Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 10:43, 13 November 2021 (→‎Eric Zemmour talk page: Abnormal and biased closure: Closing: Emigré55 needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 6 8 14
    TfD 0 0 1 7 8
    MfD 0 0 1 3 4
    FfD 0 0 1 0 1
    RfD 0 0 0 44 44
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 8453 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Aspire (Energy) 2024-09-24 04:47 2024-10-08 04:47 move Persistent vandalism Liz
    Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikinger 2024-09-23 22:21 indefinite move Liz
    Ultramarathon 2024-09-23 21:33 2025-09-23 21:33 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Camille Herron 2024-09-23 21:02 2025-09-23 21:02 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence 2024-09-23 19:13 2024-09-25 19:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts TParis
    Template:Fictional character redirect 2024-09-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Janine Teo 2024-09-23 16:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Portal:Current events/2024 September 23 2024-09-23 16:21 2024-09-30 16:21 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic
    23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes 2024-09-23 16:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Firefangledfeathers
    Antal (surname) 2024-09-23 11:29 2024-10-03 11:29 edit,move Excessive sockpuppetry Zzuuzz
    Sabireen Movement 2024-09-23 07:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack 2024-09-23 07:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Battle of Nablus 2024-09-23 07:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Anti-pedophile activism 2024-09-23 03:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Attacks on religious sites during the Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-09-23 03:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Desmond is Amazing 2024-09-23 03:18 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions 2024-09-23 03:07 2024-09-30 03:07 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Parihar (clan) 2024-09-22 23:21 2024-12-22 23:21 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Elli
    Pratihar Gurjars 2024-09-22 23:20 2024-12-22 23:20 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE-related disruption; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Zana ambush 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Qatar and the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Israeli public diplomacy in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Hamama School bombing 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Khadija School airstrike 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Harper Steele 2024-09-21 21:28 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    R. C. Majumdar 2024-09-21 21:16 2024-10-21 02:05 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; increasing to ECP for duration Daniel Case
    Noohani 2024-09-21 21:06 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/CASTE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Template:Non-diffusing parent category 2024-09-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3312 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/nationality/innercore 2024-09-21 14:29 indefinite edit,move Reduce protection level following this RfPP request Favonian
    Revolutionary Communist International 2024-09-21 14:12 2024-10-21 14:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi
    Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-21 11:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Jitendra Dhaka 2024-09-21 04:55 indefinite create I didn't mean to change this Liz
    Basem Al-Shayeb 2024-09-21 01:17 2025-09-21 01:17 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Template:Inflation/IN/dataset 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2568 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:ESPNscrum 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2884 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Assassination of Ibrahim Aqil 2024-09-20 15:27 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights 2024-09-20 15:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

    Being able to create an article on a subject that was locked by an admin 9 years ago?

    Hello, and I hope I am in the right place with this question. I recently saw some news coverage about the news resource Benzinga [1] and I thought that I could make an article out of it. However, I noticed that some silly people ran amok 9 years ago and wound up getting the subject locked indefinitely by an admin [2]. I would ask the admin who locked the subject for help, but he has been absent from Wikipedia from more than a year, and I wondered if I could get this unlocked so I can add a new article that meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you create in draft using the WP:AFC process. GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thank you very much. I will do that right now. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the text of the previously deleted version to the draft talk page, in case any of the sources used there can be plumbed. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerda Arendt proxying article creation for community-banned user LouisAlain

    Closed per RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs)'s closure in the final section of this thread, following Gerda Arendt's acknowledgment and apology. As the initial closer indicated, there is a wide disagreement as to how WP:PROXYING should be interpreted in the context of reviewing, posting and taking responsibility for content from a banned user. However, that will need to be resolved on the talk page of that policy, or as an RFC; and not here.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is currently proxying article creation for a community-banned user, LouisAlain (talk · contribs), by inviting them to edit her dewiki userspace at de:User:Gerda Arendt/LouisAlain and then taking their work as the base for article creations such as Frédéric Blanc.

    I have collaborated with LouisAlain for 10 years, and a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me. My first GA was for for a blocked user, another GA was for a banned user. I am here for content, and I make what LouisAlain supplies, my own. Look above for his name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    — Gerda Arendt's response to the concerns

    I'm very skeptical towards this, generally opposing the practice ("banned means banned"). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I replied on my talk. Would Wikipedia be better without the article Frédéric Blanc? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to keep the discussion in this central place and will copy your response below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not understood in the AN thread. I said LouisAlain wasn't adding fake references, and wasn't understood. I said that Wikipedia should be thankful for his contributions and wasn't understood. I said that every editor is a human being, and wasn't understood. I better don't go. I strongly believe that Wikipedia would be better without the whole thread, which didn't promote kindness, and only one article afaik. I am here for the content, and when someone is willing to spare me the trouble of a translation, I am thankful. It's no dangerous new content, but content from a different Wikipedia made available here. The following is by a banned user. I am with the outcast.


    A Midsummer Night’s Dream

    Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

    nb: User talk:Wehwalt#Sanddunes Sunrise

    --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so because your arguments in the ban discussion have not been "understood", the consensus can be ignored. That seems to be a pretty problematic approach to any discussion result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Gerda, this is incredibly foolish behaviour. This is essentially meat puppetry. I strongly suggest you very quickly confirm you will stop this and never repeat it, before you end up being blocked yourself... GiantSnowman 15:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can somewhat understand where Gerda is coming from, but I'm baffled as to how they even thought that this was acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, it should've been common sense. And using sentences such as "≥a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me" isn't very heartwarming either. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LouisAlain is suppose to be using his talkpage only for getting unbanned, btw. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access should be revoked IMO. GiantSnowman 15:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems they've been using it actively for anything but getting unbanned. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only looked at Frédéric Blanc and not any other Louis/Gerda collaborations, but Frédéric Blanc is a big WP:BLPVIO. The only real independent RS, as far as I can tell, is the ResMusica article. All the rest are blogs, except I think one might be his label (which is probably OK if that's what it is). If I spoke French I'd remove everything sourced to blogs and other non-RSes. I question what would be left and whether this organist meets notability criteria. But using blogs for a BLP... come on. Poor sourcing is what we had to ban Louis for. It's disappointing to see Gerda just charge on and repeat Louis's mistakes for him. Can we stop with the poorly-sourced BLPs please? Levivich 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not certain. But I think English Wikipedia prefers sources to be in english, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The general preference is described at "WP:NOENG" in the verifiability policy, but it primarily says that "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". The quality of the sources, specifically if they're self-published, matters considerably more; see also WP:BLPSPS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref. 3 is in English but does not support the statement it is attached to (and is not a RS anyway, and is not something we would call an acceptable source in 2021); none of the French references is a RS indeed except for Resmusica.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really see what is the problem. If Gerda adds information provided to her by LouisAlain through other channels, Gerda vouches for it, and it is Gerda's responsibility if the information is correct. In my book, the information comes to English WP from Gerda.--Berig (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, that's wrong. WP:PROXYING is very clear. "Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Since the material originates from LouisAlain, it is not independent to Gerda. Gerda, please don't do this any more. Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but it all boils down to personal responsibility. If the information is shown to be unreliable or wrong, the mistake will be attributed to Gerda, anyway.--Berig (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not the point. At the moment LouisAlain is effectively creating articles at enwiki despite being banned for falsifying sources when creating articles. If, for example, Alain was pointing out factual errors in articles and inviting editors to fix them, that would be different, because any editor would have an obvious independent reason for doing so. Creating entire articles definitely does not fall under that caveat. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerda Arendt, who is currently busy, has asked me on my talk page to provide the following thoughts in this discussion. As I'm unsure how to completely neutrally take the arguments from the message without omitting something that may have been important, I'm copying our short discussion below. Again, I'd prefer the discussion to be centrally held here, not on user talk pages.

