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's been one edit request since lowering the protection from ECP to Semi. Of course, IPs are caught in either case. If the question is, should we consider unprotecting entirely, my position would be "No." on this particular article. But I sympathize with Guy's position in this thread. My watchlist is regularly filled with empty requests or nonsense requests. Although I don't patrol edit requests explicitly, I do handle them within my watchlist scope. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the page is heavily watched, and the ER's are infrequent you could try SPP-->PCP as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pending Changes is useless, because it leaves the vandalism in the history and often will require twice as much cleanup in order to actually hide everything properly (specifically re-OSable additions). Primefac (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the page is heavily watched, and the ER's are infrequent you could try SPP-->PCP as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's been one edit request since lowering the protection from ECP to Semi. Of course, IPs are caught in either case. If the question is, should we consider unprotecting entirely, my position would be "No." on this particular article. But I sympathize with Guy's position in this thread. My watchlist is regularly filled with empty requests or nonsense requests. Although I don't patrol edit requests explicitly, I do handle them within my watchlist scope. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if that page is being sufficiently watched perhaps lowering the protection level as Ferret did a week ago is the better response. — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Still getting edit requests on Talk:Minecraft which would have been handled just fine by the editors watching the page as ordinary talk page posts without summoning outside help with the edit request template: [23][24][25][26][27][28] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia. In many cases, he criticized me maliciously to justify such biased technology. (I said I wouldn't edit the US political document for three months because I didn't want to cause trouble with this user. But looking back on my edit, I don't know what the hell I did wrong in contributing to American political page.)
- Although the Blue Dog Coalition is commonly referred to as the "Conservative Democrats" and the Republican Governance Group is generally referred to as the "Liberal Republicans", the user denies it and makes a POV statement. #, #
- The Blue Dog Coalition page even carried out serious original research. Without any source, the user described that there was a "right-wing" in the organization's "Blue Dog Coalition". I thought this was an obvious original research before, but it was hard to point out that the user was maliciously selling me at the time. See history of page in the last three months.#
- In addition, while the Republican Governance Group has no source referred to as "moderate conservatism", the user maintains the POV view that the former is right and the latter is wrong, despite numerous sources referred to as "liberal".
In addition, the user lacked a very good understanding of East Asian politics, but he also decided that my editing was inappropriate and reversed it. Still, Beyond My Ken are attacking me for my lack of understanding of American politics. However, I have never used biased techniques in American political page.
- User:Beyond My Ken also twisted my argument and maliciously criticized me in the Talk of Law and Justice page.#
- User:Beyond My Ken interrupted my legitimate Wikipedia editing countless times. #, #, #, etc.)
I think it's actually a threat to a new user, me, to repeatedly mention in Talk that the user will post me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Although I'm not perfect at editing American political documents, Beyond My Ken has conned me to justify his no source POV contribution. --Storm598 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken always threatens to put me on the Administrators' Noticeboard, saying I lack understanding of American politics when Beyond My Ken justifies Beyond My Ken's no source POV views. On the other hand, I have never done this to Beyond My Ken.--Storm598 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Storm598: it says in ultra-large bold writing in a coloured box at the top that you need to notify subjects who you make a thread about. I have dropped BMK a line for you. Please do not forget again, as it clearly indicates you didn't read the instructions before posting Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is more likely that as Storm598 is banned from BMK's talk page, he did not think he should. Maybe he forgot that notifications required by policy are one of the exceptions. P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's exactly what P-K3 said. Thank you for understanding me. I just sent it to BMK's talk.--Storm598 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's interesting, because when I notified you that I didn't want you to post to my talk page anymore (for reasons that are probably obvious to the readers of this laborious thread), I wrote: ...unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. [29] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's exactly what P-K3 said. Thank you for understanding me. I just sent it to BMK's talk.--Storm598 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is more likely that as Storm598 is banned from BMK's talk page, he did not think he should. Maybe he forgot that notifications required by policy are one of the exceptions. P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Storm598: Why are you posting this complaint? What outcome do you hope to achieve? SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: BMK often goes back almost reflexively every time I edit some pages on Wikipedia. Clearly, even if it was my reasonable editing, it is often deleted by BMK's arbitrary judgment. Every time I edit American politics, they keep bothering me that I don't understand American politics and that they'll take issue with my editing on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, he mentioned me in the 'Administrators' noticeboard' before, exaggerating or distorting me. I'm not saying that we should sanction BMK within Wikipedia, but please refrain from doing so. I want the BMK to stop denouncing me with Xenophobia. I have a certain understanding of American politics, and BMK often does original research on American politics without sources on some pages. That's why I don't want BMK to branded or interrupt my editing. --Storm598 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I refer readers back to this discussion from March, in which Storm598 avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily imposing a 3-month "block" on himself, which he later interpreted as a 3-month topic ban from articles about American politics. Nevertheless, he has broken this voluntary TB several times since [30], [31], [32], under the impression, apparently, that the 3 months was over. (Since he imposed it on himself on March 16, it will be over on June 16.)
- The essential problem -- reflected in Storm598's editing throughout Wikipedia, not just in the AP2 area -- is that they get their political information from an unnamed South Korean blog, and then uses that information to make changes on a wide variety of article throughout the encyclopedia, most of which concerns who is conservative, moderate and liberal. I'm not familiar with politics outside the US, so I cannot say if their changes to those articles are good or not, but I do know that when it comes to American politics, their definitions do not match up with those in conventional use, and the changes they make are therefore not helpful.
- I continue to believe that Storm598 should be under an indefinite AP2 TB until they can show that their understanding of American politics is more grounded in reality than it currently is, but I'm not going to make the case for that. Those who are interested can read the discussion from March, Storm598's talk page, and their contributions to form their own conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, I call on Storm598 to provide specific diffs of when I have reverted their edits since March 16, 2021 that did not involve American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can someone please explain what Storm598 means when they write "The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia." What are "'modern liberal' biased techniques"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence that I get political information from the South Korean blog? I look for major media outlets in English and South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- You said it yourself in one of our discussions. I'll dig up the diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here you go: "I live in South Korea, the largest Korean wiki classifies the U.S. Democratic Party as a social liberal and social democratic party and the Democratic Party of South Korea as a social liberal and social conservative party." [33] This is the source you cited on Talk:California Democratic Party for making changes to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- # Is this what you're looking for? I didn't mention anything about the South Korean blog. For reference, I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea and only once mentioned how South Koreans perceive the California Democratic Party. The California Democratic Party is not considered a centrist at least in the context of U.S. politics, as there are many democratic socialists, and this is what many have pointed out before.--Storm598 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wiki/blog, same thing, they're both self-published sources, and you're clearly taking your views from one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- # Is this what you're looking for? I didn't mention anything about the South Korean blog. For reference, I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea and only once mentioned how South Koreans perceive the California Democratic Party. The California Democratic Party is not considered a centrist at least in the context of U.S. politics, as there are many democratic socialists, and this is what many have pointed out before.--Storm598 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here you go: "I live in South Korea, the largest Korean wiki classifies the U.S. Democratic Party as a social liberal and social democratic party and the Democratic Party of South Korea as a social liberal and social conservative party." [33] This is the source you cited on Talk:California Democratic Party for making changes to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- You said it yourself in one of our discussions. I'll dig up the diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not true that I don't understand American politics, it's just that you're blaming me. BMK did the original research without any source just by looking at the 'Republican Governance Group' page or the 'Blue Dog Collaboration' page. I'm not the only wiki user to protest your 'modern liberal' bias statement.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The reason for describing it as a modern liberal biased technique is simple.
- You claimed part of the Blue Dog was 'right-wing', but you didn't provide the source.
- You did not suggest that the Republican Governance Group is not a liberal or moderate organization, nor did you suggest a moderate conservative organization. On the other hand, I suggested a credible source.
- American media and English-speaking academic sources also refer to the Republican Governance Group as "liberalism". Can't American media understand American politics more than BLM, which is just a wiki user?--Storm598 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is my last comment here, as this is not the place to discuss content disputes. (1) Do not change your comments after they have been replied to except by striking out. (2) We have "articles" on Wikipedia, not "documents". I have told you this numerous times, but like the definition of American liberalism, you refuse to take it in. (3) Please provide a citation from a reliable source which refers to the Republican Governance Group as "liberal", in the American definition.I think that readers can see the problem with Storm598: they have fixed views which are demonstrably wrong, and will not take in any factual corrections to those views, but instead continue to edit in accordance with those inaccurate views. Their behavior in this discussion shows how frustrating it is to interact with them, which can be verified by looking at their article talk page discussions involving other editors as well as myself. [34], [35]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't confirm that you responded. So I tried to correct it, but this is my mistake.(1) If RSS is not liberal in the American political context, then Blue Dog is not conservative in the American political context. The Blue Dog's propensity to vote is not much different from the New Democrat Coalition. (3)--Storm598 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- And I think it's certainly malicious that you mentioned the Law and Justice.[36] I made it clear that I thought Law and Justice was a far-right party, but you accused myself of making a biased statement. You also think Law and Justice are anti-liberal far right. I think so too. However, the Law and Justice document did not originally describe the far-right, and in the end, you and I did not disagree.--Storm598 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is my last comment here, as this is not the place to discuss content disputes. (1) Do not change your comments after they have been replied to except by striking out. (2) We have "articles" on Wikipedia, not "documents". I have told you this numerous times, but like the definition of American liberalism, you refuse to take it in. (3) Please provide a citation from a reliable source which refers to the Republican Governance Group as "liberal", in the American definition.I think that readers can see the problem with Storm598: they have fixed views which are demonstrably wrong, and will not take in any factual corrections to those views, but instead continue to edit in accordance with those inaccurate views. Their behavior in this discussion shows how frustrating it is to interact with them, which can be verified by looking at their article talk page discussions involving other editors as well as myself. [34], [35]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence that I get political information from the South Korean blog? I look for major media outlets in English and South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can someone please explain what Storm598 means when they write "The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia." What are "'modern liberal' biased techniques"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, I call on Storm598 to provide specific diffs of when I have reverted their edits since March 16, 2021 that did not involve American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
| Hatting this because it's an irrelevant discussion about a WP:TPO issue. If an admin feels that the hatting is inappropriate, please undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- "BMK" not "BLM".You continue to confuse the classical definition of "liberal", by which almost every American politician is a liberal, and the very different definition used in American politics. By that definition, the modern Republican Party -- which used to have an actual liberal wing, more moderate than the Democratic liberal wing, but still verifiably liberal (Rockefeller, Javits etc.) -- no longer has any liberals in it: the furthest to the left it goes on the national level is a handful of moderates. You simply refuse to accept that a "liberal" in the US is not the same as a "liberal" in Europe or elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- BLM is a typo. I'm sorry about that. I support Black Lives Matter.--Storm598 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it was possibly a reference to the Bureau of Land Management. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:The RGG is a clear 'liberal' group. It's just your opinion that there's no 'liberal' in modern Republicans. Many sources call RGG a 'liberal' group, and it's an original research to deny it. Authoritative sources call RSS 'liberal'. I know that the context in which 'liberal' is used in America is different from Europe. In the United States, 'liberal' usually refers to 'modern liberal'. That's why I wrote center-right 'conservative liberal' on purpose. On the other hand, RSS is rarely described as a conservative organization. Therefore, it is the Original Research that calls RSS 'moderate conservatism'.--Storm598 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is not only my opinion, but the fact that you think so is a very good indication -- again -- that you really don't comprehend American politics. If this were an article, and I was making a claim to insert into the article, I could find innumerable citations from reliable sources which would back me up, but for the purposes of this discussion I am comfortable that 40 years of closely observing American politics -- not a foreign "wiki" -- tells me that it is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am obviously aware of this discussion, please stop pinging me. I have other articles to use my "'modern liberal' biased techniques" on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am obviously aware of this discussion, please stop pinging me. I have other articles to use my "'modern liberal' biased techniques" on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, RGG is still considered a 'liberal Republican'. An organization that is not conservative in general should not be described simply as conservative. It would be better not to write "ideology" at all on the infobox of the Republican Governance Group page as it is now. #, #--Storm598 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of your opinion on the proper labels of these groups, what behavioral issue are you raising. Everything here is a content issue and this board does not determine who is right on content. It is not an appeals court or arbitrator or mediator. As far as I can tell, your only complaint is that BMK is telling you you are wrong on American political labels. That is an issue for the WP:DR process. The First law of holes also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is not only my opinion, but the fact that you think so is a very good indication -- again -- that you really don't comprehend American politics. If this were an article, and I was making a claim to insert into the article, I could find innumerable citations from reliable sources which would back me up, but for the purposes of this discussion I am comfortable that 40 years of closely observing American politics -- not a foreign "wiki" -- tells me that it is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- BLM is a typo. I'm sorry about that. I support Black Lives Matter.--Storm598 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- "BMK" not "BLM".You continue to confuse the classical definition of "liberal", by which almost every American politician is a liberal, and the very different definition used in American politics. By that definition, the modern Republican Party -- which used to have an actual liberal wing, more moderate than the Democratic liberal wing, but still verifiably liberal (Rockefeller, Javits etc.) -- no longer has any liberals in it: the furthest to the left it goes on the national level is a handful of moderates. You simply refuse to accept that a "liberal" in the US is not the same as a "liberal" in Europe or elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to add here that I do agree Beyond My Ken's edits in this area seem to display a basic ignorance of American politics. I was absolutely astonished to find that he did, in fact, add "right-wing" as a faction to the Blue Dog Coalition page; for reference, this is the most conservative faction of America's big-tent left-wing party. Right-wing is such a factually inaccurate label for this group that it boggles the mind - it's an astonishing factual error that is made even worse by the fact he did so without a citation and then edit-warred to try and force his change into the article. A similar situation is going on at Republican Governance Group, he straight-up removed several reliably sourced sections in the inbox, incorrectly claiming they were cited to a "Korean blog". This sort of editing has to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 19:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your assessment. Given BMK's great breadth of knowledge and long experience, I would argue that he displays not a basic ignorance of American politics as you claim, but rather a mastery of the topic area. The Blue Dog coalition is accurately characterized as the right-wing of the Democratic Party. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies described it as such in their publications, as only one example. This is like calling the old Rockefeller Republicans the left-wing of the Republican Party (according to the 1985 political science book Psychological Perspectives on Politics). The more important question here, is why anyone could possibly view this as erroneous or controversial. BMK appears to know the topic and is editing based on a plethora of good sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's similar to the situation with the Strasserites. The Strassers were not leftists in any absolute sense, but they did represent the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party; that is, the left-most portion of an entirely far-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Republican Party is not on par with the Nazi Party. RSS, far from advocating totalitarianism, has a social and cultural liberal orientation. Strassism is basically against liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- OMG!! That was an analogy about relative positions within political parties, not a comparison of the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, which Viriditas also mentioned) with the Nazis. Do we have a CIR problem here?!In any event, my mistake. I was fooled by Viridtas' comment into thinking that there might be some rational discussion breaking out. Outta here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I know exactly what you mean by bringing up the Nazi party. However, One Nation Conservatives (caucus) and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) pages mention "social liberalism" in addition to "conservative liberalism" or "liberal conservativeism" in the book Infobox. Similarly, what is the problem with referring to coservative "liberalism" in the infobox of RSS pages? Strassism is fascism, not socialism. However, RSS is a liberal organization. --Storm598 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- OMG!! That was an analogy about relative positions within political parties, not a comparison of the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, which Viriditas also mentioned) with the Nazis. Do we have a CIR problem here?!In any event, my mistake. I was fooled by Viridtas' comment into thinking that there might be some rational discussion breaking out. Outta here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Republican Party is not on par with the Nazi Party. RSS, far from advocating totalitarianism, has a social and cultural liberal orientation. Strassism is basically against liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's similar to the situation with the Strasserites. The Strassers were not leftists in any absolute sense, but they did represent the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party; that is, the left-most portion of an entirely far-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your assessment. Given BMK's great breadth of knowledge and long experience, I would argue that he displays not a basic ignorance of American politics as you claim, but rather a mastery of the topic area. The Blue Dog coalition is accurately characterized as the right-wing of the Democratic Party. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies described it as such in their publications, as only one example. This is like calling the old Rockefeller Republicans the left-wing of the Republican Party (according to the 1985 political science book Psychological Perspectives on Politics). The more important question here, is why anyone could possibly view this as erroneous or controversial. BMK appears to know the topic and is editing based on a plethora of good sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
| Hatting another discussion because it is partly unproductive, and partly irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- As noted below, this the administrators' noticeboard, it's not a place for general discussion of a topic, or the details of a content dispute. Please stop debating political science on this noticeboard. Please address Specifico's request for specifics about what you want to accomplish. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think BMK is ignorant of American politics. I just think BMK is making biased descriptions in 'some' pages, not 'all'.--Storm598 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Storm598 seems to be entering AP post-1932 TB territory. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per my comments at the previous ANI discussion, I think it needs to be broader. The issues extend to East Asian politics. - Ryk72 talk 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ryk72: Pace Toa Nidhiki05's remark above, after 40 years of close observation, I'm pretty conversant with American politics, but I know little about the politics of East Asia. Can you describe Storm598's behavior in that subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think Storm is being a bit AP post-1932 TB, don't you think? SlightSmile 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Broadly the same issues that are evident in the AP2 area - engaging in OR, particularly with respect to categorisation & infobox contents. The addition of Cat:Identity politics in Japan is not necessarily harmful, just bizarre.[38] But there's also this, categorising a WW2 era Japanese politician as "fascist", when the article describes him in rather more moderate terms.[39] And this, adding "far-right" with neither source nor support in the article text.[40] The addition of a handful of cats, including "far-right" to a Thai political party here,[41], while also acknowledging that the sourcing doesn't exist.[42] Not isolated to "far-right", there's also additions and removals of "left-wing activist" here; again without sourcing or supporting text.[43][44][45] And these changes to a British Labour Party politicians are justified entirely by OR or personal viewpoint.[46][47] And these additions of "Anti-Zionism in South Korea", a new category created by Storm598, are just bewildering.[48][49] These additions to a Korean political party are unsourced OR.[50]; no justification is provided for this removal.[51]. This, to Kuomintang, is based on OR.[52] It's actually hard to find an edit in the broader politics topic which isn't pushing a personal POV or original research. - Ryk72 talk 07:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ryk72: Pace Toa Nidhiki05's remark above, after 40 years of close observation, I'm pretty conversant with American politics, but I know little about the politics of East Asia. Can you describe Storm598's behavior in that subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per my comments at the previous ANI discussion, I think it needs to be broader. The issues extend to East Asian politics. - Ryk72 talk 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Storm598 seems to be entering AP post-1932 TB territory. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think BMK is ignorant of American politics. I just think BMK is making biased descriptions in 'some' pages, not 'all'.--Storm598 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Reset
Enough with the sniping and content arguments, please. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
| Now, can the discussion be reset? |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Bradv: Perhaps you are just misunderstanding like BMK was. Which one is giving you trouble and I can help you out. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
|
OK, let me try my hand at a reset. Here are what I think are the salient points:
- Storm598 came here with complaints about me which seem to boil down to his perception that I am using "'modern liberal' biased techniques" in my editing, but -- at least as I see it, although I'm clearly not neutral -- what he means by that is pretty vague, and he hasn't really made a very strong case for it, nor has he said what outcome he wants from filing the report. If I'm wrong, and he has indeed made a compelling case against me, then I should be appropriately sanctioned -- whatever that would be -- but if I'm correct that his evidence is less than convincing, then as the accuser with the onus to prove his charge, his case against me should be dropped.