    Perhaps a look by the community into the thread (which first suggested a topic ban, then had an admin block who had been insulted, blocking for lying which when inspected more closely was "lying by ommission", then a post-block question that was silenced, finally a "community ban" by how few admins?) might help - I don't know. I wanted to spare several users whom I all respect that trouble, but it's why I believe Wikipedia would have been better without that whole thread. - I worked on Kafka, DYK?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

    Now it's on three different pages, Gerda Arendt. 🙂 The point about looking at the thread again, and perhaps something that was said after the closure, does seem to be a fine one to make at WP:AN. I'm not entirely sure if it is the revision you're referring to, but you could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1050192525#Fake_referencing , for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    You do that please. I'm busy real life. - RexxS simply left Wikipedia instead of going to arbcom. I miss him every day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    How familiar are you with that terrible thread? If you have little time just look at the rather short passage of Martinevens123 being called a troll for asking questions I also had. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

    End of quoted content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • If there's a problem with the material Gerda is introducing to en.wp, then it is upon those merits that she should be judged (or otherwise). This is not 100% blatant WP:PROXYING, which has to fulfil a number of criteria:
    1. To be at the direction of a banned or blocked editor—emphasis in original;
    2. The edits must be verifiable;
    3. and they have independent reasons for making such edits;
    4. And, of course, finally, that editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.
      It occurs to me, re. point 1, that GA can hardly be said to have been at the 'direction' of LA, since the material is subject to her editorship (and, yes, per WP:BUILDWP, I think we do need to take the strictest interpretation of the word, otherwise we end up in a place where what we can say becomes dependent on whether a banned user has said it before)).
      Re. point 2, the sourcing may be poor, but as long as they pass V, then it's a separate issue (perhaps BLPVIO, as noted above) and distinct to WP:PROXYING.
      The third point, that she must have her own discrete reasons for making the edits is pretty comprehensively accounted for by, err, almost everything she has ever written for this bloody project being about singers, songs and writers and especially Geman singers songs and writers.
      Finally, point 4, is pretty clear that as long as one takes responsibility for one's edits—including, in this instance, e.g. of BLP sourcing—then it should stand. Indeed, even the previous section of the policy, cited by the OP—WP:BMB—notes that a banned editor's edits may be allowed to stay if they are deemed productive. It would see, perverse in the extreme to misread policy to such an extent that (very theoretically!) allow a banned editor to fix typos, but disallow an extremely experienced content creator to to re-write pages.
      All that said, Gerda, I kind of agree that sometimes your use of language can be sufficiently opaque as to, perhaps, not make things as easy for you as they might otherwise be in these dscussions  :) ——Serial 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerda, a nonchalant approach, may not be the best way here. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a clear violation of policy. The text of WP:IAR notwithstanding (which Gerda seems to be relying on when she discusses "making content"), WP:BMB (and corollaries, such as WP:G5) have been enforced strictly exactly to dissuade the banned user from the notion that they should be contributing while banned. Even ignoring policy, the proxying in this case entirely violates the spirit of the ban. Specifically, the LouisAlain discussion went on for a while and editors were keen to find alternate solutions to a site ban, such as the offer by an editor for LA to write in his userspace and then having someone else check over and take responsibility for the article when moving to mainspace; LouisAlain decided that option wasn't acceptable to him. Ultimately he was banned.
      What Gerda is doing is functionally equivalent to what was offered to him (although it's unclear whether Gerda is checking the articles) and was likely to obtain consensus, but LA declined, and eventually was banned as the status quo was too problematic and LA was unwilling to change his approach in any way, instead he chose to write long soliloquies about Early modern European witch-hunts. If LouisAlain wants to try avail that opportunity again, he should submit a ban appeal to the community. Otherwise, a single editor can't just overrule the consensus in the ban discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Before the pitchfork mob succeeds in getting a good editor blocked, I'll urge careful thought about this situation. Gerda is focused on content here and I've known her to take on responsibility for problematic editors' content many times in the past (Francis Schonken being another recent example). She's never said she doesn't take responsibility for the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (I'm definitely not asking for a block at this point; I doubt others are. This is an attempt to find an explicit consensus against the current behavior, and I'm hopeful that the provocative "won't stop me" response wasn't a final answer.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A block for Gerda at this stage? No - and definitely not if Gerda acknowledges their conduct here has been wrong and promises that they won't do it again. If it does happen again then a block will unfortunately be necessary. Immediate action I would like to happen (the sooner the better) is for LouisAlan to have talk page access revoked ASAP. GiantSnowman 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The requested talk page access revocation has silently already happened 15:50, 6 November 2021. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Grand. Hopefully Gerda will offer the assurances required... GiantSnowman 18:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Laser Brain, I don't see a "good editor being blocked" if said good editor thinks it's a good idea to proxy for an editor rightly blocked for basic fundamentally incompatibility with Wikipedia's core referencing principles. I see "an editor being blocked so the rest of us don't have to clean up their messes", which in general people seem way to happy to leave as "someone else's problem" (c.f. how tough it is to get people blocked for repeated and blatant copyright violations or plagiarism.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your point and agree. Mine was only to exercise caution as I've seen too many of these threads cause more damage to the involved editors than they prevent. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having good edits elsewhere doesn't render an editor above our rules, especially given that nobody has even suggested sanctioning Gerda at this point. Clearly it is inappropriate to directly copy-paste material from a banned user and if Gerda insists on doubling down about doing so, the one who got them banned will be themselves. I would hope Gerda would recognize this and agree to stop, but I don't see how you can look at those responses and justify them with "they're a good editor tho" or interpret directly copying the text another editor posted specifically for them to copy as being anything but acting at another editor's direction. If that isn't a clear-cut, unequivocal WP:PROXYING violation, what on earth is? --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am wondering why the banned user is not working to get unbanned instead of getting someone to proxy for them? I'm no expert but this case seems to be clear proxying to me. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, its as blatant a proxy as you can get. But thats beside the point, even if every editor and admin extended the various policies to their most relaxed and effectively treated Gerda's proxy edits for Alain as Gerda's own, what we are left with is Gerda is creating content with similar sourcing problems that got Alain sanctioned. If this continues (which I hope Gerda takes note from the above that it absolutely should not) we are essentially left in a situation where we either have to apply the same sanction for the same behaviour, or admit that some editors get preferential treatment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%. And combined with her defiant comment that "a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me" I'd say this situation is clearly actionable. Jusdafax (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, what? Gerda can make a proxy edit if she takes ownership of it. Wanting material to be on Wikipedia is a sufficient independent reason. It's not like he was banned for harassment. If Gerda is willing to take the time to scrutinize the content to make sure there aren't the problems he was banned for, who loses? This all seems like it should come down to "Gerda, do you understand that you're taking responsibility for these edits, and that if they are found to be problematic (like for the reasons Alain was blocked), then you will also be sanctioned or blocked?" Then she'll say yes, and anyone who wants to sanction Gerda can find problems with the proxied content just like any other content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I read "at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" and thought, well Gerda isn't being directed by a banned/blocked user, she is simply taking material, some of which may have been suggested, and then taking ownership of it, responsibility for it, and has more than satisfactory reasons for making such edits (e.g. to improve Wikipedia). Some users here appear to be on a proper witch-hunt, most distasteful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda is helping a blocked user, who was blocked "for falsifying sources when creating articles", create new articles with the same sourcing problems as pointed out by other users above. She might be doing it to improve Wikipedia, but it's totally against the spirit of the ban. If Alain wants to create new articles, they should've tried appealing their ban. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 22:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I asked at AN/I, I was told he was blocked for "lying by omission" about machine translation, which just about tallies with what his block log says. But maybe the blocking admin would like to clarify exactly why LA was blocked. I agree with everything that The Rambling Man has said in this thread about Gerda's efforts. But I am reluctant to contribute any further in case I'm once again accused of "trolling". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not being directed per the policy. And moreover, if there are issues with sourcing, that's a completely different issue from this supposed "proxying" debate. If Gerda creates articles continually which are poorly sourced, then start a discussion about that. Do you think Alain is directing Gerda? Do you honestly believe that?! Of course, if there's an issue with understanding the meaning of "directing", that's for a new discussion to modify the policy. Is suggesting the same as directing? I don't think so. YMMV of course, depending on how keen you are to take someone down. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never interacted with neither of these people, however giving a blocked user a space (in this case, Gerda's German wiki sandbox) to write up articles and then creating them in another language wiki for them (directed or not, it's mostly text that a blocked user wrote) seems problematic. Especially when Alain was banned for an article-creation related issues. I'm not proposing any sanction for Gerda, however she should stop continuing this behaviour. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 22:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I disagree. Unless you have a policy-based argument for it, I'd suggest there's no harm here, indeed it's even a benefit to Wikipedia for Gerda to write these articles, assuming they meet our usual policies (and a discussion on that is not for this thread). If there's an issue with the understanding of directed then seek a change to the policy which makes it clear. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, Gerda is not being directed to do anything. So it's all a bit moot, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a previous similar instance, where a user was posting on their talk page and other users who thought something might be a good edit would implement. A discussion came out as no-consensus - the "at the direction" is the relevant bit here. Now I still think it is unwise, especially given the reason the user was blocked, but it is not quite clearcut breach of the proxying restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with the tenor of editors above like User:Rhododendrites, User:The Rambling Man, User:Serial Number 54129, and User:Berig: this is not misconduct on Gerda's part, so long as she is taking responsibility for the content added. However, in an abundance of caution, I propose a compromise. Build these articles in draft space and submit it for review by an uninvolved and impartial AFC reviewer. BD2412 T 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) My understanding of WP:PROXY is similar to OID, Rhododendrites, and TRM: the editor posting the information is responsible for it. If there are problems with the content Gerda adds, she will be sanctioned for it as the responsible party. I'm perfectly fine with that state of affairs and think appeals to WP:BMB are spurious. Whether he is making good or bad edits doesn't really matter because he isn't making edits. Gerda is making edits, and if there are problems with the content then we can handle it like any other disruptive editing. Is it s good idea to be doing this? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to get worked up over this without some evidence of concrete problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich and I provided this evidence above in this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems you pointed out some verifiability problems, which besets all of us from time to time. Is this directly related to the accusastions proxying or are you conflating the two ideas? You (both/either) are welcome to lodge a complaint against Gerda for supposed repeated violations of WP:V I suppose. Would you prefer to do that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is that we got a substandard article which might have difficulties to survive AfD, and this is being sold as "making encyclopedia better". Most likely it happened because Gerda did not check the article she was posting. This is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But which aspect? The getting text and suggestions from a banned user, or submitting an article which "might have difficulties to survive AfD"?? I mean, come on, that sounds lame already. As I noted above, if the sum total of all this witch hunt is that Gerda needs to be more thorough per WP:V, fine. But right now that's not the main thrust here, is it? Feels like a few villagers got their flaming torches out (which they'd been keeping on standby) and came out screeching at the first chance. I suggest this thread is closed with a suggestion to Gerda that she takes more time over verifying sources when she, herself, commits to adding material to en.wiki. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't mean to imply that no one had serious concerns or worthwhile evidence, just that the basis of a report should be those things and the basis of this report was not that. The OP was about how to interpret PROXY and my comment should be taken in that context. I'll admit to not having read everything; I've had my fill of sprawling user conduct threads for the week so I haven't exactly gone digging through the article Levivich mentioned, but I think it would be more productive to make a separate report than have it all burried in a thread on a tangentially related topic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that @Gerda Arendt: is back from the opera. Let's give her a chance to defend herself, here. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDay seems pretty clear to me that there's nothing for her to "defend herself" against. Why would you adopt such battleground language? (and editing a ping doesn't make it re-ping.... WP:CIR). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct your WP:CIR gun in another direction. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I have to say that in 11+ years, I've yet to see a non-constructive edit from Gerda and I don't think hamstringing one of our more prolific creators of content--quality content, too, not just a churning out of stubs--is to the benefit of the project. As expounded above, if Gerda is making these edits and creating these articles, then she's taking responsibility for them and Alain's involvement feels moot. If there are problems in any of this work, it certainly isn't systematic, and I doubt any of us who engage heavily in content creation can hold up our hands and say we've never misinterpreted a source in error, or created an article which jumped the gun on notability, we're human and it happens. Sanctions of any kind here are simply throwing out far more baby than bathwater. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, come on! A BLP based on blogs? What is wrong some of you people being like, "Hey, it can happen to any one of us!" No, no it can't. That's not an accident. That's negligence or incompetence. What the actual fuck, yo. It's a new BLP! Levivich 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unimpressive Levivich, very unimpressive. Did you read the title of this section? What are you trying to hang Gerda for? Proxying? Poor sourcing? It's unclear. You're mystifying. And that, as noted elsewhere about your recent edits, is unimpressive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying everything she's written is perfect but I also don't believe any of us can say the same. What I am saying is that I don't believe these are linked issues; if I or TRM or you or anyone else wrote our next article with subpar sourcing, would it be linked to our last dispute or would it be resolved at the article level? Gerda is clearly capable of writing well-sourced and valuable content, is my point, and I would rather we kept an editor producing content even if it meant fixing some problems. I think TRM is right in saying that this feels like conflating issues for the sake of piling on. As I said, if Gerda is making these edits and creating these articles, then she's taking responsibility for them. If you're unhappy with sourcing on a BLP article, remove the content--I'm always happy to defend to removal rather than tagging of unverified content, for example, or taking something to AFD if it can't stand up when unsatisfactory sources are removed. But do articles like this make up the majority, or even a large minority, of Gerda's work, or are we shining a large spotlight on a smaller number of them just in light of the connection with Alain? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Poor sourcing, and how could that possibly be unclear? Some people are like "well Gerda is taking responsibility for it, so unless there are problems," and then you show them a BLP based on blogs, and they're like, "well, it could happen to any of us!" I say again: come on. This is exactly the response we got when some of us complained about the same problem from Louis. I ask again: what is wrong with some people, willing to tolerate one editor proxying for another editor and creating a BLP based on blogs??? Anyway that's the end of my outrage on this topic. Levivich 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Phew, thank goodness for that. Perhaps we can now focus on this thread which purports to be about an alleged proxying issue. If Gerda is creating content which needs improved sourcing, let's make that the recommendation. But that's not what this is all about here. Perhaps a little bit of WP:CIR for the torch-wielding locals perhaps? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's exactly what this is all about here. Louis was banned for repeatedly making poorly-sourced articles, and now Gerda is copying his poorly-sourced articles onto Wikipedia. BLPs! That's what this is all about. Oy vey. Levivich 00:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • So just ask Gerda to improve her verifiability. Ov vey indeed. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ask an editor who's been here for 12 years and made 286,000 edits to not make BLPs with blog sources? And you're telling me to get a grip? :-) Levivich 00:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In all sincerity, have you asked? Or is this just a triple-conflated pile-on with added flaming pitch-forks? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • In all sincerity, have you forgotten the ANI thread that led to Louis's ban? It was like a month of discussing this exact issue--poor sourcing, with examples from Loui's work, with Gerda being the #1 defender-in-chief. Like this conversation that you and I are having right now, is the conversation Gerda and I had about Louis--just change the names around. Imagine if, a month hence, you made a BLP at Louis's direction request, and it had a bunch of blog sources. I mean, should I even have to ask you to improve your sourcing? Should anyone have to ask a 12-year, 200,000-edit editor to please not make BLPs with blogs? Or should I not even have to ask? Cuz I don't think I should have to ask. It's not an innocent mistake; Gerda is obviously not checking the sources because there's no way someone with that much experience just didn't notice that there were like half a dozen blogs, all but one were obviously non-RS, and I don't even speak French and I can tell that. I don't know how Gerda missed the blog sources, but it doesn't matter... it's well below the minimum expectation for any non-newbie editor. I'm not saying Gerda should be blocked or banned or anything, but I am saying that this is a 100% serious, reasonable concern, not to be dismissed. Levivich 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Honestly, you think I lurk around ANI like other users here, ingesting all the vitriol and hate? No, I do not. I'm not even seeing Louis making requests, let alone direction, merely suggestions, but that's for Gerda to clarify. The basic issue here is that this thread starts about proxying, and has since descended into pathetic minutiae about lack of sourcing which can be dealt with elsewhere. This is terribly sad and a poor reflection on those who are striving to perpetuate the issues, both here and at other venues simultaneously. Poor form. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously, Grapple, never? Perhaps you don’t follow arb cases? This is typical of long-standing behaviors of Gerda’s seen in other areas, and whether she stops when asked is a whole ‘nother topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Who follows arb cases? Endless, tireless, relentless and usually incompetently-handled drama carnivals which take months and consume far too much community resource. As for "This is typical of long-standing behaviors of Gerda’s seen in other areas", that feels like a bit of passive aggression, and is unhelpful in the resolution this particular issue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you don’t follow arb cases—Honestly I do deliberately avoid them so I'm willing to plead ignorance here; I see Gerda's editing mostly around DYK submissions and at WP:GAN and that's what I would hate for us to hinder. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I sympathize, Grapple; it happens that the associated problems frequently pop on my watchlist, per FA involvement, so they are hard to avoid knowing about. Gerda, I recommend taking a closer look at your relationships with a number of editors, past and present, who have interesting account histories, as a way to avoid these kinds of problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand Black Kite's claim, a banned user is creating non-policy compliant content in one of Gerda's sandboxes, and Gerda is than copying banned user's non-policy compliant edits to main space, and the user was banned for creating content that does not meet policy? If that is so, that does seem like Gerda is taking direction. The banned user's edits in the sandbox can only be done under the banned user's free content license, and Gerda can only be copying the banned user's edits to main under the banned user's free content license, repeating the non-policy compliant content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is she being directed? Can you prove that? Or is she just taking material and using it (in general) for the betterment of Wikipedia (sourcing issues not withstanding)? This is proper lawyering territory now and it's abundantly clear that the policy needs rewording to avoid this malaise in future. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If Black Kite correct and she is copying -- it has to be, it's directly attributable to the banned user, it's his license and it is his content, and Gerda can only copy it under his license. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So that has literally nothing to do with being "directed"? We're onto attribution now? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is about direction, the banned user directs the edits, they are his edits under his license, which are then must be copied under his license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your definition of "directs" is different from mine. If I wrote some stuff somewhere and someone else thought "oh that looks good, I'll use that", I would not consider that to be direction. If I wrote some stuff somewhere and said to someone "you need to add this to Wikipedia", that would be direction. That's what "directors" do. they tell people what to do, they're in charge. This is clearly not the case here. Or do you think Gerda is being told what to do? Do you think that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What Black Kite suggested is it looks like Gerda arraigned to take his direction on edits. He edits under his license to her sandbox, and she then copies his edits under his license. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on - if you wrote stuff abstractly "somewhere" and it got used, sure. But if you wrote that stuff, in English, directly onto another user's German-language sandbox page - surely the implication here is "you need to add this to Wikipedia". Retswerb (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be opposed to this, or at least a fundamental rewrite. If the edit helps the site and it's been vetted by a good-standing user, then where's the harm? Change the policy to Editors who make changes at the suggestion of a banned or blocked editor must independently verify the change, or have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. No harm, no foul. Anarchyte (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not; that would defang WP:PROXYING completely. What is needed is an aditional sentence along the lines of Editors who make changes at the suggestion of a banned or blocked editor must independently verify the change, must have independent reasons for making such edits, and must write all such contributions in their own words - directly copying material written by a banned user is impermissible in all circumstances. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. This would have no change to the practical intent of the policy (ie. that is already the case) but it would avoid any hint of confusion on this point. The purpose of the sentence in question is plainly to allow editors to avoid getting in trouble if eg. a banned editor on wikidiocracy or some other forum points out an error and they correct it. It does not allow, and could never reasonably be reworded to allow, directly copying-and-pasting material - doing so is clearly adding specific text at the direction of the other editor (since you are following their specific directions for what should be added), and plainly lacks the second "independent reasons" rationale (since the wording is being copy-pasted directly, all rationales for it can only originate in the banned user.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly this. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I see no issue in "defanging" a policy that has the sole intent of beating a dead horse. Anarchyte (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion - if you want WP:PROXYING to have more teeth or just want it to be clearer (that there are multiple experienced people saying that it is clear in directly contradictory ways means it probably could be clearer), then maybe let's move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy or WP:VPP. If you think that Gerda bears responsibility for problematic edits, focus on that. Preferably that would be at the article talk page, but at very least separate it here from those arguments condemning her actions just for the fact of proxying, regardless of the quality of the edits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: that there are multiple experienced people saying that it is clear in directly contradictory ways means it probably could be clearer Examples? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that LouisAlain has already had their talk page access locked (quite appropriately) for using WP:PROXYING to inappropriately try to evade a ban, and that more importantly no one in this discussion seems to consider that controversal, ie. lots of people are eager to defend Gerda, but few people seem interested in arguing in the abstract that WP:PROXYING allows a banned editor like LouisAlain to post things to Wikipedia in the hopes that another random editor will take direction from them and copy-paste those things into mainspace. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor ... unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content - The content of this paragraph and its meaning are all that matters.
      Despite the few comments that this material is vague or unclear, it is not. The policy provides exceptions for an otherwise prohibited action. You are prohibited from posting or editing material at the direction of a banner or blocked user unless – that is to say except if – it improves the encyclopedia and you have your own reasons for making those edits. This also means that Gerda could even do so under explicit instruction. The latter prerequisite is addressed sufficiently by an editor being here, specifically with 'a genuine interest in improving encyclopedic content'. In theory, at least, all editors are supposed to be here. The former prerequisite being met is disputed by Levivich and Ymblanter. Those are the only concerns levied in this entire thread that have so much as the potential for merit. They can be addressed at this juncture, if deemed necessary, by making it clear that Gerda is responsible for edits she makes in co-operation with LouisAlain.
      There is no cause, per the policy, to prohibit Gerda from continuing to be here. Those wishing to restrict her available avenues of hereness, may investigate their own motives for it. I am going so suggest one: you might just be upset that your ban didn't unperson LouisAlain. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I can only speak for myself, but this is in no construable way "my" ban. I was not even aware of the editor's existence. Yet I feel pretty strongly that if the community has banned someone, a single person who "takes over" the behavior with misguided compassion for the oh-so-poor banned user is, independently of policy wording, insulting the community with their behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not; that interpretation is absurd and would render WP:PROXYING completely unenforcable. Plainly the requirement that they have independent reasons means that they must be able to say, essentially, "I would have made this edit, or one substantially similar to it in all key respects, entirely on my own if this topic had come to my attention previously." It exists for eg. correcting errors pointed out by a blocked user, not for absurd actions like copy-pasting entire blocks of text written by a blocked user; at that point there is no possibility of an independant reason for the wording used, since Gerda is copying the exact text that the banned user, effectively, directed them to paste by posting on talk. It is a clear-cut, unequivocal violation of the rules against proxying as written. Additioanlly, even on top of all that, as numerous people have pointed out above, Gerda has, in this case, failed to make sure that the edits being made at the other editor's direction are verifiable - these edits have the same sourcing and verification problems that got that editor blocked in the first place! That is, truthfully, the real problem here - people are acting like this is some obscure quibble over the definition of "directed", when the real issue is "should editors be allowed to write BLPs that primarily use blogs as sources." If an editor who has been banned for doing so can continue to direct others to copy-paste such material on their behalf, and other editors will defend that, then we've undermined the core principles of WP:V / WP:RS, not just some obscure rule against copy-pasting material form banned users. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many ways did you have to change proxy for this interpretation of yours to fit the policy as written? I made zero. You made several including introducing new clauses because they are 'needed' and changing the meaning of commonly understood words and phrases. 'Plainly' an 'independent reason' is 'I did x because y': 'I undid this vandalism because it's damaging', 'I added this material because it improves our coverage of this topic', 'I made this article because the English Wikipedia didn't have one'. My actions followed by my reasons. Key word my; independent means not under the control of others. What would be disallowed, wholly is: 'I did x because y told me to'. Few words, simple to understand. Contortions are wholly unnecessary. Proxy is entirely enforceable. Demonstrate that either a) the edits harm the encyclopedia or b) that the editor cannot justify the edits. It is, I will say, an excellently written policy because it targets only those whose intent or actions are harmful to the encyclopedia. You might have noticed that I've acknowledged Levivich and Ymblanter's concerns (and by extension anybody who has repeated those since). Shall I repeat myself for the hard of reading? Those are the only concerns raised that could have merit. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a good deal of heat and not a lot of light; certain editors need to dial it back. I want to state at the outset that I've collaborated with Gerda on some articles in the past and enjoyed those collaborations. I hope I'm able to do that again in the future. Now let me say this: Louis Alain was banned from the English Wikipedia, and not that long ago. He was banned for being unresponsive to concerns about poor sourcing and machine translations. Gerda objected to this course of action, but her views did not carry the day. Now, the accusation here, not really refuted, is that Gerda is taking Louis Alain's articles from a wiki on which he is not banned and publishing them on the English Wikipedia. It's further alleged, and appears to be the case, that these articles also suffer from poor-quality sourcing. Some of these (all?) are BLPs.

    Leave aside all these technical questions of which policies might or might not be in play. We don't need to get into the weeds here. Writing BLPs with poor-quality sources is a bad idea even if you're not doing it in collaboration with a user who was banned for that very reason from this project. It shows astonishingly poor judgment, especially considering that Gerda isn't some new user. She's been here forever. She knows better. I'm not interested in sanctions, because I have the expectation that Gerda will reconsider her approach to this matter. If she wants to help Louis Alain this isn't the way to do it. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is precisely my position here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Will the articles created-in-question, need to be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Need"? Not inherently. Can any of them be taken to AFD to be discussed on their individual merits? Absolutely, just as they always could be with or without this thread. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial, obvious cases. Draftification would be a possible approach, but there will probably be at least one person reverting it with a summary like "the subject is notable, fix the issues yourself or start a deletion discussion". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no ties to anyone or any topic in this discussion and so zero horse in this game, but I am curious about the very divergent interpretations of policy here. To me the "directed" language in PROXYING seems only a bit more intentional than "make edits at the request of". And a banned editor writing a whole article in your sandbox that you then copy to mainspace sure looks like acting on a request... Why didn't Gerda just write all of it herself? Also, given that WP:BRV specifically covers Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban (and wouldn't such a straight copy essentially be eligible in spirit for G5?), I interpret the "verifiable or productive...[with] independent reasons" line as applying more to minor edits than full article creation. I appreciate there is more nuance here than in those old LTAs where an editor gets blocked for knowingly translating or copying material at the request of a random banned editor who shows up on their talk, but I don't think our current policy clearly exempts the nuanced stance, either, so in any case this ought to be clarified. I don't think a block on Gerda is necessary, however. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The policy wording is just a compromise between the two divergent philosophies on display here; the policy grew from the philosophical conflict, not the other way around. The point of the policy is to try and side-step these disputes entirely by focusing discussion on concrete disruption and avoiding discussions that are proxy-wars for an abstract philosophical conflict. For similar reasons, it's not a good idea to stretch the CSD criteria. They're for unambiguous cases as a compromise between the deletionism-inclusionism camps, and adding that to this pile is pretty much the last thing we need to be doing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, re your post at 02:25 if the expectation is that this thread will cause Gerda to alter her approach, some history may help. This is not an isolated incident.
    Gerda's priorities wrt sockmasters, arbs, admins and others are plain: "Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls." She does not seem to consider these editors wrongly blocked or banned, does not respect the community or the effect her friends have on others, does not seem to respect Arb decisions, and "a few admins representing 'the community' won't stop" her. Add to that what looks like an inability to let go of Infobox issues following the InfoBox Arbcase, and an apparent tone-deafness to spreading these "prizes" to editors who were hounded by these socks, and this does not lend much hope to the notion that these behaviors will stop based on this thread. Particularly not when some editors from some content review processes are defending the behaviors. Content contributions do not and should not excuse policy violations, as that excuse demoralizes the rest of the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to do a support/oppose kind of thing here, but I do want to express sadness that we seems to be working our way towards blocking an editor with 286k edits and whose wiki-resume is liberally sprinkled with DYK, FA, etc. This is especially troubling in conjunction with the section immediately below, where we blocked an editor with 348k edits. I understand that there are rules. But at the same time, quoting from WP:Reader (as I do on my user page), "A reader is someone who simply visits Wikipedia to read articles, not to edit or create them. They are the sole reason for which Wikipedia exists". I'd hate to see where we end up if we block all our most prolific and productive editors and end up with just spammers and socks and people like me who hunt them. At that point, we would no longer be servicing our readers and there wouldn't be any point to us being here any more. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. We should consider Wikipedia's policy WP:COMMON. Per WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--Berig (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm another user who does not follow discussions here usually. Gerda seems to be judged not only for her behaviour but for not showing due deference and respect for this process and the editors who enjoy this process. Umm thinks, if this discussion continues then the rest of us will end up here. However at the risk of being thrown onto the bonfire of the heretics, can I note that a defence of "content rules" should attract the attention of any Wikipedia supporter. I won't add to this debate as it appears to be self-sustaining despite @The Rambling Man: warnings. Victuallers (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, while I’m opposed to this behaviour, I’m not in support of a block or any other kind of sanction. I suspect a similar feeling is shared by most editors commenting in this thread. Gerda just needs to desist from doing this again in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My position, expanded on Gerda’s talk, is similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I saw this last night, and have been giving the situation much thought. As far as I am concerned, a CBAN is exactly that, a ban. This case also raises other questions, such as meatpuppetry, copyright issues (stuff created at de-Wiki is still subject to the same copyright restrictions as stuff created on en-Wiki, namely that attribution is a requirement) and an apparent refusal to hear what is being said here per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm seeing no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, nor any promise not to continue in the same way. I feel this is so serious that an ARBCOM case may be necessary. In the meantime, I will make a formal proposal to prevent any further meatpuppetry. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For those saying Wikipedia would be poorer without the articles Gerda creates, I would remind them that there is WP:NORUSH to create them. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per Mr rnddude , the wording of WP:PROXYING is crystal clear. If you want to try to take down one of our most productive, cultured, and objectively most appreciated editors, please first do your reasearch. Otherwise it's rather inconsiderate to the community to start this sort of time wasting and unpleasant threat. WP:PROXYING is only 133 words. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I don't understand is why at the least Gerda didn't start this in her own draft space. If I were translating an article from another project I would want to edit it first as a draft, using it just as a basis for a new article. I'm also one of those who oppose the whole idea of using a banned editor's work, even if technically it's permitted. Sure, if a banned editor mentions somewhere else that an article on X would be a good idea I wouldn't object to anyone creating it. But this sort of thing should not happen and it's disturbing that Gerda doesn't see the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out by Mr rnddude above, as long as Gerda is verifying all the information provided in the de.wiki version brought over to en.wiki is as truthful as they can confirm (not just taking the banned user's word for it), and are taking responsibility for that, PROXYING is met and there's not an issue here, yet. Only if it is shown that the material was in some way wrong (falsified from sources, etc.) and well within Gerda's capabilities to validate, then we can talk about that being a true PROXY problem. Mind you, it would have been better to have the banned user give Gerda sources to use, and Gerda independently write from those sources to separate the contribution more, but PROXY still allows for the case here as long as responsibility is taken. --Masem (t) 13:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Masem: I don't know if you mean to say that PROXY somehow allows this copying. But perhaps you meant this also: here, copying (good or bad content/sources) appears inextricable with potential acts of proxy -- when copying someone else's written work into Wikipedia, WP:C also governs correct content handling and conduct (see also, WP:ATTSIT and WP:PLAG). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At least using the talk page of Frédéric Blanc as a reference, there is attribution to the de.wiki article (added when the talk page was created), well before this ANI thread started). I do think the attribution route should be more accurate (specifically identify the de.wiki user page as the intermediate, such that the user suggesting the edits is included in that chain) but this does not seem like wholesale lack of attribution/copyvio failure. --Masem (t) 16:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As many of the above have already said, I'm against the idea of using the work of a banned editor on principle. However, it is clear that WP:PROXYING as it is currently worded does allow this. It might be a good idea for someone to start an RFC on revising that piece of the policy, but AN is not the place for that. There is also the sourcing issue, which especially on a BLP must not stand. I would suggest closing this thread with no formal sanctions, but strongly advising Gerda to be more diligent with verifying the sources in content (especially BLPs) that she has taken responsibility for. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a small information bit: The deWP can't any longer be the preparation site, as LouisAlain has just been blocked over there as well, so they can't write anything there in any draft space. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      With blocks on the three biggest Wikipedias it is probably time for a global ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Checked global contribs, not surprised that today he's copying machine translations onto Simplewiki, resulting in complicate prose that seems inappropriate for that wiki. He's just gonna keep moving to different wikis if not globally locked it seems. Levivich 20:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, it seems LA is asking editors on other projects to proxy for him on enwiki. [4] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think LA would qualify for a global lock, I think the only option is a global ban like Ymblanter suggested. If anyone wants to attempt to start a global ban discussion on Meta for LA, the global ban policy page is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#criteria-for-global-bans, and the page where you can file a request for comment to propose a global ban is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not tearing up site policy because a user is well known, popular or productive, WP:PROXYING is very clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear to everyone, just everyone interprets it differently. That's the key take-away here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerda (IMHO), you should completely cut yourself off from Louis-Alain. It just ain't worth the headaches. Totally up to you, of course. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hm. I think a new account doing this would be sanctioned, but an established and popular editor gets away with it. I find that a bit squicky, even though I do and would trust Gerda Arendt's judgment on content in mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be opposed to sanctions at this time. There is some question as to interpretation in some eyes, but honestly, I see this as a mistake on Gerda Arendt's part, innocent enough, well meaning, nothing got broken, but a change is needed. I would prefer we warn and work on changing the habits rather than using the stick. This requires some kind of statement from Gerda that she will review these methods and make some changes. I don't need begging or even an apology, just an acknowledgement that there are a great many people here who disagree with her methods, and she should be respectful of those opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Gerda Arendt is banned from creating any new pages on en-Wiki