- On the boomerang side, I see in Storm598's editing a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics, which manifests itself in mischaracterizations which are based on non-American political criteria inapplicable in an American context. On top of this he does not follow proper sourcing requirements, shoving in new information on top of existing citations which do not directly support the new descriptors as they are required to do. (See here) These are not new problems, they are continuations of the situation described in a discussion in March when Storm598 narrowly avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily banning himself from the subject for three months, a ban he has broken twice since then. [53], [54], [55]
I think that is the core of this thread. Unfortunately, most of the bazillion other bytes of text are not directly relevant to these two points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The reason why I talked about AP2 topic ban for 3 months is because you bullied me. You've interrupted a number of legitimate edits that I have nothing to do with American politics. In addition, I said so emotionally because I was unable to participate in the debate because my mental health was seriously deteriorated at the time. But as I said above, the descriptions you made in some of the American political papers, including the Blue Dog, have not always been universal. When there was an editorial dispute on the page related to American politics, I always wanted to open a talk and solve it through dialogue. I have never made a major misstatement in American political documents. Do you think I don't know how the concept of 'liberal' is used in America? I just think that simply writing down RSS as 'moderate conservatism' can give political bias to those who read it. If RSS is not liberal, then BDC cannot be considered conservative. I certainly think that some of Beyond My Ken's political pages skills are biased.--Storm598 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems that only the same words will be repeated anyway, so I will stop the argument here any more. --Storm598 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably not very useful to you to make charges such as that I "bullied" you into doing something, when anyone can read the March discussion [56] and see that you were clearly heading toward a AP2 TB or worse, which is not something I can do by myself, but requires the Wikipedia community to enact. I never asked you to voluntarily do anything, I came to the community asking for action about your behavior, and the community was responding to that request. You may see that as "bullying", but it's how problem editors are dealt with here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposal
Because of a failure in WP:CIR, WP:TE and most especially WP:STICK, Storm598 (talk · contribs) is subject to an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban from all post-1992 politics in the United States. This thread should provide all the evidence needed for such a motion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- re: expanded politics topic ban. I proposed what seemed the minimum effective measure to address the current disruption. I think that this already represents a last chance for Storm598 and any further disruption in other politics topics should result in an indefinite complete block. I am not opposed to Ryk72's expanded proposal, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- for accuracy's sake, I also note that Storm has claimed to retire from enwiki. Given the lack of follow-through on previous claimed self-imposed restrictions, I think there is a need for a definitive sanction in case they unretire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support "modern liberal biased techniques" pretty much says it all. Storm598 should find something else to edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support community-imposed topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, notwithstanding any additional sanctions which may be considered in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting that the starting point for DS AP2 was changed from 1932 to 1992 (here) so it would seem to make sense that a community-imposed AP2 TB would use the same starting point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Reyk72's expanded TB as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as part of a community imposed topic ban from Politics (broadly construed). - Ryk72 talk 07:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support at the minimum, and I also support Ryk72's broader ban, because I fear that the problematic editing will be transferred to the politics of other nations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support the broader ban, per Ryk72's analysis. Quite a few simply odd edits, in addition to the ones that shouldn't be made without appropriate sourcing. I don't see evidence above that this need for sourcing is well-understood. CMD (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Abstain I'm not in favor of culling one or two members from the herd to sanction when there are a multitude of "bad actors" in a particular topic area. I'm not seeing any WP:NPA violations, or even WP:ASPERSIONS in Storm's posts. What I am seeing is a disagreement on the WP:POV end of political editing. I also don't assume that Storm598 is being deceptive in his intent to leave the topic area. So no, I can't support this as written at this time. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ched The fact that Storm598 came out of his "retirement" three days after writing "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again" in order to post the comments below is why it's appropriate to think that he has no intention of leaving the AP2 topic area. He did exactly the same thing the last time he was challenged, said he was giving up and going away, then came back to voluntarily take on a 3-month AP2 topic ban, only to break it well before the 3 months were over. I really do not believe anything that Storm598 says he is going to do, and would prefer to go by his actions in the past, and now again right here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- And in those comments below, Storm598 admits to sockpuppetry in order to avoid sanctions both in April and now, in June, with User:파란만장. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support American politics topic ban, Oppose broader ban. There's an awful lot of ABF going on assuming that editing issues with APOL will transfer to other countries; we should give Storm enough WP:ROPE to still edit politics of other countries.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just want to note that, according to Reyk72, it's not a question of whether Storm598's disruptive editing will spread outside of the AP2 area, but that his editing there is as bad as it is in American politics; so there's no ABF involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support American politics topic ban, at minimum, on both competence and disruptive editing grounds. And no, despite what Ched says, there are not "multiple bad actors" here, there'S really only one. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
OpposeAbstain - per Ched. Blue Dogs might be "the right wing of the Democrats" but that doesn't mean it should be listed as "right wing" in the infobox, as in "the right wing of American politics." Blue Dogs are commonly described as fiscally conservative Democrats (eg see WaPo) and thus the right wing of that party, but not as "right wing" in the same way as, say, Donald Trump or Breitbart or something like that. The OP's report is valid: there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot. I think the OP's complaint is valid and the boomerang is not. If there is some long term problem with Storm, let's see some diffs and a real report. Levivich 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Updated !vote. Levivich 01:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- Please keep comments on-point and do not attempt to litigate content issues. If you want a diff, look at the opening of Storm's statement here which is a clear personal attack. The rest of this thread should amply serve as needed evidence without bureaucratic contortions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot
is about conduct, not content, and please don't imply I !voted without reading this thread. No, it does not serve as ample evidence supporting a sanction, not in my view. Levivich 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please keep comments on-point and do not attempt to litigate content issues. If you want a diff, look at the opening of Storm's statement here which is a clear personal attack. The rest of this thread should amply serve as needed evidence without bureaucratic contortions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBan; weakly oppose Topic Ban from WP:ARBAP2. I don't think there's much here for a broader topic ban extending to all of politics (certainly this thread doesn't really say anything about Roman Politics or the like, so a proposal along those lines is too broad). I also don't think that the editor is incapable of editing articles relating to American politics, though I certainly have serious concerns. If we choose to move forward with a topic ban, I believe that it should be limited in time (rather than indefinite), since this appears to be a case of an editor becoming extremely hot-headed while on WP:ANI rather than substantive issues with the edits themselves. As a result, I think the most narrowly tailored approach would be to impose a 1-way interaction band that would prohibit Storm598 from interacting with Beyond My Ken for a period of six months. If the editor violates the interaction ban with malice, or if their behavior continues after this thread is closed, I would move to support a topic ban. The user has had issues with this area in the past, incurring a one-day ban for edit warring on this topic, so my current opposition to a topic ban is only a weak one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- An IBan is not under consideration since it's not responsive to the situation presented -- but, in any case, whom do you propose to ban and in what direction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: My intent was to put forward an alternative (banning Storm598 from interacting with you; the ban should be placed on Storm 598). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. I do not see that Storm598's interactions with me are the base problem here, instead the concern is about their editing to articles, specifically in the American politics subject area, but also in other areas as well. An interaction ban will not solve this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just wanted to point out that nothing Storm598 writes about his intentions concerning editing Wikipedia can be trusted. He "retired" three days ago, and now he posts it again, with the edit summary "Now it's really retired," [57] as if we're supposed to believe him now that he really, really means it. So when he writes "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again. I won't even create another account", [58] we can be pretty sure that he'll be back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- And again he changes his intentions [59]. Also, WP:NOTTHERAPY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- And now he's removed "retired". [60] Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Originally, I didn't want to answer, but I'll answer this before I leave. The reason why I deleted "retired" is because it can cause regulatory problems. Because as you said last time, I remembered that I couldn't "retire". But I'm not editing Wikipedia any more this year. I don't want you to misunderstand me as a destructive editing. If you don't believe it, watch from now on.--Storm598 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I never told you that you couldn't retire. Please provide the diff of where you think I said that. In point of fact, you have "retired" -- either with a template or otherwise, and twice now in the midst of sanctions being considered against you -- a number of times, and each time you return to editing within a short period of time. That's called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support american politics topic ban. I say we wait to see how that goes before considering a one way IBan. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a reason why I am convinced that this is discrimination against new users.
One of the things I say when I doubt myself is that I'm a new user. To be honest, I have a reason to be sure that I am discriminated against because I am a new user.
I used to be active on another account for about 3 years.(User:삭은사과) Then, in September last year, I completely quit editing Wikipedia in October because I was on the verge of spreading my real name and personal information on other sites. And I created this account last December.
When I first started editing on Wikipedia in 2017, there were a few disputes, but since then, people haven't really taken issue with my editing. (Of course, at this time, I was more likely to source, and I didn't edit as many US political documents as I do now.)
Would my editing have been this suspicious if I had been on the 삭은사과 account since October last year? I was a 'verified user' back then. I have also received Barnstar from Korean Wikipedia.# Obviously, the atmosphere of 2017 or 2018 was not so exclusive to 'new users'. Am I wrong?
I would also like to refute some of the claims that I am doing OR.
- Adding corporatism to Kuomintang's pages' infobox is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not enough evidence to suggest that current Kuomintang pursues corporatism.
- Hideki Tojo and Fumimaro Konoe are representative leaders of the fascist-centered "Axis powers," and there is an academic controversy over whether totalitarianism in the Japanese Empire was fascism in the late 1930s and 1940s. I'm not the only one who put the fascist category in that page.
- Some say that I made an OR in American political pages, but in that sense, there is a reason why I don't hold Beyond My Ken responsible for making an OR in Blue Dog and other U.S. political pages. That's because Beyond My Ken is a person who has been using Wikipedia for a long time, not a "new user". Also, I often used Talk on many pages.
Of course, the current situation was so unfair that I created a new account and edited Wikipedia. This is my fault because it is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. # I'm sorry.
But I honestly don't think there's been a big OR in American political documents. If I'm going to label BDC's ideology as conservatism because many of the disputes in Wikipedia are called Republican Governance Group as "liberal Republicans" and Blue Dog Coalition as "conservative Democrats", then I'm just at odds with Beyond My Ken over the view that RGG's ideology should be labeled liberal. To be honest, I think I'm being treated as an unfair bias because I'm a new user. This is not an OP, just a difference of opinion.
I'm really going to say something as I really leave now. A large number of English Wikipedia users has certainly become quite exclusive compared to the past. I doubt the new user Be bold first. At this rate, I'm sure there will be fewer users editing English Wikipedia in the future.I'm sick and tired of this form.--Storm598 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way, but you really have to approach English Wikipedia, at least, as a giant collaborative project, and that means with humility. People will disagree, and very few subjects are truly susceptible to logical proofs. If I could offer some advice, take a break and come back with the mindset to persuade. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Storm598: Your previous account, User:삭은사과 was active for 4 years and 4 months, with 3,389 edits. Your current account has been active for 5 months with 1,347 edits. Throw in the nine edits from your sockpuppet account User:파란만장, and in total you have edited for 4 years and 9 months with 4,745 edits. You are in no way, shape or form a "new editor".And, yes, to answer your question, if you had continued to edit with your first account, and you had made exactly the same edits you made as Storm598, my response would have been the same. Bad editing is bad editing, period. I would have said to 삭은사과 the same thing I wrote to you in my very first comment on your talk page: "I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing," something that you still haven't done. [61] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I said, so I'm going to say this for the last time. That's right. I'm not a new user. But the reason you treat me like this is because you recognized me as a new user. Today, I revealed for the first time that I used to work under the account of '삭은사과'. Now that it's already happened, you're just trying to keep going. But if I hadn't created an account called Storm598 at all, and had used the account I'd been using since the beginning, you'd be much less suspicious of my editing. Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? --Storm598 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't need to reveal that I had previously been on an account called 삭은사과 and I just said it, even though it was against me. The Wikipedia atmosphere has certainly become exclusive from a few years ago. I wanted to make this clear to you.--Storm598 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In short, direct words: you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. There is a huge leap from "Wah! I didn't get my way! Call Whine One One! I need a Wahmbulance!!" to "I am being discriminated against". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In short, direct words: you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I admit that I was ignorant of American politics.
I couldn't even understand why Elizabeth Warren was called "liberal" instead of "social democratic".(Of course I've never edited Elizabeth Warren page at all.) In South Korea, Elizabeth Warren is perceived as a social democratic or "radical left-wing". In fact, in South Korea, center-left media also report Elizabeth Warren as a "radical left-wing".# Even major American liberal media have likened Elizabeth Warren to social democracy.# South Korea prefers state intervention more economically than the United States, but most political forces, including the center-left social democratic Justice Party, are negative about the dismantlement of Chaebol or financial reform.(Of course, South Korea's Justice Party is advocating chaebol reform.) Perhaps if a politician like Elizabeth Warren appeared in South Korea, he would be considered more leftist than the usual social democracy in South Korea.
I realized that the investigation "liberal" used in the United States was very American exceptional. In American politics, "liberal" is a very vague rhetoric, which is called "liberal" in the international sense of Barack Obama, but even progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call it "liberal." Outside the United States, however, there are views that people close to social liberalism, such as Tony Blair, are "social democracat," which in many ways confuses me. (Tony Blair is not as radical as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but rather compared to Bill Clinton. The third way.)
I have now somewhat understood why it is awkward to describe RGG as 'liberal' in the context of American politics. I still lack knowledge of American politics, and I need to study more. I now agree that I need a ban for at least a period of time on the American political page.
However, if so, I still have some questions about editing BMK. I still don't understand how RSS is described as a moderate conservative organisation. Similarly, the Blue Dog is not a right-wing in the general sense of American politics. (example: Rockefeller Republicans are left-wing in the Republican Party, but they are not left-wing by national political standards.) Some of the other users also took issue with editing BMK. Especially in the case of Blue Dog, there was a user who took issue with editing BMK even if it wasn't me. Did I misunderstand this part, too? I hope that the Administrators will also consider this when considering sanctions against me. As mentioned above, there was also a clear problem with BMK editing some pages.(Of course, I 'agree' with BMK's recent proposal to label the Republican Governance Group as "Political moderate".#)--Storm598 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is not to explain that I see Elizabeth Warren as a social democrat, but that some 'liberals' in the United States, such as Elizabeth Warren, are perceived differently from the general meaning of 'liberal' in other countries. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is a social democrat. In many countries, 'liberal' is often referred to as a centrist, unlike 'liberal' in the American context.--Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming to be an expert on US politics either, but I'm pretty sure that politics is not on the high school syllabus over there. That means that many don't even have the background knowledge to engage in such discussions. It also means that some will turn to Wikipedia for explanation. We need to be aware that where the political "centre" lies will differ greatly from country to country and should therefore be avoided where possible and carefully defined where not. We also need to use terms like "liberal" and "socialist" with great precision, even if it means that American readers are surprised that liberals are right of centre in many countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Even ideologies that are not political positions may have different meanings. Liberals in South Korea will not be considered liberals in the United States. They are more of a center-right or right-wing in American political standards socially and culturally. For example, there are quite a few liberals in South Korea who oppose homosexuality(Example: #, #, #), not same-sex marriage, which in the United States would be considered simple conservatism, not moderate conservatism. South Koreans think American liberalism is different from their own. American liberalism is an American exceptional concept, which is not perfectly consistent with 'centrist liberal' in the international concept. In particular, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are "liberal" in the American political context, but there are social democratic elements beyond social liberalism on international standards. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizabeth Warren has some aspects that go against social democratic principles, but there is a point where Warren is hardly considered a "centrist liberal" in international terms. In particular, Warren's views on exchange rates or free trade are hardly considered "liberal" in the general international sense. The center-left media in South Korea mentioned above also reported that Warren has put forward radical left-wing policies, including a pledge to manipulate the exchange rate. This view is never called "liberal" or "social liberal" in South Korea. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reason I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea last time was only to inform that American politicians and political forces are actually classified differently in South Korea, not to base them on the major wiki of South Korea. In South Korea, Warren is actually seen as a social democrat. Warren is a CPC-linked figure in the first place, so it may not be just wrong to see Warren as a social democrat. Of course I don't think of Warren as a social democrat. What is certain is that "liberal" is used internationally in much the same sense as "centrist", so South Korea's social liberal is much more conservative than the US's "liberal". This is because the concepts themselves are completely different. As mentioned above, Warren is considered quite radical left-wing or similar to himself among the center-left (mainly social democrats) in South Korea. The American 'liberal' is certainly not a centrist 'liberal' in international sense.--Storm598 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I said I needed to study more about American politics. Internationally, some Rockefeller Republicans or moderate Republicans can be considered conservative liberals. (In particular, liberal conservatism, a sub-division of conservative liberalism, is used in many countries in a similar sense to moderate conservatism.) However, it is inappropriate to call the center-right conservative because the mainstream right is called conservative and the mainstream left is called "liberal" in American political standards. However, I did not see the RGG as a general conservative organization and did not see the BDC as a general right-wing, so I was only opposed to BMK's new editing.(This I think BMK has frankly done OR. I think administrators should consider this, even if they ban editing my American political page for a period of time.) However, applying the concept of 'liberal' outside the American to pages related to United States politics can cause a lot of confusion, and I think there is plenty of room for OR. I admit that I did OR on this part. My editing was mistaken in many ways because American liberalism means 'social liberalism' and 'progressivism', not general 'centrist' liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Slightly off topic, but politics is definitely required as part of the high school curriculum in most states - at least, we had a year of American history in 11th grade followed by a semester on American Government. Whether it is comprehensive enough is another question. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming to be an expert on US politics either, but I'm pretty sure that politics is not on the high school syllabus over there. That means that many don't even have the background knowledge to engage in such discussions. It also means that some will turn to Wikipedia for explanation. We need to be aware that where the political "centre" lies will differ greatly from country to country and should therefore be avoided where possible and carefully defined where not. We also need to use terms like "liberal" and "socialist" with great precision, even if it means that American readers are surprised that liberals are right of centre in many countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course, some of you may think that what I'm saying here is OR. However, I explained how 'liberal' in the United States is perceived outside the United States. Since the concept of "liberal" in the United States is an American exceptionalist concept, it is my OR that attempts to apply and edit the concept of "liberal" in the international sense in American political documents. I think it's my fault that I created something like "Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States)". I'm going to log out of Wikipedia after this time, and I'm going to find out how American political are described. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I was going to quit editing English Wikipedia for a long time, but I broke my promise last time, so you might not believe me easily, and I wrote this long article to explain my editing. Once again, I'm sorry. My mental health has deteriorated so I'm going to block access to English Wikipedia on my phone and computer (I didn't block access to English Wikipedia last February).--Storm598 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- I retract the word that I will block access to English Wikipedia. However, I will not edit the English Wikipedia for a while and just read it.--Storm598 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Call for close
- I think that there more than sufficient evidence at this point -- much of it in their own words -- for an uninvolved admin to make a determination as to whether a sanction should be imposed on Storm598, either a community AP2 topic ban or a community ban against editing anything related to politics. Or no sanction at all, of course. I would recommend that the closer read closely everything from the #Reset section on down, and also look at the March discussion [62].
- Obviously, if there's sufficient evidence and community support for a sanction against myself, that should be considered as well, but it's certainly time to wrap this up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If possible, I would like to have a ban with a fixed deadline rather than a permanent one. Please consider that I didn't cause such a big problem when I was working on another account(삭은사과) until last year, but rather made productive edits. (Examples: #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, enc.) I acknowledge that the edits I have made over the months on this account(Storm598) may not be productive or OR. It's because my mental health has deteriorated this year. I'll log out until my mental health is restored. I'll try not to cause this problem when I get back to Wikipedia next year.(When this is over, I won't edit Wikipedia pages this year, but I'll just read them.) --Storm598 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- If possible, please give me a topic ban with a fixed deadline. Or please block Wikipedia for about a 1 year(365 days) until I recover my mental health without topic ban. Please don't do a permanent topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Recently, my mental health has deteriorated a lot, and now I really feel that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia this year. But I want you to give me a 'chance'. I personally suffered a very terrible incident this year and had a problematic editing, but my mental health will be fully restored by the second half of next year. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you agree to a 1-year ban from editing English Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's right, but on the condition that administrators don't do AP2 ban on me. I'll continue reading Wikipedia, but I'd rather not edit it for my current mental health. The irrational behavior that I've been doing in English Wikipedia recently is related to my mental health problems.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm very shy to see what I said a few days ago today. I think I had a lot of positive prejudice against American politics and society because South Korean society is quite conservative in minority human rights issues and I suffered serious discrimination in South Korea as an LGBT. In this situation, I think I've lost my reason this year because I've been through something very bad. (however, when editing South Korean political pages, it did not reflect my OR view.) For many complex reasons, I have not been rational in many ways this year. I think I need to take a long break.--Storm598 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you going to stop editing or not? If your mental health is a concern, you should stop and disengage - period. Wikipedia cannot operate in that capacity on your behalf. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm very shy to see what I said a few days ago today. I think I had a lot of positive prejudice against American politics and society because South Korean society is quite conservative in minority human rights issues and I suffered serious discrimination in South Korea as an LGBT. In this situation, I think I've lost my reason this year because I've been through something very bad. (however, when editing South Korean political pages, it did not reflect my OR view.) For many complex reasons, I have not been rational in many ways this year. I think I need to take a long break.--Storm598 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you look at the edits in the accounts that I stopped using before I created this account, you will honestly feel that the edits in the current account are very poor in quality compared to those in the previous account. From the end of last year to the beginning of this year, I had a terrible experience that I could not say publicly. Including cyber stalking damage on SNS. My mental health condition is very poor now. It's worse than last year.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to this attempt by Storm598 to craft his own sanction under his conditions. If he had agreed to a straight one-year site ban, I thought that could be an OK compromise, but once he started making demands, I think that shows that his offer was not at all serious. His attempt to negotiate a sanction is what he did back in March -- and here we are again. My feeling is that if sanctions are placed on him, they should be indefinite, and he can request they be lifted after a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Beyond My Ken. I would also be OK with letting them request an unban after six months instead of a year but the chances of it succeeding are roughly 0% so IMO there is no real difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Summary - The proposal for sanctions against Storm598 has been open since May 31, or 12 days. Without dealing with strength of argument, just looking at the numbers, I see:
- 7 supports for an AP2 ban, 1 weak oppose
- 4 support for an all politics ban, 1 oppose
- 2 abstentions
- 1 one-way interaction ban for Storm529
- Can an uninvolved admin please assess and close?
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/
Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{R from file metadata link}} redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ that redirects to Matplotlib. This link showed up in the EXIF metadata of File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, but I guess since it has a url in the name I do not have permission to create the page. Thanks! --Yarnalgo talk 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, no one would use that as a search term.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:
- /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
- C150,D390
- C70Z,C7000Z
- C-1Z,D-150Z
- Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
- DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
- HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
- ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
- ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org
- FE360,X875,C570
- MicroStation 8.11.7.443 by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
- Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
- Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
- Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
- SAMSUNG ES15 / VLUU ES15 / SAMSUNG SL30
- Pdftk 2.02 - www.pdftk.com
- R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
- Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)
etc. and more in Category:Redirects from file metadata links, and the redirects which aren't categorized. You can see that the bold ones contain URLs just like this one. By all means we can have a discussion if we want to deprecate redirects created only for the purpose of being a redirect from file metadata. I would also note that in Sandstein's "not done" comment, they say that "Nobody would search for that string", but that's not the point, they unbreak an incoming link. They also note that "That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest", however they are a purpose of a redirect and can be categorized as such with {{R from file metadata link}}. They also appear to meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP because deleting one will break incoming links, and they simply are helpful for some people because they can immediately go to the article about the software or hardware that helped create that file. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.
- RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, but please delete all of these and use the solution already in place for the first file. At File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, you indeed get that strange Metadata link: but you only see that when you actually scroll to the bottom and open the metadata. On the other hand, in the file summary, in the "source" section, is a box which states "this plot was created with Matplotlib.", with a link there. So the need for the additional link, which won't be seen bby 99% of the people looking at the file anyway, is gone. Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like DMC-FZ20, which are actually useful. The vast majority of these are either such bvious redirects, or at least in a somewhat readable form: not the ugly, extremely technical ones proposed here. Huawei P Smart, fine, why not? Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis?? Uh, please no, it isn't even clear what the target has to do with the source of the redirect as "libvorbis" isn't explained or mentioned there. Perhaps it should redirect to Vorbis instead, but not knowing where the redirect comes from, it is impossible to judge. And redirects where we can't even judge whether they point to the right page, are redirects we shoudn't have. Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the criteria for deleting a redirect page, and you have not addressed the two provided reasons that they should be kept. The fact is that these redirects fix broken links (WP:R#K4) and are useful to some people (WP:R#K5). To quote WP:R#K5, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Why does the fact that they are a never-ending series of redirects mean that they should be deleted? Wikipedia is a never-ending series of articles. Does that mean all articles should be deleted because there will just always be more to make? Of course not. The articles that exist are useful even if there is always more to be added just like these redirects are useful even though there will always be more that can be created. Your next points seem to be arguing something different (certain redirect pages should be deleted, not all of them). Why does it matter if there are some that are "ugly" and "extremely technical". Who cares? Again, they fix broken links and are helpful to some people so they meet the criteria to be kept. Being ugly, extremely technical, or "polluting" the what links here page are not valid reasons for deleting a redirect. Your third point about the connection between the redirect page and the page they point to not being clear is also not a reason for deleting a redirect, and it does not apply to the page I originally requested. It's obviously clear that "Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/" is referring to Matplotlib and should link there. The example you provided (Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis) shows up in the metadata for files created with the ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reason 8 states "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful". We've already established that these redirects are useful due to the fact that they fix broken links on file pages so this doesn't apply. Reason 2 may apply to that one example, but again that may mean that one redirect needs some discussion but is not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. As for reason 4, we've already discussed at length the purpose of these redirects. They are clearly not "self-promotion or spam". On your next point, calling Commons an external site or tool is a little disingenuous. The file pages (and the broken links) exist on Wikipedia as well. This isn't creating redirects for some random external site that has broken links, it's creating redirects for Wikipedia's sister project that is heavily used within Wikipedia itself. There are two broken metadata links on file pages that are currently on the Main Page, one click away from anyone visiting the front page of Wikipedia. There are also two metadata links there that have redirects made for them. Because we have those redirects in place, any readers clicking around from the Main Page will be brought to the correct articles about the software/hardware that created the images. That seems pretty useful to me. As you say, we disagree, but again you don't need to find it useful for it to be useful to others. --Yarnalgo talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the criteria for deleting a redirect page, and you have not addressed the two provided reasons that they should be kept. The fact is that these redirects fix broken links (WP:R#K4) and are useful to some people (WP:R#K5). To quote WP:R#K5, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Why does the fact that they are a never-ending series of redirects mean that they should be deleted? Wikipedia is a never-ending series of articles. Does that mean all articles should be deleted because there will just always be more to make? Of course not. The articles that exist are useful even if there is always more to be added just like these redirects are useful even though there will always be more that can be created. Your next points seem to be arguing something different (certain redirect pages should be deleted, not all of them). Why does it matter if there are some that are "ugly" and "extremely technical". Who cares? Again, they fix broken links and are helpful to some people so they meet the criteria to be kept. Being ugly, extremely technical, or "polluting" the what links here page are not valid reasons for deleting a redirect. Your third point about the connection between the redirect page and the page they point to not being clear is also not a reason for deleting a redirect, and it does not apply to the page I originally requested. It's obviously clear that "Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/" is referring to Matplotlib and should link there. The example you provided (Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis) shows up in the metadata for files created with the ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like DMC-FZ20, which are actually useful. The vast majority of these are either such bvious redirects, or at least in a somewhat readable form: not the ugly, extremely technical ones proposed here. Huawei P Smart, fine, why not? Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis?? Uh, please no, it isn't even clear what the target has to do with the source of the redirect as "libvorbis" isn't explained or mentioned there. Perhaps it should redirect to Vorbis instead, but not knowing where the redirect comes from, it is impossible to judge. And redirects where we can't even judge whether they point to the right page, are redirects we shoudn't have. Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Review of indefinitely salted article titles
Like with Xeno's attempt to tidy up our catalogue of indefinitely move-protected pages, I've noticed we have quite a few indefinitely protected titles. Over 40000, in fact (quarry:query/55670 for indef, quarry:query/55671 for >2022 expiries). Browsing through these gives the impression that hardly any are relevant today, especially with our increase in new page reviewing and title blacklisting. Anarchyte (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's a surprisingly large number. I think a review would be reasonable to unprotect any broad categories of pages. For example, I still think we should be dropping full protection down to ECP for pages with pending drafts. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say we have at least 1000 different variants of "hagger" protected, eg: H & then an R ?, H and-then-some R?, .һ.а.6.6.е.Г?, , ,ҥ, ,а, ,ҩ, ,ҩ, ,е, ,ґ. All of these are from 2008. Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) Just started browsing the first list and I'm seeing a lot of these that could be valid redirects to existing pages ($UICIDEBOY$ immediately was one I saw). Also is Grawp still an issue now, regarding the "hagger" articles? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, impersonation is still an issue. Grawp is still around but complaining about gender issues instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've also noticed this. Wikipedia troll, Wikipedia trolls, Lalalalala, and Lalalala have all been valid redirects I've made over the last hour or so of perusing the list. Anarchyte (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) Just started browsing the first list and I'm seeing a lot of these that could be valid redirects to existing pages ($UICIDEBOY$ immediately was one I saw). Also is Grawp still an issue now, regarding the "hagger" articles? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say we have at least 1000 different variants of "hagger" protected, eg: H & then an R ?, H and-then-some R?, .һ.а.6.6.е.Г?, , ,ҥ, ,а, ,ҩ, ,ҩ, ,е, ,ґ. All of these are from 2008. Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Your 2022+ expiry query is actually showing all non-indefinite protections; you don't have enough digits in the timestamp comparison. Timestamps are more easily compared as strings instead: you can just write pt_expiry >= '2022' AND pt_expiry != 'infinity'. —Cryptic 13:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC))
- Ah, thanks Cryptic. Modified accordingly. Anarchyte (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in investing effort in a big historical review, but I certainly agree with Primefac that ECP should be the standard level of "strong protection", with admin-only being used only in exceptional circumstances. And my guess is that in any situation where ECP isn't strong enough, blocking the offending users is probably a better tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- So yes there are a lot of Special:ProtectedTitles but is this worth the effort to deal with - probably not. Barring a specifically targeted query, is there actually a problem that needs work? I doubt our readers and editors are really missing out on !!suck my balls!!, Hi vicki!!!!!!!!!!!, or This smells very nice. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- With regard to "pages with a draft pending", yes, because it slows down the review process when a non-admin reviewer has to request unprotection of a protected article just to accept a valid draft. With regard to clearly silly names like those you have invoked, well, clearly not. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, Xaosflux, but I still think it might be a worthwhile exercise to run through a few of them and see if any can become redirects (as mentioned above). Also, it's highly likely that a vast majority of the pages would never be recreated which indicates they're unnecessarily protected. Removing them would make our maintenance statistics more accurate as well as make our protected pages list more relevant to today's encyclopedia. Perhaps reducing any possibly contentious protections to a three-year temporary full salt or indefinite ECP and removing protection from every other page, while keeping pages like Sample Page and Name of the suggested article to be created indefinitely sysop protected, could be an alternative. With this said, I'm not sure we need titles like Make an article or Create new article protected given we've got these all as redirects to Help:Your first article. Anarchyte (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Name of the suggested article to be created looks like it was from a template. A search doesn't find anything, but it was created in 2006 and 2007 so any template that was used is likely to have been edited or deleted since then. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter James: Perhaps we don't even need those protected. Creating mainspace pages is a lot harder for new users now than back then. I've been looking through the list again and there's only like one in every 50 that actually needs protection. Anarchyte (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Name of the suggested article to be created looks like it was from a template. A search doesn't find anything, but it was created in 2006 and 2007 so any template that was used is likely to have been edited or deleted since then. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- No to ECP indefinite or otherwise for salted titles. Salted titles should be fully protected for a set period of time and for ones with no purpose should be indefinite. On 30 May, Liz ECP Sanket Mhatre as a G4. It was recreated as Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) and QuiteUnusual moved it to Sanket Mhatre. Because QuiteUnusual is extended confirmed they were able to move it without any warning that the page had been deleted. So unless editors are going to get a warning pages should be full salted. Of course I have no idea how often this happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In my experience, pages that are repeatedly recreated are typically done so by persistent new editors. I thought an editor who is extended confirmed would be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices and understand that an article deleted through an AFD discussion shouldn't be recreated in the main space of the project. I advise editors who want to write an article about a subject deleted through an AFD to write a draft and submit it to AFC for review. I thought fully protecting a page, unless it is a page title that is obviously for vandalism only, would disallow an experienced editor from submitting an article that is superior in writing and sourcing, to a deleted version of that article. In my view of Wikipedia, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version. I guess in this case, QuiteUnusual moved a page through the Move function without seeing that that page had been repeatedly deleted at the new title. If I had to identify a mistake, it would be that Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) hadn't been salted, too, although it is hard to predict every title variation that editors can come up with to get around page protection. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In my own experience, as someone who has a good number of not-salted-but-repeatedly-recreated pages on my watchlist, the new pages are found not when they're created, but when they're moved back to the most-appropriate title. We cannot predict every variation, but if we trust that the gnomes will do their jobs properly (which they do) then we'll eventually notice the recreations.