    CLOSED
    Consensus is against this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Given the above discussion and issues raised, I propose that Gerda Arendt is prohibited from creating any new pages on en-Wiki. This means articles, redirects, talk pages, templates or any other new content. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose sledgehammer solution, ultimately damaging to our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I do not believe any formal sanctions will be necessary in this case, and believe Gerda can remedy this situation on her own by acknowledging the consensus developed here and desisting from further proxying. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per this being a simplistic response to a policy failure. As someone noted above, "if you want WP:PROXYING to have more teeth", etc., then a site-wide discussion is necessary. But pinning the failings of policy on one editor is, at the least, kicking the can down the road. ——Serial 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Attitudes like this will eventually kill Wikipedia.--Berig (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I agree with The Rambling Man, and even had I agreed that their article creations were an issue, articles, redirects, talk pages, templates or any other new content is overly broad and effectively bans them from participating in much of the communities processes (as an example, would this prevent them from starting a AFD? Its creating a page, and would therefore in my reading of this overly broad restriction be prevented), and any form of content creation. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - While I agree that Gerda should stop creating articles for banned people, their overwhelmingly positive contributions throughout the years shouldn't be left unnoticed. Their ban would be a net negative to the project. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 11:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. The above discussion seems to suggest there's no case for Gerda to answer. Per Mr rnddude, the only clear policy based reason to sanction Gerda would be if fault could be found with edits she makes for the banned user. Levivich made the strongest argument on those grounds, about the sources not being sufficiently WP:RS but it seems to have been refuted by multiple editors. None can deny the REsmusica coverage is sufficient for passing GNG, & even on a BLP its okay to source non controversial, non harmful details to less high quality / less independent sources. The other complaint seems to be that Frédéric Blanc is cited to non english sources. That was only partly refuted by the OP, which perhaps wasn't enough for you? To add while it goes without saying that we should try to use English sources where possible, the fact we're allowed to cite those written in other languages is so obvious it's not even mentioned in WP:RS. As an example, only yesterday I looked up our Louis Lavelle page & saw the totally false claim "Lavelle has not been studied in France." There's abundant French sources that correctly discuss Lavelle's reception but I couldnt find one in English, so sorted the issue by citing the French. As a result, our article on the good professor is not considerably more accurate than the French version. Anti elitism can be admirable and there is often a case to avoid mostly sourcing articles in other languages. But it doesn't matter so much when it comes to classical music & opera. At least here in London, even native english speakers who like those things will invariably learn molto italiano & at least a little French. So it ought not much harm the interested reader in this case. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this solution as too extreme. They should be given a chance to change their behavior first. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The big problem with Wikipedia is us article writers

    Indeed, Wikipedia is no longer a "movement", and is more corporate than project. Definitely not the same as it was 15+ years ago. Whether that is good or bad, I leave to the reader to decide for themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have been on Wikipedia since 2003, and I am sad to say that the climate towards those who build Wikipedia only hardens and hardens. Not only are article writers under potential pressure from POV-crusaders, and we have to turn ourselves inside and out to be as NPOV as we possibly can to avoid them, but we have to be draconic with ourselves about our references, and I have to stick to principle that a phrase like "grass is generally considered to be green" needs to have at least one reference to a reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal, because sooner or later someone will add a ref tag to it. We also need to follow all the detailed instructions in WP:MOS, whether we like it or not. The climate is especially hard on us who write articles about non-English subjects because we have to add specific templates for non-English words - *every single one* with hard-to-find codes[5]. We also have to take care to write in a splendid style that is easy to understand. If we don't submit ourselves meticulously to these restrictions we inevitably see one nag tag or another added to the top of our articles, spoiling what we may have spent lots of money on and spent hours writing, and that we may actually have been proud of having written. And, yes, even if you succeed in all of this - don't expect much appreciation for it. In the end, Wikipedia risks only having the wiki-police left.--Berig (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The thread above demonstrates that the wiki-police seem to be almost already in the majority. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there's a tendency to seeing the encyclopedia as effectively written now. ——Serial 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I apply for a refund, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish anyone who thinks that would check out our Great Acceleration article. And if anything, it heavilly understates the tendency towards exponentional change this pass two decades. A content editors work is never done. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't most of the encyclopedia--like over 90%--written by IPs? Levivich 14:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't! Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What a curious assertion. Although it is [citation needed], Wikipedia:IP users suggests that IP user edits are estimated to constitute one-half (54% in 2013) of the general username activity levels. So, among the total daily edits, then about one-third are posted by IP users, while 2/3 (~67%) are logged to specific usernames each time. so unless the IPs are super-prolific, they've contributed absolutely nowhere near 90% of the content of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The question mark indicates it's a question not an assertion. 2013 was a while ago; I thought I read a study that was from the last few years and looked at authorship not edit count. I'll see if I can find it. Levivich 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Indeed TRM, and those figures presumably don't include the rather large number of ip edits that promptly get reverted. There are a few regular ip editors who add large amounts of useful text (one mustn't suggest they are returning banned users, as they get cross) and a larger number who make rare but often very useful edits to things they come across, but these are the exceptions. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt many frequent IPs are ban evading editors & no doubt there is & always will be many socks among us. If they're being productive, I've no problem with that. Just don't wanna seem'em running for administrator or arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the above represents a false dichotomy. Good writing is important and I hope valued by most people on this project; I for one value it highly and have said so in the past. Good sourcing is also important, especially when living persons are concerned. I don't see anything incompatible in valuing good writing and insisting that it be based on equally good sourcing, and I think most editors would readily agree. We're a widely-read project, much more so than in 2003, and we owe that to our readers. We also have to consider who our readers are. Berig (talk · contribs), did you ever read Template:Lang#Rationale? What do you think of it, and who do you think you're writing for? Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wouldn't all of your frustration evaporate if you interpreted clean-up tags as what they are: a neutral notice to other editors about outstanding tasks, not a attack on your writing skills? It's not that hard to look up ISO language codes (they're usually in {{Infobox language}}, for example) but if you don't fancy it, don't do it. The magic of this whole endeavour is that someone else will just come along and fix it later. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Only if we retain content contributors ahead of wiki-police/-lawyers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Except it's the same group of people. The people who raise concerns about content contributors are other content contributors. For proof, just scroll up and read this thread. The folks raising concerns about Gerda/Louis's content contributions are all content contributors themselves. The folks defending are also content contributors. This entire discussion is a discussion amongst content contributors. As they all are. You rarely see, e.g., a bunch of template coders raising concerns about whether an article meets V or NPOV. I think more often, content contributors are policing non-content contributors, e.g. writers complaining about what template coders are doing, than the other way around. Levivich 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Would that it were, but it's not. It's like the admins we have who we ask to fix issues on the main page, a large number of those who do aren't content contributors really. This project is slowly being overcome by the likes of those users who simply contribute to AN/ANI and other drama areas. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this section on the general nature of our editor base is not really of relevance to the discussion at hand and indeed might be a distraction from it. Suggest CATTT. ——Serial 16:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But I commented, GoodDay  :( ——Serial 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Thank you Gerda Arendt for responding and understanding the concern of many editors. WP:PROXYING can be discussed further at RFC, however this discussion can be closed out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Head for closure