- As a minor note,
there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version
.... that would be WP:AFC. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)- Agreed: our monitoring of new pages is good enough to catch these out when they happen. In my opinion, and with further consideration after what I said above, we should be removing every salted protection put in place because of notability from before 2015 and changing every other notability-related salt from post 2015 to temporary five year full/ECP protection with rolling five year protections if it keeps happening (this would have to be a policy change, though). We can leave vandalism titles indefinitely protected with no problem. Anarchyte (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Most vandalism titles don't need full protection, as very few vandals repeatedly become extended confirmed users. Indefinite protection is also unnecessary in most cases, as it's so unlikely that the same titles will be used again. It also fails to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia sucks was protected, so Wikipedia sucks cock and Wikipedia sucks dick were created. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed: our monitoring of new pages is good enough to catch these out when they happen. In my opinion, and with further consideration after what I said above, we should be removing every salted protection put in place because of notability from before 2015 and changing every other notability-related salt from post 2015 to temporary five year full/ECP protection with rolling five year protections if it keeps happening (this would have to be a policy change, though). We can leave vandalism titles indefinitely protected with no problem. Anarchyte (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- In my experience, pages that are repeatedly recreated are typically done so by persistent new editors. I thought an editor who is extended confirmed would be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices and understand that an article deleted through an AFD discussion shouldn't be recreated in the main space of the project. I advise editors who want to write an article about a subject deleted through an AFD to write a draft and submit it to AFC for review. I thought fully protecting a page, unless it is a page title that is obviously for vandalism only, would disallow an experienced editor from submitting an article that is superior in writing and sourcing, to a deleted version of that article. In my view of Wikipedia, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version. I guess in this case, QuiteUnusual moved a page through the Move function without seeing that that page had been repeatedly deleted at the new title. If I had to identify a mistake, it would be that Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) hadn't been salted, too, although it is hard to predict every title variation that editors can come up with to get around page protection. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- While this is true, is there a need to lower the protection of obvious vandal target pages to EC? firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why we would need to lower protection for these either - they're not articles that will ever be notable, many will never be redirects, and "please unsalt, I want to write an article on a notable topic but I can't because it's salted" requests seem infrequent. I'm just worried we're creating work that will create more work. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't more work if there is a script that can be used. A time limit should be specified for all. Most were only created once, or were protected within a week of the first deletion, and Wikipedia:Deny recognition could be relevant for some. They were also created before Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation. Peter James (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why we would need to lower protection for these either - they're not articles that will ever be notable, many will never be redirects, and "please unsalt, I want to write an article on a notable topic but I can't because it's salted" requests seem infrequent. I'm just worried we're creating work that will create more work. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- While this is true, is there a need to lower the protection of obvious vandal target pages to EC? firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see a need for action here. Most of these titles will never be used, and for the rare exception WP:RPP exists. We don't need to create more admin work for ourselves by fiddling around with these protections to no clear benefit to the project. Sandstein 10:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein, genuinely curious, how is this making more work for admins? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Deciding which pages to unprotect and actually unprotecting them. And then cleaning up the vandalism that may result from the unprotection. Sandstein 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein, genuinely curious, how is this making more work for admins? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with Sandstein. I'm really not convinced it's worth the effort to screw around with all these pages just to make it easier for future vandals to enlighten our readers with such fantastic pages as Nigger-Jew and Dickface. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is just cherry picking though, isn't it? It's like 1 on 25 (or less) on avg that's like that. Most aren't, especially once you get past the initial Quarry pages of symbols/special characters (which skew towards being vandalism). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I someone can generate a list of my salted titles, I'd be glad to go through them. BD2412 T 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- BD2412 isn't that just Special:ProtectedTitles? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't know which ones on the list are titles salted by me. Even my own protection log has many more titles than those that are merely salted. BD2412 T 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I missed that. Try https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/55807. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. Most things I have salted are due to repeated recreation post-AfD or other deletion process. A few are titles purporting to be contact information for call girls/escorts. I don't think there is anything that I would unprotect. BD2412 T 17:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I missed that. Try https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/55807. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't know which ones on the list are titles salted by me. Even my own protection log has many more titles than those that are merely salted. BD2412 T 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Mihail Lavrov and open proxies
Mihail Lavrov, and administrator and formerly an arbitrator on the Russian Wikipedia, has been there CU checked on a suspicion on being a sock of another administrator and former arbitrator. The check found that all their edits were made using open proxies, and their account there has been indefinitely blocked by a crat [63]. We should probably blocking them here as well (the contribution is insignificant and old though), but I am going to wait for comments. I have not notified them of the thread, since I am not sure this is the best way forward in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- From what I can understand, the block is mainly for using open proxies, and there seems to be some discussion about whether that's an appropriate rule on that wiki. There also seems to be talk of them being meatpuppets. Ymblanter, since you talk the talk, what evidence is there of actual sockpuppetry? I'm not currently persuaded a block on this wiki would be appropriate. As you suggest, it's not really going to do much anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I’m doubtful about blocking them on en.wiki, given they do not appear to have done anything wrong here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. No, there is no open evidence of sockpuppetry as far as I can see (there will be an ArbCom case coming, and they might decide smth, but this is a different story), only the statement that they exclusively use open proxies. Let us drop the case then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Blocking someone for merely using proxies has a bunch of issues. First, in Wikipedia:No Open Proxies, it states "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.". Essentially, with zero evidence of socking, and the rule on proxies itself not supporting punishments for merely using them, I suggest no action is taken until further evidence says otherwise. I recommend this be closed. aeschylus (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. No, there is no open evidence of sockpuppetry as far as I can see (there will be an ArbCom case coming, and they might decide smth, but this is a different story), only the statement that they exclusively use open proxies. Let us drop the case then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went to make a change to meta.wiki this morning and was briefly stymied because I typically use a VPN, and the IP I was assigned was blocked there as an open proxy. (As an admin I have IPBE here on en.wiki so it's only ever an issue for my fairly infrequent edits to other projects). If a person is socking, that's a different matter, but there are many quite legitimate reasons to use open proxies. It's surprising if ru.wiki considers the use of open proxies itself to be a blockworthy offense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11
In accordance with discussions at WT:MILHIST I now propose a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1900. As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS) which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1900. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.
Comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Go for it. To quote Peacemaker67, what on earth did Arbcom think it was doing? There was an unofficial consensus to overturn the committee's decision—not that that can be done of course, but it suggests the strength of feeling. So here we are, having to do it all over again. ——Serial 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support, reluctantly. While this editor appears to be acting in good faith, unfortunately their edits have caused a lot of aggravation due to not being written in line with community expectations. I hope that they will be able to improve their editing so that this topic ban can be lifted in the future. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- This will probably not come as a surprise to you, and everyone who is supportive of the ban, but I actually support it myself, at-least to an extent. I've seen now, and even before this whole palaver started that my edits are not only pissing you and others off, but are also really just plain annoying and pointless. I decided to take a step back and actually see that not only was I causing a ruckus, but my edits (with regard to WP:Primary were not improving and wasn't listening to the advise of yourself and others, including @-wolf. So, as I was saying I support the ban, and its because I need assistance because I most certainly want to improve, and lately I personally feel I've been expanding in the WP:Secondary area, especially with regard to the Pre-Napoleonic Wars era, and something which I know I can add a lot, but need to tread carefully there too. If I could recommend, I actually, though he and all of us have our downsides, wouldn't mind, and would in-fact like to have @Buckshot06 as either a mentor (though that's his personal choice) or a direct assistant. Per his advice I've removed my post-1900 structures/drafts, etc, and planning on working on JUST bases and pre-1900 French and Russian units, which themselves also need work which is why they remain in sandbox. I personally think, and I'm certain it is the right step to step back entirely from these for a minimum of a month, or even 2. This way I will be able to improve and hopefully be able to continue to work on this after improvement in the future. One of the things I feel I personally need a lot of help with and I'm sure @Buckshot06 would agree, is my use of primary sources and extensive lists which need more referencing as an overall list instead of just separated blocks. The third main issue, as again Buckshot you'll be aware of is my ADHD which has a considerable effect on myself. This because I feel there is always a rush to get articles done, post them, and fix them super quick without thinking. Now, I have both in real life, and here improved in this area considerably, but do need help too, in which @-wolf and @SmartyPants22 have both assisted in this area with editing assistance and advise me. Of course, as I stated way back when, assistance is always welcome of-course, as I WANT to improve, and I WANT to keep editing , help out, and provide a lot of information which I have and wanted to share. J-Man11 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support My view has been that J-Man11 lacks the competence to edit in these areas. They continue to demonstrate the same editing behaviour despite being told many times that they are going about editing the wrong way, copying lists from unreliable sites (this is the information they want to share...) and then trying to source them (usually unsuccessfully, unsurprisingly), creating lists with no encyclopaedic basis/rationale or reasonable chance of being reliably sourced (a 2021 order of battle for any country is completely unworkable for obvious reasons). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment ftr, "@-wolf" is actaully me Thewolfchild, more simply known as "wolf" (as per my current sig). Big picture-wise I see where Buckshot is coming from, he has put A LOT of effort into addressing the problems with J-man's edits, and there has been many. He was banned, but given a rare second chance after an appeal. It's unfortunate that conditions weren't attached to the unbanning, such as mandatory mentoring. I, and others, have repeatedly encouraged J-man to get a mentor. It could be said that Buckshot has been a reluctant mentor, of sorts up to now. I also note that Nick-D offerred some "informal" assistance, but J-man needs a dedicated full-time mentor. There is a lengthy list of available adopters who also mentor, and one like Rosguill I think would be well-suited to this particular situation. I say this because I believe J-man means well, he's young and enthusiastic, wants to contribute and puts in A LOT of effort. He's also not a dick, he's not arrogant and doesn't have an attitude. But that said, there are problems. I believe a long term relationship with a mentor, overseeing all of J-man's edits, could pay off. The benefit being the project gets numerous, quality milhist articles. But, left on his own, I believe the problems would continue. J-man, may improve, but not fast enough.
I would propose pausing this, with Buckshot06's approval of course, for say... 3 days, at most. If in that time J-man has a dedicated mentor willing to take on the responsibility of guiding him and overseeing all his edits, then perhaps any sanctions can be set aside for now. Otherwise, I would (unfortunately) have to support the sanctions that Buckshot proposes, and failing that, the re-banning that Peacemaker67 has mentioned. That's just my two cents, for whatever that's worth. - wolf 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. J-Man11 can easily get a mentor to oversee his work, but not, in my view, for anything after 1900 for at least a year to come. Honestly nobody has the time to keep up with everything he wants to do post-1900. He needs to take his post-1900 work offline and learn about the process of reliable sourcing. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: Well as it turns out, there was a brief discussion in the past few hours between J-Man and Rosguill about mentorship and it doesn't appear that he will be taking J-Man on full-time. Aside from that, I'm not even sure if J-Man is pursuing other adopters for mentoring. This was just a suggestion, I was hoping to give J-Man another shot before any sanctions, but ultimately he has to take responsibility for himself, and overall I do still agree with your concerns, and support your proposal. Cheers - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support - as per comments directly above - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- SupportSeems necessary at this point, to prevent further disruption in the area.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are there any more comments on this, or can the discussion now be closed? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why 1900 and not 1914? Is there any disruption about military history betweeen those two dates? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe and I'm sure @Buckshot06 is in the view that it is easier just to do 1900 (and post) for reason of simplicity. J-Man11 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why 1900 and not 1914? Is there any disruption about military history betweeen those two dates? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Biased Disinformation and Libel on webpage of Liz Wheeler, as well as Censorship of further neutral corrections to her page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages. In particular, this is in regards to the Wikipedia page on Liz Wheeler, which I have notices contains disinformation spread about Wheeler in regards to Anthony Fauci. I have since edited and corrected that by trying to share accurate information which lends credence to the evidence against Fauci. My efforts to do so have been continually blocked by the following Wikipedia users LizardJr8 and Zingarese, who falsely committed libel against me, accusing me wrongfully of vandalism when trying to correct their biased disinformation. I would appreciate immediate assistance in resolving this matter in an ethical, civil and accurate way. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:4501:750:2194:A479:74CF:476D (talk • contribs)
- For my part, I was unable to determine why you were deleting content in your 7 reverts without an edit summary. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Signed for user, who appears to have been blocked. They do appear to have been blanking sourced content because they disagreed with it. I couldn't locate where they'd attempted to actually add information. Per DOLTy I did have a look at the interaction and couldn't see anything that could reasonably be construed as libel. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
While reviewing their unblock request I found a legal threat. I have extended the block accordingly, it is not indef only because it may be a shared IP. As always I welcome review. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Disruption" at ANI and a bad block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block. So the below report is colored by the "Ivanvector is wrong, wrong, wrong" thoughts that fill one's brain when disputing a block. There is still the open question of whether moving others' comments is acceptable, so I feel this report can usefully seek community consensus from the editors at AN/ANI as to whether I'm doing something wrong or right, if you want to focus on that aspect. I also think it's important for the community to review poor behavior from admins when warning/blocking, to discuss and learn from it, because it is exactly what drives productive editors away. Facing up to an imperious admin, an incomprehensible block notice and the inevitable declined unblock request; it's easy to just give up and find a new hobby with less stress, and the possibility of admin misconduct never sees the light of day.