    Are we done here now? It's evident there's a spectrum of interpretation of WP:PROXYING, LouisAlain has been banned at de.wiki, Gerda is going to work harder on more reliable sources for BLPs she creates. Changes to WP:PROXYING need a much wider audience, probably an RFC, but it seems clear it's required. Anything else for this forum? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Brown asked for some sort of acknowledgment from Gerda, which hasn’t happened AFAIK. I would also feel better about closing this thread if we had some acknowledgement that goes the opposite direction of her earlier statement that “a few admins representing the community won’t stop me”. I understand Gerda had a busy day, but it would be helpful to hear from her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Short statement for now (as I have a busy day again): It will not happen again, LouisAlain using a sandbox, others (such as myself) reviewing it and publishing it taking responsibility. This was a concept earlier in the AN thread, and I regret that I didn't support it. I am sorry to have caused so many people so much trouble by trying to help a friend. Thanks to you and others for advice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good enough for me. Gerda is a known quantity around here, and an asset. I don't see any purpose from dragging this out any longer. It was a mistake, she admits it was a mistake, she has earned my trust over the years enough that I take her at her word that she will refrain from directly proxy editing again. This event alone is more incentive than sanction, and given the circumstances, a sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. IMHO, we can close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This relieves all concerns from my side. We should probably discuss a clarification for WP:PROXYING, whichever direction into, but independently of this specific ban, and not at this noticeboard. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the huge, partially heated discussion, for taking the concerns to heart and for providing a clear statement. Sorry for any unnecessary hassle caused by this discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User with 348k+ edits blocked for copyvio

    I have indefinitely partially blocked User:Werldwayd, who has over 348,000+ edits and 290,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations; they were legitimately warned 13 times since 2009 before I blocked them today; more background can be seen at User talk:Werldwayd#Blocked. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd, which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet- when it is, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the mountain of edits. Given my previous posting here on the matter of dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the communities eyes are on it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest starting with their ~1,000 most edited pages, which account for ~89,000 of those edits. BD2412 T 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh. I mean I agree with the block but still, sheesh. One of the project's most prolific editors and yes, you're quite right, a lot of copyright violations in their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 22:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch, Moneytrees. CCI is a depressing place when you look at the backlog, and even after going through a fair few articles in two cases, I'd barely made a dent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to diminish the problem, but Wikipedia falls within the DMCA safe harbor (in the U.S., at least), so the project faces no immediate legal jeopardy over copyvios. BD2412 T 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does a remediation page of some form make sense? Yesterday, there was a similar issue with pages created by an SPI OlympicSport being deleted en-masse. Though that one was not copyvio. I was thinking, if we draftify these pages and then have a central repository / page of all articles that have been draftified, categorized by some logical buckets -- editors who might be interested can work on repairing the articles and bring them back to the mainspace? I have seen some projects have a 'required articles' section, I envision this remediation page being no different. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are pages that were created by User:Werldwayd that were not heavily edited by others that would make sense for those pages. BD2412 T 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ktin What would probably be most effective if a project-wide drive like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which successfully completed the then largest CCI ever within a few days short of a year. I could get to making a page for WerldWayd, but won't be able to for at least another month (too much real life work). Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. This is what I was looking for, but, rather than a page just for Blofeld or for Weldwayd or for OlympicSport, I was thinking of a page where we have all articles that have been moved to some sort of a bin (e.g. Draft) and is looking for volunteers to examine and move back to mainspace. This has to be driven almost as a project by itself. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2021 Arbitration Committee elections: nominations now open