I ask the community to review the warning/block behavior of Ivanvector, and the edits of mine to AN/ANI that he apparently considers gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies
(from WP:Disruptive editing). My edits are mostly adding {{Unsigned}} to unsigned comments, moving comments that were inserted inside another user's comment (none of that could possibly be controversial), and some rearrangement of comments when they are incorrectly placed above other user's comments, the core of the dispute. Help:Talk pages#Indentation (linked from WP:TPG) or WP:INDENT are good summaries of Wikipedia threading, if you want to reacquaint yourself.
Here are the five edits I can remember that brought dispute:
- April 19: [64] (Beyond My Ken incorrectly added a reply above another person, I fixed it and they reverted; discussion is visible in this diff at their talk page. I tried to carefully explain why Beyond My Ken was wrong, but they told me to go away.)
- April 30: [65] (This was a train-wreck of a thread. I sorted it out, and a detailed explanation is in the discussion with Bodney, who seems satisfied with my explanation and admits their own error.)
- May 30: [66] (Very simple unsigned comment; explained at my talk page, not sure if LindsayH has anything more to say.)
- May 31: [67] (Very simple: Lugnuts replies above everyone else, I fix it, Ivanvector reverts; Ivanvector shows up at my talk page)
- June 2: [68] (Another reply above prior replies; I'm only guessing this is what pushed Ivanvector over the edge)
Nowhere in any of these disputes did I ever revert anyone. When Beyond My Ken and Ivanvector reverted, I always let it be. One can easily trawl my contributions to see the dozens and dozens of edits to AN/ANI that were never contested. I count about 115 edits fixing things at AN/ANI since April 15. See my talk page for the discussion with Ivanvector, the block, and the unblock request with 331dot.
Those are the facts. Here's my argument: Do we let users add their !vote at RFA to the top of the support or oppose list, so that everyone else is sure to read it? Do we let users add new sections at the top of the page? No. It is a fundamental concept that editor's statements are of equal importance and put in the order that they are made. The discussions we have on Wikipedia every day work by the same rules. Proper threading should not be a controversial concept. My edits are well-based on consensus-developed guidelines and standards. I'm not just willy-nilly editing or moving stuff around, like a common vandal or troll. In all of the disputes above, my edits were correct. Now, Ivanvector and 331dot say that instead of moving comments I should go to the user and ask them to move the comment to the proper place. If you ask me, that's not going to get anything fixed. Wikipedia markup, frankly, absolutely sucks to hold conversations in, and I don't blame anybody for their errors in complicated threads, and I don't want to harass people to clean up minor messes. We have WP:SOFIXIT, and I can obviously competently fix it. Is it a waste of time? Maybe. (I do skip all closed discussions and some layout train-wrecks that are way past saving.) Is it disruption? I don't think so, but that is the question I put to you.
So, Ivanvector's warning on my talk page. It links to no policies, guidelines, or consensus opposing my edits. It's just pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you could call it Ivanvector's personal advice at best. I'm always open to reasonable discussion, and I lay out my argument, but the only response I get is Ivanvector shoving his shiny admin badge in my face with a warning that he will block. What is a man to do? Bow to the personal demands of an angry admin? No, I treat Ivanvector's statement for what it is: nothing but his opinion. I continue my helpful edits at ANI, and hope Ivanvector will do the right thing: Come back with a better warning or seek community consensus that my edits are disruptive before blocking.
Now, the block. Ostensibly for WP:Disruptive editing. Has Ivanvector read that guideline? "Gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies"? "Not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree"? Does that describe my edits? Has anyone read WP:Blocking policy lately? WP:BEFOREBLOCK? Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these.
Ivanvector has completely failed to explain how my edits fit the Disruptive editing guideline in his warning or block. I believe that (1) the block was a bad block for these procedural reasons, and (2) I don't believe the community as a whole will find my edits disruptive (obviously or otherwise), in which case Ivanvector has gravely over-stepped his authority as an admin by treating a productive user like a common vandal, where the disruption is so obvious that he doesn't need to deign to explain it to me.
I welcome the community's input. Sending out notices to the users I mentioned now. Modulus12 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I apologized and the block has been removed so I'm not sure what the goal is here. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- The blocking admin has also apologized for the short block from one page only. I think to be frank this is being made a bigger deal than it is. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The core of the dispute is indeed the moving of other users' comments from where they were placed, specifically on WP:ANI, a page which is already a drama magnet. In a discussion with Lugnuts some days ago in which they were aggravated that I did not block an unrelated editor (details aren't important but you can view the thread if you want) I posted a comment which Lugnuts elected to respond to directly below, despite there already being subsequent comments. I can't say for certain but assume that this is either the result of an edit conflict (Lugnuts' reply was a long-ish reply to my own long comment), or intended to call attention to the fact that it was a direct reply to my comment, but either way Lugnuts indented their comment at a different level from the subsequent comments, so there was no cause for anyone to be confused. I later replied directly below that, above the subsequent comments which were clearly not related to Lugnuts' reply. Some time afterwards, Modulus12 moved both our comments, in a way which made it appear as though both of us were replying to A.A Prinon, rather than replying as both of us had originally intended. This, in my opinion, changed the meaning of my comment, in violation of WP:TPO. To be honest I didn't much care, it was very minor and a simple revert restored the discussion to the participants' intended state. I noticed that this wasn't the only comment that Modulus12 had moved around the same time, so I went to their talk page to leave a {{uw-tpv1}} notice. However, Modulus12 is not a new user, and I saw the discussion there between them and Bodney also about refactoring talk page comments, so I then elected to leave a stronger, non-templated warning to desist from editing other users' comments, again specifically at WP:ANI. I was not aware of the prior incident with Beyond My Ken until just now.
- A few days later I saw LindsayH's complaint about the same behaviour, and this is where my own poor judgement admittedly comes into play. I saw that comment and viewed Modulus12's contribs, and saw that they were again tinkering with comments at ANI. Judging that three complaints (my own included) in short order regarding actions that others viewed as disruptive established a pattern of disruptive behaviour, I part-blocked Modulus12 from ANI for one week. They appealed and were declined by 331dot, reasonably as they did not acknowledge the reason for the block. However, on reviewing this today I see that Modulus12's subsequent edits to ANI were simple indent adjustments and signing unsigned comments, and the complaint from LindsayH was regarding an edit which predated my warning, and so recognized that my block was an egregious error. Thus I unblocked and apologized. However, I reiterated that they should not move other users' comments to where they think they belong. Modulus12 disagrees, and now we're here.
- (after ec) As for why we're here, I welcome a review of my actions regarding the talk page guidelines. Modulus12 evidently continues to believe that moving users' comments from where they were intended to be placed, with neither discussion nor notification, is permissible under the talk page guidelines. I believe this is forbidden, also per the talk page guidelines. Obviously one of us is not correct, and both of us would benefit from knowing which it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You also need to take into account that the placing of comments in the wrong place moves everyone else's comments from where they were intended to be placed. We can't have a free-for-all where the last mover gets to put comments where they want. You should never have warned this editor, and you certainly shouldn't have blocked, and should not do either in similar circumstances in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- So I think what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact that I'm replying directly to your comment and not Modulus12's nor ProcrastinatingReader's, the guideline stipulates that my comment be indented one level more than yours, and also at the bottom of the thread? And had I instead replied directly beneath, it would have changed the meaning of comments that were written afterwards? Or have I not understood? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC) not sure if there is a POINT being made, but I've re-threaded this properly. It was initially below PR's 22:39 comment. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there's a point being made, it's that I'm trying to understand the argument. You've moved my reply to Phil Bridger now below a comment made by Modulus12, which I did not intend to reply to. Why? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I'll re-thread again, though I would note that both are second-level indents and thus I didn't notice there were two replies to pick between. Obviously that's the point being made (i.e. it's not always obvious who one is replying to) but putting another reply under an unrelated one certainly doesn't help. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there's a point being made, it's that I'm trying to understand the argument. You've moved my reply to Phil Bridger now below a comment made by Modulus12, which I did not intend to reply to. Why? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- So I think what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact that I'm replying directly to your comment and not Modulus12's nor ProcrastinatingReader's, the guideline stipulates that my comment be indented one level more than yours, and also at the bottom of the thread? And had I instead replied directly beneath, it would have changed the meaning of comments that were written afterwards? Or have I not understood? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC) not sure if there is a POINT being made, but I've re-threaded this properly. It was initially below PR's 22:39 comment. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Take another look. [69] A.A Prinon's comment and Lugnuts's comment are at the same indent level after my edit. They are clearly both replies to you, not a Lugnut reply to A.A Prinon, just as A.A Prinon is not replying to Levivich, and Levivich is not replying to ProcrastinatingReader. They are all replying to you. The edit was flawless. Modulus12 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You also need to take into account that the placing of comments in the wrong place moves everyone else's comments from where they were intended to be placed. We can't have a free-for-all where the last mover gets to put comments where they want. You should never have warned this editor, and you certainly shouldn't have blocked, and should not do either in similar circumstances in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fixes seem to be what participants should've done in the first place. However, talk pages are a lost cause, and doing 'too much' (like altering indent levels and moving things around too much) tends to cause more controversy than thanks. IMO it's one of those things where there's no issue but I personally wouldn't do it to that degree (although arguably good clerking should be more appreciated, and more frequently done to make conversations more accessible). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Let me try this another way, at the bottom, without indent. @Primefac: I made a comment which I described as a reply to Phil Bridger's comment at 22:00, at the bottom and indented according to what seemed to be the instructions being given, although it did seem to defy logic to do so. In nearly 12 years editing Wikipedia I have never, not once, made an intentionally disruptive edit for the sole purpose of making a point; I am genuinely confused here. Phil Bridger made a comment in reply to mine, directly below mine, indented one level more than mine. Modulus12 also made a comment in reply to my same comment, below Phil Bridger's in chronological order, indented at the same level as Phil Bridger's and one more level than mine. This indicates that both were replying, separately, to my comment; Modulus12 was not continuing the sub-discussion created by Phil Bridger's reply, but replying separately to me, not to Phil, and not to both of us. Do I understand up to that point? Now subsequently, I want to continue the sub-discussion with Phil Bridger, to discuss the points made there. You're saying that I am to insert that reply to Phil Bridger below the separate comment made my Modulus12? And that if I instead reply directly to Phil directly below his comment and indented one more level, that that is somehow disruptive? I find this all highly illogical. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm probably as confused as you are. I completely agree you should have replied to Phil immediately below his post, not below Modulus12's, and I'm genuinely not sure why that's such an issue. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It goes like this:
I like pie. XXXX (time 0)
- Pie is great, it's the best dessert there is! AAAA (time +2) < 2nd response to XXXX's first comment, but not addressed to the tangent about pie
- You're right, it's the bee's knees. XXXX (time +5) < response to AAAA's comment
- Pie is great, it's the best dessert there is! AAAA (time +2) < 2nd response to XXXX's first comment, but not addressed to the tangent about pie
- Me too, but cake is better. YYYY (time +1) < 1st response to XXXX's initial comment
- My favorite is Angel's Food cake. ZZZZ (time +2) < response to YYYY's comment
- Devils Food is better! BBBB (time +4) < response to ZZZZ's comment
- My favorite is Bundt cake. CCCC (time +5) < another response to ZZZZ's comment
- My favorite is Angel's Food cake. ZZZZ (time +2) < response to YYYY's comment
- OMG! Pie is incredible!! DDDD (time +6) < 3rd response to XXXX's initial comment
etc.
- That's pretty much the explanation I gave to Modulus, who said it made no sense. It makes sense to me, and it's the way things have been in the 15+ years I've been editing here. So despite Modulus' comment above, I did not "incorrectly added a reply above another person", I put my reply exactly and precisely where I wanted to, and M took it upon themselves to move it, incorrectly. I reverted it back, they complained, I was in no mood for trivialities and told them to go away. Now here they are, with the same attitude, complaining about a block or warning or whatever that's been undone and apologized for.Then why the hell is this thread here at all? Why, if "When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block" did M feel compelled to file the report?Recommend a trout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict with close) I have a chicken carcass to strip and then I'm calling it a night, so just a final thought: if an editor makes a comment here, and nobody is confused about what they were intending to reply to, then I posit that it's significantly more confusing to move it than to just let it be. Three editors besides myself thought this was the case, and Wikipedia works on consensus, not arbitrary adherence to written rules. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You know what’s disruptive? These rushes to close a discussion in a purple box as quickly as possible, as if every single section is a request for help that ends as soon as it’s “resolved”. This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
Maybe, Risker, we can wait a day or two to decide whether anyone’s interested in discussing anything, instead of you super-voting your desire to make stuff go away? But that’s just my opinion; if stifling discussion on the admin misconduct allegations and the request for consensus on my actions (because literally anything “can be discussed elsewhere” in the byzantine Wikipedia discussion maze) is how we all act here, then OK. I don’t know what that means as to me doing what I want; I guess I can continue, and a small fraction of clueless people will revert me, and we’ll all end up back here anyway. As to the experienced editors above struggling to understand the very same help pages we link brand-new users to, I really don’t know what to say. Modulus12 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Yozdek problematic editing
- Yozdek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent addition of inappropriate See-also-entries after a large number of warnings and explanations. Last one was [70], made 3 days after I undid ([71]) the previous attempt ([72]), and after final warning on user talk [73]. Most other edits are also inapropriate, and were just now undone by user Anita5192. Assuming good faith, there seems to be a CIR problem here. User seems to have no idea what they are doing wrong. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I examined several of this user's edits. They do not appear to be deliberate vandalism but are indiscriminate additions and changes of wording which are not helpful. Most of this user's contributions have been reverted and the user has been warned multiple times, yet persists. I agree that this is a WP:CIR issue.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at their today's edits, I think that user Yozdek understood now how to proceed. I just thanked them for this edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Review of 30/500 protection
- Stolperstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Relevant Arbcom motion
On 31 May, Piotrus requested at El C's talk page that Stolperstein and History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II be protected due to some recent edits that covered by the above arbcom motion. Since El C was not active at the time, he posted on my talk and asked me to take a look. I saw that Ymblanter had already protected the Deblin and Irena article, but I took a look at Stolperstein and did see some recent edits by non-EC accounts which appeared to fall within the subject area (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The amount of disruption wouldn't have been sufficient to make me think about protection normally, but given that the wording of that motion (it's not just disruptive editing which is prohibited - non-EC accounts are not permitted to edit the topic area at all, and the prohibition may be enforced preemtively with ECP), I thought that Piotrus's request was reasonable and applied indef ECP.
This morning, Buidhe has posted on my talk that she feels the protection is inappropriate on the grounds that the article isn't sufficiently within the subject area. It seems related to me, but this is not an area of the project that I am particularly well-versed in, so invite opinions from other admins on whether my protection should stand. Thanks in advance; I'll go template everyone I mentioned here. Girth Summit (blether) 12:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Concerning History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II , it was extended confirmed protected by TonyBallioni indefinitely a year ago [74] (since the article has been moved twice afterwards, the protection does not appear in the log). More recently, I fully protected the article for three days responding to RFPP request; there was edit-warring ongoing. After protection has expired, I was asked to restore the extended confirmed protection. I considered the request to be reasonable and restored it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Concerning Stolperstein, the article is clearly related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II, so I would say the motion applies. This means that article can be extended confirmed protected pre-emptively. On the other hand, the rejected edit seems perfectly valid to me, and it should be discussed at the talk page rather than reverted by one side of the dispute on procedural grounds.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I feel like this is within scope for the sanction and a reasonable admin action. The Stolpersteine are clearly "related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II". However the sanction does not mandate protection, and since so little of the article has to do specifically with Poland, I think I would lean towards reverting contributions violating the spirit of the sanction, rather than preemptively protecting, unless the protection would be warranted generally. I haven't reviewed in great detail and so I have no comment on whether or not that's the case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep protected. I looked through the history of Stolperstein, and in particular the series of edits around the 29th and 30th of May 2021 relating to the citation to The Telegraph. I can see how initially it was judged to be an unreliable blog post, since it was cited to pressreader, which on first glance, looks like a blog. But the underlying article was just a reprint of an item in The Telegraph, which WP:RSNP says is a WP:RS. In any case, I don't see that there was any actual abusive editing going on here and I would have preferred to use less drastic means. On the other hand, the arbcom motion is pretty clear; all non-EC editors are prohibited from editing this article. My take on the wording of the motion is that it's essentially, "We hereby ECP all articles in this subject area by fiat. As a practical matter, we're not going to run around, find them all, and physically click the "protect" button, but it should be treated as if we had done that. And, when these articles do get drawn to any admin's attention, clicking that button is what they're supposed to do". So, I really can't argue that the ECP should be lifted here. I do wish arbcom had given admins more wiggle room on this, but given the history of editing in this general subject area, I can see why they felt the need to swing such a heavy hammer. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Briefly, as I'm a bit in transit atm. Had I been around to respond to this request on my talk page, I would have granted Piotrus' protection request at ECP level and would have declined Buidhe's unprotection and/or downgrade request. Mostly, because I disagree with her assertion that little mention of Poland on the page means that its contents are "tangential," WP:APL-wise. El_C 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be 500/30 working exactly as intended. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- The permanent protection of Stolperstein article makes about as much sense as permanently protecting the article of any politician anywhere in the world whose opinion on the Israeli Arab conflict is mentioned in their article. In that article, "Poland" is only mentioned three times; the vast majority of the memorials are installed in other countries. We're supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That isn't going to be the case if every single article that is tangentially related to some conflict area is under ECP. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- What is relevant is not how often Poland is mentioned in the article but whether ongoing disruption is specifically related to the topic of Poland in WWII. For the sake of the argument, is a president of Honduras would recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel, and this part of the article about him would be constantly vandalized, for example by changing Israel into Occupied Palestine, the PIA is going to be applied even if this is a minor part of the article. In the particular case of Stolperstein, as I wrote above, I think the edit is valid, and there was no disruption, but I would certainly not lift the protection on the ground that the article is ineligible.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think "30/500 protection" is an excellent idea, and it can or should be extended to BLP pages of all people and all subjects which became a matter of significant political controversy, edit warring, or significant content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- While it would be nice to be able to protect only a section of an article in some cases, it is not technically possible (is anyone aware of a bug report or such which we could endorse for this to change in the future?). Anyway, I stand by my initial assessment that those articles were recently a target of obvious socks. Given that the entire 30/500 was introduced precisely after one highly active in this TA editor went rogue, got indeffed, and started a sockfarm, this just reinforces the reality that they likely still seem to be around and we will need to keep protecting this TA for the foreseeable future. It is terrible indeed how much damage a single individual has wrought, but there is nothing we can do except denying them their toys. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Piotrus in theory, you could break the section you want to ECP out into a subpage which you transclude in the main page, then ECP the subpage. But that's really ugly and complicated and I'm not seriously suggesting we do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:RFP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed that there's at least 40 unanswered requests. I think that counts as a backlog. An advance thank you to any admin that helps out there. Clovermoss (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've done 32, and now have a headache. Will leave to others to finish off. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Was it that bad? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Review of RD2 redaction
I am asking uninvolved administrators to review my use of revision deletion. I deleted the edit summary of this edit under WP:RD2 for violating WP:BLPCRIME. Joe Roe challenged this redaction. I explained that, per Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples, accusing an identifiable individual of a specific insulting or morally depraved crime without proper BLP sourcing for the claim is usually an appropriate use of revision deletion under RD2. Joe was not satisfied by this explanation. Rather than continue our interpersonal dispute, I am asking for uninvolved administrators to determine (1) whether the edit summary is appropriate under our BLP policy and (2) whether my use of revision deletion was appropriate under RD2. — Wug·a·po·des 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- IIRC, the edit summary did not accuse anyone of having committed a crime, but rather noted that in certain jurisdictions, something could constitute an offence. That might sound nitpicky: but it's precisely that kind of nuance that needs to be emphasised to prevent over-use and thereby weakening of the [principle (a similar example would be the confusion we sometimes see whereby noting something is litigable is then itself confused with a legal threat: there's a difference between describing what something is / and calling it something). ——Serial 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You recall incorrectly. The summary said "[specific person] broke [link to specific law]" — Wug·a·po·des 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. If we stated that the same thing in an article we'd soon scrub it under BLP policy. I believe this is an appropriate use of RD2 under BLP policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of appearing so middle-of-the-road that I piss off everyone, I'd say it was a borderline inappropriate edit summary, a borderline over-reaction revdel, and a borderline thing-worth-arguing-about-afterwards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've been watching this dispute with increading frustration. The previous conduct of a candidate for adminship, and the management of a wiki-project, are useful things for our community to be discussing. The legality of that conduct in regions other than where the candidate lived, is neither directly relevant to that conduct, nor is it useful for us to discuss. Joe, I have always had considerable respect for you, and I appreciate that the substance of the point you made is important. You didn't have to use that edit-summary to embellish it, and you didn't have to double down on the edit-summary either. This RD2 was valid. Can we please return to discussing the more serious issues? For the record, though I !voted support, some of the points Joe brought up are making me seriously reconsider; so I'm absolutely not just piling on here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The edit summary was an attempt to rhetorically stress the seriousness of Vami's former open fascism in the context of his subsequent activity on wiki. I totally take the point that extra emphasis was unnecessary to many, and will take it on board in future. But the reason I contested this is precisely because Wugapodes' (mis)use of revdel deflected the discussion at RfA away from the serious issue, to the benefit of a fellow member of his Discord-clique; and because I do not see how it was a policy-based use of RD2. If it is, then surely somebody can point me to the actual text that supports it? – Joe (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You deflected it. I left a note on your talk page explicitly to avoid distracting the discussion. You insisted on talking about the revision deletion there instead, not even responding to my talk post until an entire day later. People were discussing how your edit summary crossed the line before I even got there so I don't agree with the blame being placed on me for distracting the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 10:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
not even responding to my talk post until an entire day later
I had things to do, man. You posted on my talk page at 00:53 my time and I responded the following evening. As a linguist who teaches how language works to university students, would you say that the average reader is going to pay more attention to the juicy wikidrama of an admin revdelling a comment by a functionary, or the associated attempt to raise substantial concerns about our project's past failure to confront open fascism? – Joe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- I literally said on the RfA page
To avoid further digression, anyone is free to raise concerns on my talk page.
No one made any comments in that thread until 8 hours later when you jump in claiming that my redaction was an attempt toexpunge uncomfortable truths
instead of replying on your talk page--where I left a message 12 hours prior--or on my talk page--where I directed further discussion to avoid digression. The average reader did ignore the "juicy wikidrama", Joe; over 25 editors commented on that RfA between my note of redaction and your response, and none of them were focusing on the "drama". In fact, many of them were focusing on the very topic you were concerned about. So yes, after that I came in hot and heavy, because I was caught off-guard by your response. I felt like I was being accused of not only misapplying our policies, but doing so out of some kind of political motivation to protect fascism. If someone ignored you, said you did your job wrong, and were aiding fascism, would you take that calmly on the chin? I'll admit that I gave what I got, and that did not help the situation, but I absolutely refuse to be smeared in public by mischaracterizations of me or my actions. I do respect you, Joe, which is why the accusations felt particularly hurtful. Because I thought you were a reasonable guy, I expected this to be nothing more than me saying "you did something silly", you saying "whoops" and then you going back to making the legitimate points made in the still visible content of your edit. That didn't happen. Instead I got accused of guilt by association, accused of having "dug up" some obscure essay to justify my actions when your own comment showed it was linked from the RevDel policy, getting strong armed by a functionary to either undo my (valid) revision deletion or be taken to AN, and now I'm being blamed for sidetracking discussion despite verifiable evidence that I explicitly tried to avoid that. I think I have every reason to be frustrated by that, and it boggles my mind how to reconcile the reasonable editor whose insights I respect with the person shown to me the past two days. — Wug·a·po·des 20:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I literally said on the RfA page
- You deflected it. I left a note on your talk page explicitly to avoid distracting the discussion. You insisted on talking about the revision deletion there instead, not even responding to my talk post until an entire day later. People were discussing how your edit summary crossed the line before I even got there so I don't agree with the blame being placed on me for distracting the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 10:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The edit summary was an attempt to rhetorically stress the seriousness of Vami's former open fascism in the context of his subsequent activity on wiki. I totally take the point that extra emphasis was unnecessary to many, and will take it on board in future. But the reason I contested this is precisely because Wugapodes' (mis)use of revdel deflected the discussion at RfA away from the serious issue, to the benefit of a fellow member of his Discord-clique; and because I do not see how it was a policy-based use of RD2. If it is, then surely somebody can point me to the actual text that supports it? – Joe (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The RD2 was valid, though I lean a little Floqish direction. --Izno (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno: Given your recent remarks about me on the Discord server you administer, you are clearly not fully objective about matters concerning me. I would appreciate it if you would bear that in mind, and perhaps in the interests of transparency note it for others, if you are going to comment in discussions like this. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Valid enough. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You may or may not agree that what I said was wise, but my argument is that there is no policy basis for deleting it. I don't know where Wugapodes dug up Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples, but it isn't a policy page, is hardly ever cited in discussions, and has barely been edited since it was created a decade ago. So while I could quibble about whether my comments matches that 'example', I don't see the point. The actual text of WP:BLPCRIME says that
must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed a crime
. There's no prohibition and no mention of revdel. The actual text of WP:RD2 says that it applies togrossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material [...] slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value
(which my comment isn't) and specifically exceptsfactual statements [and] conduct accusations
(which my comment is). Before Wugapodes over-reacted (prompted it seems by an off-wiki discussion with the candidate about the RfA) Barkeep49 had already saidI gave serious consideration as to whether this was eligible for R2 revdel and decided it isn't
. Since I also used to be an oversighter, I think I can reasonably claim to have a decent idea of where the line is myself. Again you may or may not agree with me that this was a good time to push that line, but there are good reasons that we don't use revdel to delete comments we find objectionable in project discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- I didn't "dig it up". If you looked at the link you gave, the page is literally linked from WP:REVDEL and has been for years. If you read the page you would have seen it. Clearly we cannot "reasonably claim [you] have a decent idea of where the line is" since the contents of the revdel policy come as a surprise to you and multiple administrators have told you that you crossed the line. You also seem to have taken to lying, claiming that I was
prompted it seems by an off-wiki discussion with the candidate about the RfA
. I had no such conversation, and even looked through my discord messages from that day to see if I had forgotten a conversation with Vami. I did not have one, and since you've been digging through the logs for dirt you should be aware of that. On what basis do you think I was prompted by the candidate? — Wug·a·po·des 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- A link at the bottom of a policy page doesn't make something policy. Multiple administrators have also said that it wasn't over the line. More to the point, you still haven't been able to produce any policy that says that something can be revdel'd merely for stating that something someone did is a crime – a basic requirement of using your tools. Please just admit you over-reacted and reverse this rather than making us drag it out any further.
On what basis do you think I was prompted by the candidate?
You are a regular on the Discord channel; my comment was being discussed there (because the candidate, nominator and half the supporters at that point are also Discord regulars); shortly thereafter you appeared on an RfA you had never tocuhed to revdel my edit. It's not a smoking gun but it's not exactly hard to connect the dots either. – Joe (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- You misrepresent the REVDEL policy, conveniently omitting important text. RD2 exempts "mere" factual statements and "mere" incivility. What you said is not a "mere factual statement", you came to a legal conclusion based on your own original research (as Barkeep told you at RfA). It was not "mere" incivility. You weren't calling someone names or being snarky, you were making a specific criminal accusation and asserting it as true. Your comment was not exempted on it's face. REVDEL states that serious violations of the BLP policy are eligible for redaction. The BLP policy says
Contentious material about living persons ... that is ... poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Unless you are German magistrate, your opinion is not a particularly strong source for whether someone is a criminal. The only way to remove the edit summary was through redaction The BLP policy also says that whilesome leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, ... administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.
As other editors have explained to you, claiming that someone broke a law for the purpose of harming their standing in the community rises to that level. It specifically allows deletion in this case, even in project discussions. The balance is to remove only what is necessary, and my redaction was only of your edit summary and not the revision text which I and others have said was not to that level. — Wug·a·po·des 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- So we're again back to the reason for the revdel being that my comment was (potential?) defamation. In that case I'll just repeat that something has to be false to be defamatory. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misrepresent the REVDEL policy, conveniently omitting important text. RD2 exempts "mere" factual statements and "mere" incivility. What you said is not a "mere factual statement", you came to a legal conclusion based on your own original research (as Barkeep told you at RfA). It was not "mere" incivility. You weren't calling someone names or being snarky, you were making a specific criminal accusation and asserting it as true. Your comment was not exempted on it's face. REVDEL states that serious violations of the BLP policy are eligible for redaction. The BLP policy says
- I didn't "dig it up". If you looked at the link you gave, the page is literally linked from WP:REVDEL and has been for years. If you read the page you would have seen it. Clearly we cannot "reasonably claim [you] have a decent idea of where the line is" since the contents of the revdel policy come as a surprise to you and multiple administrators have told you that you crossed the line. You also seem to have taken to lying, claiming that I was
- An unsourced suggestion that a specific individual committed a crime is a pretty textbook example of an appropriate time to use revision deletion, in my view, and depending on the crime can also warrant oversight per WP:OSPOL #2 (though not in this case). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 09:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was "sourced" (are we really applying WP:RS to a comment in an edit summary about a pseudonymous Wikipedian?) in the sense that the 'accusation' is a plain statement of fact, supported with a diff, that absolutely nobody, not even the subject, has actually disagreed with. I get that people think that mentioning illegality is scary and should be suppressed, but where is the policy basis for that? And if the mere suggestion makes something revdel- or oversightable then where on earth do we stop? In the previous discussion, Chess pointed out the irony that Wugapodes' original explanation for the revdel, that he deleted my edit because it was 'defamation', was itself an accusation that I committed a crime, so should fall under the same logic. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't claim to be any kind of expert in German law, but it appears that at least one person has suggested it is not a plain statement of fact. But yes, I do think that if you are going to say that someone has committed a crime, you need a source to support it, even (or perhaps especially) if that person is a Wikipedian (pseudonymous or otherwise). Otherwise we might end up down a rabbit hole where editors are describing one another as having committed crimes, possibly in jurisdictions in which they don't even reside, which seems a more concerning slippery slope to me than the one of revision deleting such comments against fellow editors. As for the defamation question, I assume Wugapodes meant that the edit summary was "potentially defamatory" (our typical wording), rather than that you were in violation of defamation law, but they could have worded it better and the irony is not lost. For what it's worth, I entirely agree with your !oppose vote at the RfA and intend to vote similarly myself soon—but I don't agree that saying that this RfA's subject broke the law was necessary, appropriate, or should be retained in edit history (though of course we've well Streisanded ourselves out of that by this point). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also, adding a note to say that I pinged the oversighters mailing list to suggest their expertise might be useful here; unfortunately poorly timed just before Joe's 10:47 comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was "sourced" (are we really applying WP:RS to a comment in an edit summary about a pseudonymous Wikipedian?) in the sense that the 'accusation' is a plain statement of fact, supported with a diff, that absolutely nobody, not even the subject, has actually disagreed with. I get that people think that mentioning illegality is scary and should be suppressed, but where is the policy basis for that? And if the mere suggestion makes something revdel- or oversightable then where on earth do we stop? In the previous discussion, Chess pointed out the irony that Wugapodes' original explanation for the revdel, that he deleted my edit because it was 'defamation', was itself an accusation that I committed a crime, so should fall under the same logic. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, if Floq, GW, and others agree that this was valid, I drop my objection. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Valid revdel, in my opinion. Per WP:MINREF, contentious information on living persons is required to be sourced inline wherever it appears on this website, period. That means in infoboxes, on talk pages, in short descriptions, and yes, in edit summaries. If there's a contention that the edit summary contains an egregiously BLP-violating comment (which a plain statement that a person committed a crime would most certainly be) without a plain link to a reference supporting that statement, then it should be revdel'd. WP:BLPREMOVE also dictates that violations of the policy are to be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And also: we ought to be conservative in our approach to BLP information; if there's any good-faith reasonable interpretation that an edit summary is a BLPvio then just do it. Revdels can always be reviewed, as we're doing right now, and can be undone later if discussion determines the action was not necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per GorillaWarfare: Textbook example of an edit summary that qualifies for redaction. Risker (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per GorillaWarfare and Risker, this is exactly the sort of thing redaction is intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just note that while I choose not to revdel when I saw it, after being pinged by Wugapodes I didn't see any issue with their analysis and support the revdel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was pinged here so even though I'm not an admin I'll give my opinion. I haven't seen the edit summary so I can't speak to specifics but any unsourced claim that a living person committed a crime should be removed unless it can be sourced to a criminal conviction. Even if the claim is only by implication it should still be removed. That's the reason why I said what I said and why I believe it's hypocritical that Wugapodes said that "defamation is a crime in your jurisdiction" when he was talking about why it was justified to delete an edit summary. I believe revdel would be justified in both cases; not that it wasn't justified in either. Additionally, I'd like to clarify I don't have a problem with calling things "defamatory" in general. The problem I have is with the implication that someone committed criminal defamation; defamation is typically a civil matter and wouldn't fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply)Template:Z181 21:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
User:tgeorgescu
User:tgeorgescu forcefully editing 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola article, if anyone tries to edit it he leaves this on your talk page: 'This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Julius Evola, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)'
Again, I have said I am Jewish, so why is he linking me :WP:NONAZIS. This is trolling from an admin with an agenda.
Just look at his page: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.
Nobody wants the edit, multiple people have stated this on the talk page. It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome. I am only being called a vandal as a way to silence editors without power. I do not care for 'community points'. I don't even have an account. Everyone knows that Wikipedia mods are known for being unfair so I suspect even reporting this will get me silenced here and trolled as a 'vandal' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The talk page history clearly demonstrates that this request has no merit. Most of the above statements are incorrect (or, to say more explicitly, represent blatant lie).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Already dealt with here. This matter is finished, except for the outstanding question put to 95.146.215.61 as to whether they are Editorofthegods. Not notifying tgeorgescu because that's OP's responsibility and because there's little point, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, I found reason enough, in the various contributions and article histories, to run a quick check, which revealed one unused sock account and a serious amount of logged-in editing, which should come as no surprise to those who are in the know. The geolocation doesn't match up, but yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say it's the same person, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- "It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome." Yes, indeed, such cabal-based thinking is indeed very, very, tiresome. I would be in favor of a short time out for the IP, based on WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, and WP:STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Already dealt with here. This matter is finished, except for the outstanding question put to 95.146.215.61 as to whether they are Editorofthegods. Not notifying tgeorgescu because that's OP's responsibility and because there's little point, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
We're editing removed redirects and vandalism.
@Earl Andrew @Jpgordon :: Block Admin
We too many time removed redirects 10 or more. Sun and Moon | Ping it! 03:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Another admin has blocked 2601:601:1300:b130:d118:85b2:6169:11fd (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 3 days. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Closure for archived TBAN proposal
This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile
I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.
Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.
The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.
Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).
More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.
More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".
Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone advisories/damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [75] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [76]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. NoahTalk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [77], and [78], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. NoahTalk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)
Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. NoahTalk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Partial Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. However, I would primarily support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment and idea above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone advisories/damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, LindsayHello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose action at this time until you all get some more input from editors and admins outside the Wikiproject.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread. Other than the people who provided their own evidence, it appears everyone else was just pile on support that got canvassed by that initial discussion of creating a thread. While Enterprisey determined that none of the posts really crossed any lines, it is still stealth canvassing by even mentioning a discussion or its creation off-wiki in a project chat. This discussion should have been left in its grave instead of being dug back up. NoahTalk 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It honestly doesn't matter what Fleur did if the people making the thread canvassed it. The whole thing was tainted from the start and everyone piling on from WPTC should be disregarded. I think the lack of outside involvement and the bot archival w/o closure shows that most people and admins believe this is a non-issue. NoahTalk 01:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since Canvassing was mentioned here, thought I would link this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Canvassing within the WikiProject 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose action currently Due to allegations of stealth canvassing and little outside input.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose action for now Per Jackattack1597, and I want to point out that the consensus in-WikiProject is for support while outside input is mostly split on this, leaning towards oppose. MarioJump83! 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Requesting sanity check on block I did
Hello. I just deleted what looks like an attack page and indef blocked the user. I would like a review of these actions. The user in question has few edits but has been here for over 4 years.
While the attack page was not in line with BLP and far from neutral, it appears to be supported some sources. It does seem and event of some notability and it may be possible that an article could be based on the news coverage if it is made carefully in line with neutrality and BLP requirements. I am not familiar enough with Indian sources to judge their reliability.
I am not 100% sure an indef block is required.
The page is Kanarjit Kangujam and the user is User:Kabiluwang. I am feeling pretty confident in these actions but welcome outside review. I will accept whatever outcome is decided here, as always. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I can't help but notice that some paragraphs in the article appear to be copypasted from the sources and sometimes only slightly modified. In fact, every single paragraph I've checked - not all of them - appears to have been copypasted into the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further on this, it seems like every sentence except parts of the first and third ones are copypasted and I don't think these would really pass muster under A7. The article is extremely negative and reads like a character assassination attempt, even if sourced. I can't speak of the reliability of these sources. So long way round, I concur with deletion but with slightly different rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) HighInBC Thanks for the instant action. I support whatever you did. The article was created with intention to disparage its subject and it is evident from the users other edits. However I feel this article might merit a mainspace article if NPOV and other guidelines are followed. It can be recreated as a new by someone else or if this user wants to work on it, lets see their reaction on the talk page. Otherwise, let this "disparage page" remain buried. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I to upload of new file from gallery of my mobile
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am trying to upload new file but it shows some error please do corrected that we can upload a file and people may know what that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushan m bhandari (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the User_talk:Bhushan_m_bhandari#top it looks like they user has managed to upload some files. Jeepday (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Nyxaros2
Huh guys this is strange. This guy User:Nyxaros2 has a very strange signature. The signature links to his user page and User talk:FMEINDIA. This is extremely super strange as the user being linked to with the second link is a different user to the first link. You can see his signature on my talk page. 122.60.170.191 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note that Nyxaros2 attempted to delete this report. I have no comment about the IP's editing as I've not looked into it, but his concerns about Nyxaros2's signature are valid. Additionally, not only is the talk link wrong, but the name of the signature is TRUMP2024, which isn't representative of his username. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P states,
A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username
. Nyxaros2, please fix the link in your signature and change the wording to represent your username. — Czello 08:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- That is an interesting signature, and their user page gives me pause with a userbox stating "This user does not support the LGBT community.". Their signature links to a blocked account. I hear quacking. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't notice that. Additionally, his very first edit was to comment on a WP:EWN thread (where he his signature read
WikiHelper200
). This indicates he's not a new user. — Czello 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't notice that. Additionally, his very first edit was to comment on a WP:EWN thread (where he his signature read
- Also just threatened the IP: Any further edits and this IP will be blocked.
- A quick check shows productive editing from the IP so I have replaced the warning with a welcome. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- User has been indeff'd. — Czello 08:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. We already have a User:Nyxaros. Whatever other policy violations they may be doing, the new user Nyxaros2 knows this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- User has been indeff'd. — Czello 08:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this is the same editor that was blocked recently who attacked other editors including me. ภץאคгöร 17:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
User talk:Hiltpriam
Can someone take a look at User talk:Hiltpriam#June 2021 (perma)? I tried to explain verifiability and other policies but the response I've got so far has not been so civil or constructive. It looks like the user has made some good contributions and could be an asset in the long run, but his response today makes me doubt he's equipped to handle rather banal feedback. I'm certainly not looking for any sanction yet but I'd appreciate it if someone could review the discussion. Nardog (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I would like someone review the comments made by Nardog. I have tried to improve numerous pages over many months, I already know all Wikipedia policies.
not equipped to handle rather banal feedback? Banal is right.
Even here, Nardog claims he's tried to explain verifiability and other policies but the response I've got so far has not been so civil or constructive.
I already understand the need for verifiability and reliable sources. Everything I've done on Wikipedia can all be verified in reliable sources. I am not an expert in IPA and pronunciation so would otherwise leave it to the experts but the pronunciation of Stansfield (see History of Stansfield for others who believe the pronunciation is not worth including because it's so obvious) and Stansfeld is identical (but without any reliable source for Stansfeld). That's why I've had to explain it in terms of the origins of the name from the placename.
What I have objected to is being treated like a dunce who can't understand Wikipedia policies which I have always observed and done everything I can to fulfill. I'm not interested in childish games like undoing and redoing. Perhaps Nardog could reconsider his 'undo'ing of people's edits without FIRST enquiring with them about whether they had considered a matter. If you want to suspend me for minding my own business and quietly trying to improve pages (with reliable sources whenever possible) then so be it.
Apparently Nardog needed to warn me against making personal attacks even though I've never made one?
Having never been reported or been subject to this kind of 'attack' from anyone on here before -sorry if I've replied in the wrong place/got something wrong with the subst:AN-notice note. Hiltpriam (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Praxidicae
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was only a matter of time before another editor (in this case User:Praxidicae) is reported here, as I also had an impersonator blocked above. This user is continuously reverting me (one of their reason was simply "no"), claiming that I was edit warring on article for 3 days on the same topic (the term "Kurtuluş Savaşı") which is not true. They also use machine translation and have no opinion on the subject (as stated by them on the article's talk page), and accuse me of "pushing a narrative" just because I corrected a paragraph and added "according to" to maintain better encyclopedic writing and neutrality since there were no other sources to verify it as mainstream info. At least another warning is needed for this disruptive and incivil behaviour. ภץאคгöร 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please provide a diff of my incivility toward you. Further, I'd encourage you to actually engage in the talk page conversation since you've been edit warring for several days with multiple people before bringing this to ANI. Thanks. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further, this misrepresents the entire situation, their first two or three edits to this article today were removing sourced content on the basis that it was "part of an agenda" with no explanation and in fact, their edit warring goes back several days for other matters on this article. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
One of their reason was simply "no"
{{cn}} BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- I've already provided, the editors can look to your talk page for further baseless accusations. And again, you wrote "several days". You have no right to brush other editors off and expect them to communicate with you. Before today, my edit on the page was reverted because two editors found that "general neutrality problem" had to be more specific for further action on the article, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've rephrased/fixed today's "agenda" writing with a more appropriate/encyclopedic tone, but you reverted because you couldn't find what "agenda" I "pushed" in the machine translation due to the fact that it was "not at all neutral". Anyways, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for the diffs of my supposed incivility toward you and the edit summary where I simply left a "no" while reverting you. You should probably read WP:ASPERSIONS, though I suspect you're already familiar given your block log. But you'll also need to be specific about what action you're proposing against me, Nyxaros. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Civility, insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. This is one of the "no"s. Others that apply here are lying (starting with "several days edit warring on the same topic" and "removing sourced content with no explanation"), and trying to show me out of context to give the impression that I did something bad (starting with "pushing an agenda"). It is also not recommended to constantly talking about the past activity, this discussion has nothing to do with it. Snarky comments are also not civil: "you're already familiar given your block log". Anyways, I'm just gonna keep repeating myself and waste my time, so again, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting facts but my edit summary was
(Undid revision 1027586493 by Nyxaros (talk) no and given your edit warring you better start discussing this stuff on the talk page)
. You've also failed to provide a single diff of my supposed incivility in this matter. There is nothing that forbids bringing up past conduct in context, which is a persistent problem for you, given the history of your talk page where you leave uncivil edit summaries and haven't responded to a single concern as far as I can tell. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting facts but my edit summary was
- According to Wikipedia:Civility, insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. This is one of the "no"s. Others that apply here are lying (starting with "several days edit warring on the same topic" and "removing sourced content with no explanation"), and trying to show me out of context to give the impression that I did something bad (starting with "pushing an agenda"). It is also not recommended to constantly talking about the past activity, this discussion has nothing to do with it. Snarky comments are also not civil: "you're already familiar given your block log". Anyways, I'm just gonna keep repeating myself and waste my time, so again, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for the diffs of my supposed incivility toward you and the edit summary where I simply left a "no" while reverting you. You should probably read WP:ASPERSIONS, though I suspect you're already familiar given your block log. But you'll also need to be specific about what action you're proposing against me, Nyxaros. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've already provided, the editors can look to your talk page for further baseless accusations. And again, you wrote "several days". You have no right to brush other editors off and expect them to communicate with you. Before today, my edit on the page was reverted because two editors found that "general neutrality problem" had to be more specific for further action on the article, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've rephrased/fixed today's "agenda" writing with a more appropriate/encyclopedic tone, but you reverted because you couldn't find what "agenda" I "pushed" in the machine translation due to the fact that it was "not at all neutral". Anyways, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment (edit conflict) Having read the revision history of Turkish War of Independence and lso User talk:Praxidicae, I can see no foundation for Nyxaros's complaint. However, I can see a lack of willingness on their part to discuss with other editors, including an edit summary
I don't have to discuss it, ...
, and edit warring with several editors over this article during the past week. A warning for Nyxaros over their behaviour around this article may well be appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC) - Given User:Nyxaros's edit warring on Turkish War of Independence (to the point it had to be protected) and their general uncivil comments to other editors, I am quite surprised that they raised this issue at tis noticeboard, because there is only one editor that is in danger of being sanctioned here, and that's themselves. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x3 I am involved, given that I wrote much of the section where the dispute is at, but this issue seems mostly resolved already. Nyxaros kept removing a paragraph they didn't like, it was restored because it was sourced. Really, Nyxaros should have taken it to the talkpage straight away instead of trying to communicate via edit summary. They seem to have given up on trying to remove it wholesale and have now instead copyedited the paragraph so it conformed closer to their reading of the source, which now provides a helpful point to have a discussion on. This is still effectively a content dispute, and I don't see a favorable outcome for Nyxaros if they press this thread. This now needs a discussion, and Nyxaros I hope you chime in at the talk page :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I've WP:ECP'd the page for 3 months, for reasons that go beyond this latest series of edit warring. Also: 🌈, where were you when I needed you (diff)? El_C 22:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would not say it's been resolved as this is a larger behavioral issue, not for me but Nyxaros and for that reason I think this should result in a sanction, whether it's a block or a topic ban, I can't say but I don't think the first two blocks got through, their unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion, as evidenced by their talk page, going back more than a year is just reverts of valid attempts to discuss but I think a lengthy block is in order. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Prax, was that to me? If so, I didn't mean to imply that this protection action was a resolution to this particular dispute (especially seeing as the OP is already at the ec user right). El_C 22:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, sorry, that was to Eek. So many edit conflicts :') And man, wish I'd seen that earlier ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Prax, was that to me? If so, I didn't mean to imply that this protection action was a resolution to this particular dispute (especially seeing as the OP is already at the ec user right). El_C 22:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would not say it's been resolved as this is a larger behavioral issue, not for me but Nyxaros and for that reason I think this should result in a sanction, whether it's a block or a topic ban, I can't say but I don't think the first two blocks got through, their unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion, as evidenced by their talk page, going back more than a year is just reverts of valid attempts to discuss but I think a lengthy block is in order. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x4 Answering @Black Kite: and @John B123:: I agree, but note that this is just one of many articles User:Nyxaros is edit warring on. I count (at least) four edit wars in the last three days alone. I had already started a report (see below) prior to seeing this. Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Daily edit warring, incivility and battleground behavior - proposed ban for Nyxaros
I propose a ban for Nyxaros whose non-stop edit warring (literally at least one edit war per day), incivility and battleground behavior are highly disruptive. The last days alone are evidence enough.
Edit warring In the last days alone, Nyxaros has actively edit warred at Turkish War of Independence [79], [80], [81], Jupiter's Legacy [82], [83], [84], Earwig and the Witch [85], [86], [87] and Turkish War of Independence again [88], [89]. We are literally seeing more than one edit war by Nyxaros every day.
Incivility Nyxaros's attitude seems to be that they are above everyone else, refusing to discuss their edit warring and insulting others. To Praxidicae's effort to discuss, Nyxaros claimed that "'NO' is a perfectly valid reason for editors like you" [90], an IP was dismissed by just "troll" [91]. When I tried to provide an uninvolved perspective on an edit warring report [92] , Nyxaros claims I "continue to harass them" [93] even though that was my second interaction ever with them, the first had been to revert their edit warring in one article. The daily edit warring (quite literally) and the attacks on every user who dares challenge them shows that this is a user with a very serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. The report above by Nyxaros against Praxidicae is just the final straw. Based on this pattern of constant edit warring across articles literally every day, daily outbursts against other users, and overall battleground mentality, I suggest banning Nyxaros would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can't say I disagree with this assessment. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, another editor who claimed that I removed content because I didn't like it even though I showed my reason. It's not my problem if the editors do not present a valid reason for their edits. I didn't breach 3RR in any of the pages. I don't consider "no" a good reason, thus I wrote it on the talk page. There are recently some editors who continue to target me mainly because I edited Turkish War of Independence page. As you can see by their repeated sentences that exaggerate the situation, Jeppiz is one of them, and they are trying to contact me despite the fact that I do not want to. "Troll" was literally a troll who called me a "vandal" and a "loser" before getting blocked by the way. ภץאคгöร 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not trying to contact you; I am obliged to notify you about an AN report. Period. Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if you simply can't or won't see that my revert adequately explained why I restored the content, it wasn't just "no" but you are in fact edit warring in multiple places and your combative behavior here makes me think you cannot collaborate on this project and this warrants at minimum a lengthy block. Also do not move others comments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- A skim of editing history shows frequent edit wars [94][95] and poor responses to talk page messages. I haven't observed them pass 3RR, but I suppose it's edit warring nonetheless. I'm not sure about this site ban proposal, however. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Tbh, skimming the UTP history further, I'm not sure there's a single talk page message (except the ones by bots) where Nyxaros hasn't removed the section without comment while assuming bad faith in the edit summary. I get that every now and then you can get frivolous UTP messages, but every single one going back years? That would more likely indicate that the editor is incapable of collaboration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is one reason I proposed a ban rather than a block. I fear this is a user incapable of working with others, and that their net contribution to WP is negative. Too much edit warring and conflicts in relation to productivity. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Tbh, skimming the UTP history further, I'm not sure there's a single talk page message (except the ones by bots) where Nyxaros hasn't removed the section without comment while assuming bad faith in the edit summary. I get that every now and then you can get frivolous UTP messages, but every single one going back years? That would more likely indicate that the editor is incapable of collaboration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't move others' comments. There are edit conflicts and my replies are probably making the disorder. ภץאคгöร 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- One revert is edit warring? Why is what happened three or more months ago relevant? If you are going to ban me for fallacious reasons, you should definitely ban User:Praxidicae and User:Jeppiz. Thanks to my targeters, the situation changed very quickly from their disturbing behaviour to my talk page and who I reply to/whose edits I revert. Yes, with more than 10,000 edits, my net contribution is negative and the last three days activity on some pages created too much edit warring and hindered all the productivity. Congratulations guys. Please don't stop writing articles with Google Translate and complaining when others correct them. Bye. ภץאคгöร 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are making a good case against yourself. No, one revert is not edit warring. But as the diffs show, you frequently revert three times on the same article during the same day. You did it yesterday, and the day before, and the day before. Three reverts are definitely edit warring. As for you calling us "targeters" and claiming we are "writing articles with Google Translate", and claiming anyone who called out your behavior should be banned, Well, thanks for proving so forcefully our point about your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and lack of civility. (PS I first came across you four days ago, I have reverted you once. If that's what you call "targeting", well, good luck). Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's entirely relevant, because it demonstrates a consistent pattern of behaviour (distinct from going through a phase or getting emotional over a specific piece of content). It's not so much the edit warring as it is a philosophy that anyone who implies you did something less than perfectly, or just disagrees with you, is incompetent and acting out of malice. Click this link and take a scroll down and tell me with a straight face that isn't an accurate characterisation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Norwaytheway (talk · contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, this user, Norwaytheway (talk · contribs) has only had vandalism edits, and no other contributions. S/he seem to have an interest in inserting the term "Chase Samole" [96][97][98]
-- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- They haven't edited since being warned by Oshwah back on March 26, so I'm not sure any further action needs to be taken. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request of partial block removal for jacobmcpherson
I'm writing to appeal my partial block to make edits in the article space. I've been going through the Articles for Creation process, and fully disclosing pages I am paid to edit. The reason I'm requesting my account to be unblocked is I've been asked directly by clients to remove/adapt potentially libelous content, per Wikipedia:Libel. It seems my involvement in this capacity could help Wikipedia (as the copyright holder). I know to go through an article's talk page to request these changes, but sometimes the Wikipedia community isn't responsive on these matters. Also, whenever making an edit in the future, I know to add a rationale for each, and go line by line (rather than a complete bulk edit).
--Jacobmcpherson (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, since your previous appeal in March you have not had one AfC page accepted so far, and you have only used the talk page of one article. Nothing here gives any confidence that you can be trusted to edit pages neutrally and factually, or that there really is such an unadressed need for you to remove libelous content. Fram (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- So you want the partial block removed so you can do something you know you aren't supposed to do? Hut 8.5 11:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to hear more about this libellous material we're currently hosting? (As opposed to, say, material which those who pay paid editors would wish to whitewash away...) ——Serial 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would as well, since I haven't seen any sort of communication with OSPOL-related emails... Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to Justlettersandnumbers and Xeno (who, respectively, originally blocked jacobmcpherson and modified the block to a partial). For my part, I am utterly uninterested in lifting the block - per Fram, only one talk page has been edited, and per Primefac, no suppression requests have been made to remove the "libelous" material, which makes me think that this is the definition of "libelous" that companies and paid editors use ("properly-sourced but makes us look bad"). "You keep using that word..." and all that. If a company hired you to edit Wikipedia, and you can't carry out the job, that's your problem, not ours. Show us you can play by the rules and make some useful edit requests on behalf of your clients instead of demanding an unblock. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock based on the above discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, GeneralNotability. I indeffed this account for the reasons given here. The block was – with my agreement – later modified by Xeno, but I do not see that any benefit has accrued to the project from that modification. The user appears still to be here for the sole purpose of promotion for his own personal gain. I not only oppose lifting the partial block, but propose that the original indefinite block be restored, to be lifted when, if, and only if, the user shows willingness to comply in full with all aspects of our paid-editing policy, and can convince us that he genuinely intends to start contributing to Wikipedia on topics in which he has no vested interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Largely per General Notability. Truly libellous (not just undesired) content can be emailed to oversight. Hog Farm Talk 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I would argue this article isn't properly sourced - Jacob Sartorius. I don't believe whatstrending.com (for example) meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I also did try to e-mail the oversight team who didn't respond, and you can see requests I made on the article's talk page. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would be exceptionally surprised - in fact I would be astounded - if Oversight did not process your message. If they didn’t respond I can only assume they thought the content was not worth suppressing (although in my experience they will usually reply and say as such). How did you contact them exactly? Using the EmailUser function on User:Oversight? firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to the oversight-en-wp address in April, and didn't hear back about that article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did a little digging. An email was sent to ArbCom regarding a content issue, so Jacob was directed to email VRT (formerly OTRS), which was done (see ticket:2021033110007032). Oversight itself was not contacted (as far as I can tell) nor do I see any indication the ticket was ever in any queue other than info-en. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did find the e-mail I sent. I believe Jacob Sartorius' team also tried contacting Wikipedia oversight, as they're exploring all options. I see the link in question is now removed from his article. I might also look into the second paragraph of the intro text (with reference #2), and the other cited "controversies," (with references 16, 17, and 18), as they appear to be based on tweets / other forms of social media. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did a little digging. An email was sent to ArbCom regarding a content issue, so Jacob was directed to email VRT (formerly OTRS), which was done (see ticket:2021033110007032). Oversight itself was not contacted (as far as I can tell) nor do I see any indication the ticket was ever in any queue other than info-en. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to the oversight-en-wp address in April, and didn't hear back about that article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would be exceptionally surprised - in fact I would be astounded - if Oversight did not process your message. If they didn’t respond I can only assume they thought the content was not worth suppressing (although in my experience they will usually reply and say as such). How did you contact them exactly? Using the EmailUser function on User:Oversight? firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and GeneralNotability. I suspect that a paid SPA is unlikely to gather my sympathy after editing in a fashion that gets them blocked. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Changes to functionary team
At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of DGG are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks DGG for his service as a CheckUser. Maxim(talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down
Images that appear on English Wikipedia's Main Page should be protected to avoid NSFW vandalism on the Main Page. Images soon appearing on the Main Page & hosted on Commons are usually automatically protected by KrinkleBot. Wrinkle is, KrinkleBot is down.
With KrinkleBot down, please manually protect images that will soon appear on the Main Page. Images hosted at Commons can either be protected at Commons by Commons administrators, or temporarily uploaded to English Wikipedia and protected here.
DYK conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#KrinkleBot is down, created this to let our other Main Page friends know. Shubinator (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. El_C 14:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like KrinkleBot is back in action. Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Issue with an account that is possibly a factory of propaganda editor(s)
- Moved to ANI Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Problematic image additions, probable socking
- Allknowingroger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
For context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive331#Five_thousand_images_added_by_RogerNiceEyes Back in March, RogerNiceEyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added thousands of images to articles in rapid succession, and was indefinitely blocked for not communicating.
The account Allknowingroger was first registered in 2018 and made a few dozen edits prior to the 7th of June 2021, when they started engaging in the same behaviour as RogerNiceEyes, adding images to articles in rapid succession. The fact that both account have "Roger" in their name and have the exact same modus operandi makes me suspect that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allknowingroger/ArchiveJackattack1597 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's definitely relevant, it confirms that it's block evasion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nice find. I think we found a sock, or at least a meatpuppet. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum -- since I have rollback, does anyone have a problem with me undoing these? No need to keep an indefinitely blocked user's changes around. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that it's permissible to use rollback to undo an indef-blocked editors contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Only if they're blocked for socking; just a normal indef is misuse off the tool. ——Serial 09:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: I do object to these being undone by rollback, which doesn't leave an edit summary. Both RogerNiceEyes and Allknowingroger made some bad image additions to articles but also some good ones. When the addition was a good one, I want to see why it was undone – I almost reverted several of your changes before I saw this thread. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: -- Alright then -- sorry for the disruption. I won't use rollback and make sure to add a summary explaining my changes. It is just annoying since Roger is not wanted here. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: sure, I agree re the socking, and re undoing their edits, but if there's an edit summary like "reverted sockpuppet edit", other editors know what is going on. I think rollback is best reserved for obvious vandalism , easily seen from a dif, which isn't the case here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: -- sounds good, I'll switch to using rollback without marking it as vandalism (where it prompts you for an edit summary). I'll spend time doing that tonight, if someone doesn't get to it first. Thanks! -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: sure, I agree re the socking, and re undoing their edits, but if there's an edit summary like "reverted sockpuppet edit", other editors know what is going on. I think rollback is best reserved for obvious vandalism , easily seen from a dif, which isn't the case here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: -- Alright then -- sorry for the disruption. I won't use rollback and make sure to add a summary explaining my changes. It is just annoying since Roger is not wanted here. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that it's permissible to use rollback to undo an indef-blocked editors contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's a slightly bigger problem that needs attention here - since the 20th of may (as in 3 weeks ago) they've made ~ 185,000 edits to wikidata, most of which seem to have been adding images to wikidata entries. I Given the sheer volume of edits there's no way that these could have been performed with any kind of oversight. I'm not sure if we have any infoboxes or the like that populate images from wikidata, but if we do this could represent a massive problem. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's actually allready a complaint on their wikidata talk page that they added an image of a completely different painting to a wikidata entry, so yes, it looks like their wikidata edits are just as problematic as their edits here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- But at least they responded on their talkpage. They are mute over here. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 06:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's actually allready a complaint on their wikidata talk page that they added an image of a completely different painting to a wikidata entry, so yes, it looks like their wikidata edits are just as problematic as their edits here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Unban request of Jshpinar
Jshpinar (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked in 2019 by EvergreenFir for Disruptive editing - WP:GENREWARRIOR and socking
, and subsequently de facto community banned for repeated block evasion. A checkuser, Yamla, confirmed no recent evidence of further ban evasion in discussion with this editor and they have requested to lift the ban. While I'm copying their request here for community discussion, I am not offering an opinion as to whether it should or should not be granted. Request follows: Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Today is May 25, the day @Rosguill: said he will be willing to consider giving me a standard offer. Since my last request was denied, I avoided making any edits on Wikipedia. I admit that in the final days before Coronavirus, I have made dozens of accounts in the past to edit pages for my own will, but I did it out of sheer boredom and was very wrong in doing so. I have now learned that I need to either properly source any material I wish to add, or discuss any uncertainty on my targeted article's talk page before editing. I would be willing to stay away from modifying genres and REM pages at first to prove I could be an efficient user. I also wouldn't mind if someone proctors me at the start or gives me a step-by-step approach to be fully allowed back on Wikipedia, or whatever it would take for the moderators to gain trust in me. Once more, I am very sorry for causing so much disruption last year and promise to never act like that again. I kindly wish to be unblocked this time so I can move on to making good productive changes to Wikipedia.
- Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jshpinar/Archive, I think it would be a mistake to unblock them without a topic ban. I'm not immediately sure how to draft that. Perhaps, a topic ban around music, broadly construed; this would cover genres, obviously, but would also require they build up a history of constructive edits in another subject area entirely. And a limit to only a single account, and no logged-out edits. That said, I'm not currently supporting an unblock here because this unblock request isn't convincing to me. This appears to have been a case of deliberate disruption rather than confusion on our policies, and they created a significant number of accounts. Nothing here really indicates to me they'd be beneficial to the project, but I withhold my vote hoping for further clarification from the user. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Topic ban sounds like a good start given that they understand what they did wrong and are OK with whatever measures (including a t-ban from all music related articles broadly construed) would have to be taken to build up trust again. I don't understand why we can't give this person some WP:ROPE (in a loose sense) here. They've waited a year without socking and they haven't screwed up a second chance before. This person is hardly even community banned and doesn't have a very long history of disruption (although their disruption was pretty significant at the time they did it). I'd say unban and see what happens. People can change over a year. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply)Template:Z181 12:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would support an unblock to give WP:ROPE, preferably with a topic ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Request for a batch G5 deletion of 230 redirects and talk pages
ResolvedCould someone please nuke these pages? The SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood/Archive#07 June 2021. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Uanfala, all nuked. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Brilliant, thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
IP Masking Update
Duplicate post from WP:VPWMF
The IP Masking team have provided an update on IP Masking that can be seen here.
Given this will affect many editor's workflows, and will inherently affect various AN-related functions, as well as a fairly significant WP:PERM change, please take the time to look and comment Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:MEAT puppetry via Twitter
Hi there, someone on Twitter has decreed that a cartoon character "Rolf" is from Romania, and is encouraging social media users to "vandalize" Wikis netwide to put the information in articles (including ours.) Tweet here. I don't know if this dude is a creator or just some rando. Elizium23 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Any Italian, Polish or Turkish speaking editors able to flag this up at those Wikis admin boards? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Possible paid editing
Seems like User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is using Wikipedia for his/her paid editing/promotional activities. As can be seen in this AfD discussion, as User:Pathawi indicated, he or she just insists on keeping non-notable articles, looking for other Azerbaijani editors' support in those type of discussions. Same activities were observed in the Turkish Wikipedia as well, some articles were deleted and the user blocked indefinetely. Uploading promotional images on Commons to use in his/her promotional non-notable articles, still trying to promote his non-notable articles, keep sending messages to various user and preventing them to focus on their contributions (1, 2, 3, even canvassing in here, here and here) are all disruptive activities. I also gotta mention that in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they keep the article if it exists in another language edition, therefore they try to create them in the English, the Russian and/or the Turkish Wikipedia.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, you have chosen me as a target, you are deleting my articles and pictures. My activity on Wikipedia is to contribute to the development of articles by celebrities across the country in other languages.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
DeltaQuadBot not updating the unblock request table.
For the past 24 hrs User:DeltaQuadBot hasn't been updating User:AmandaNP/unblock table. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lavalizard101: Per User:DeltaQuadBot, the bot's operator can be reached at User talk:AmandaNP. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but AmandaNP hasn't been active for a few days and its not the first time this has happened (although the last time was several months back). Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Couldn't hurt to at least try. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but AmandaNP hasn't been active for a few days and its not the first time this has happened (although the last time was several months back). Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just posted on her talk page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a toolforge grid engine error. Nothing I can really do about it unless someone pings me, but I expect it to run 24/7. It will be back momentarily. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just posted on her talk page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)