    Somehow, it is already that time of year again. Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections. The nomination phase will end at 23:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC). Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Often considered running, but no. Not giving up any personal info, to do it. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really need to give up personal info unless you have an account you'd need to disclose. You can sign the NDA with your Wikipedia username. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, Footnote A from the nomination page does say "Provide contact and identification information", though the Access to nonpublic personal data policy does not appear to require any ID info. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good catch. I've removed the and identification part to align with what the policy currently says. (Regarding contact information, all that is required is an email address, and many ArbCom members simply create separate email addresses for Wikipedia-related work.) Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps best to consider an RfA. Better to be an administrator first, rather then go directly to being an arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You would certainly provide an interesting perspective, I don't know if anyone has ever been elected to the Arbitration committee after being the named party in an arbitration case.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Also, this year there are eight vacant seats: see WP:ACE2021#Vacant seats for more details. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're thinking of running you might be interested in my thoughts on what the job entails and questions to consider before running. As it says there I am happy to privately (or publicly) talk to anyone who is considering a run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Steady stream of emails" from editors wanting to be un-banned? That just ended my ambitions. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby nominate myself for another year of not being on ArbCom. BD2412 T 04:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My only observation is imagine the amount of work the job entails and double it. Or triple it? Ten times? Oh, and do not expect to get barnstars. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, what you say here doesn't match my experience or what I wrote in the link above. At most times an arb can stay abreast with 5-7 hours of work a week. I expect anyone the community would elect is already spending more than that on Wikipedia now. And while I haven't received any barnstars in general there is more thanks than opprobrium sent my way for my arb work. Now as the essay says it's not all roses but it's also not been unceasing misery either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the sort of chap who'd probably unblock Kumioko as "time served, better to keep them inside the tent pissing out than vice versa" and would have strongly opposed desysopping Kudpung and RexxS, so needless to say I'm completely unsuitable material to be an arb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If the only people who ever run all share exactly the same mindset, will anything ever change? Primefac (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: It's not those things that would lose you the election: many people agreed with you/ disagreed with the committee wrt Kuds and Rex. And while Kumiokio might appear more difficult, in wiki-years it was a century ago, with so much new blood in the community that enough people would probably not care like some of the old workhorses might. No, I doubt if they'd hurt you election chances.
    What would kill your Arb-run stone dead this year are the frankly bizarre events of last year's Electoal Commission election, in which the simple fact of having to sign a confidentiality agreement resulted in your your candidature descending into farce; your behaviour was described by User:Swarm as bordering on trolling ([6]) and by User:Ealdgyth as wasting people's time ([7]). You then proceeded to claim that it was all a waste of, actually, your time, blanking the discussion ([8]) and edit-warring with an arb clerk who reverted you ([9]).
    And this was just the electoral commission. You run for arb com, they'll hold the front page at WPO ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, next year you'll probably be fine... ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, I'd forgotten about that, but that's a good reason as well. (I declined an offer to serve in this year's Electoral Commission for the same reason). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Zemmour talk page: Abnormal and biased closure

    Emigré55, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass before you're blocked for egregious waste of the community's time. I will put a warning on Emigré's page also. Bishonen | tålk 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I think the closure of this chapter [1] is abnormal for several reasons:
    1/ Discussions continued, with several new opinions, by new contributors also such as Guarapiranga, and new issues raised in recent days.
    2/ The reason given for the closure, a "consensus on ..." is twice incorrect:

    2.1 On the one hand, this RfC was intended to gather comments on the qualification of Zemmour, NOT on the alternative use of the qualification far right versus right wing
    2.2 On the other hand, the initiator of the RfC was himself in favour of a double qualification, and I agreed with this opinion. So if there is consensus it is on this point, NOT on the withdrawal of the right wing qualification

    3/ But above all, the withdrawal of the qualification is contrary on the one hand to the sources, and therefore to WP:BALANCE, and on the other hand and especially to WP:NPOV.
    4/ And the last comment I made, here, [[10]] which has never been answered, addressed the subject.
    The question, which was thus introduced in this RfC, with the conclusion drawn by this closure which rules "ultra petita", with a closing summary more inaccurate and incomplete, constitute a diversion of procedures, so as not to apply the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on the neutrality of point of view.
    Dual qualification should therefore be maintained in the lead.
    --Emigré55 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Emigré55: Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you are supposed to reach out to the closing editor before going to WP:AN. ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: Apologies if I did something wrong. I simply followed advice I got from JBchrch in a previous discussion, here, [[11]].
    Maybe I got it wrong, but never intended to do wrong of course.
    I propose to resolve the issue in a friendly manner, so that to promptly close then the thread at ANI. --Emigré55 (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emigré55: Very well.
    1. It sounds like you're saying I closed the RfC too early as there was still some comments coming in. I believe it had more than enough thorough discussion that had reached a definite conclusion at the time of my close. This was primarily evidenced by a general agreement amongst a majority of editors that preferred to include "far-right."
    2.1 The dispute may have started off on just whether or not to include "far-right", but that question is immediately relevant to whether or not to also include "right-wing", and as such, much of the discussion the RfC received was about just that. Several editors voiced their opinions that "right-wing" should not be included and "far-right" should.
    2.2 You and the RfC nominator alone do make the consensuses on Wikipedia. The nominator specifically does not have any special weight. There was a lot more discussion from other experienced editors just like yourselves, and I evaluated that in addition to your two's comments.
    3. "Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself."
    4. My close was not ultra petita, it was well within the scope of the discourse that occurred. There was no diversion of closing procedures, and all Wikipedia policies, especially neutral point of view, were considered in the weight of the arguments made. ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emigré55 and FormalDude: My apologies to both of you for forgetting that step in my advice. JBchrch talk 19:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imho, you forget WP:OTHERCONTENT, which also states that "When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view(...) ".
    Hence, pretending there is a consensus towards eliminating the other qualifications used by other numerous media, as duly cited in refs, would clearly go over this rule and would be a crystal clear breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.
    Consensus not here, and not to be used to circumvent rules, and in particular NPOV. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, editors did consider those policies. I think the consensus was that "far right" is the correct, NPOV, description for Monsieur Zammour according to the reliable sources, and that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "editors did consider those policies": I is not possible, as WP:OTHERCONTENT comment was introduced 10 days after the thread was open, way after all comments, and there was only one comment after it (on the fact that "far right" is a loaded term) before the thread was abruptly closed on November 4th;
    • "it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right": it was never discussed "NOT" to describe him as far right. But in as much as not "to describe him as far right would be NPOV", you then cannot deny that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as "right wing", or other many qualificatives used by numerous sources which do not call him far right (precisely because the term is loaded, and all the more since there are numerous sources, as mentioned, which do not call him far right).--Emigré55 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTHERCONTENT is part of an essay, not a policy. NPOV/BALANCE is policy, and I agree with S Marshall that the participating editors did take those into account. In addition, of course it is possible to adhere to a policy, guideline, or essay in a discussion, even if it has not been mentioned explicitly – saying that it isn't possible for editors to have considered OTHERCONTENT until it was explicitly mentioned is a fallacy. Besides, you made that comment on 31 October, and the RfC was closed on 4 November. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from the RFC nominator: I consider this to have gone on more than long enough. I hereby detail the process which led to the RFC (and its two sister RFCs) in the first place: 1° I added sourced information copied and translated from the French version of the article. (in September) 2° This was partly reverted and partly modified. 3° I realised this (in October) so began discussing it on the subject talk page. 4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus so I brought it to RFC 5° The initial RFC was considered insufficiently specific so I closed it and opened three others for three specific issues, of which this is the second. 6° And now we’re here. By the way, the first sister RFC is still active while the third has just been replaced with a reworded version. Munci (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is rightly pointed out in the above summary that, despite the (many) different RFCs or discussions at the said talk page, "4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus". The closed thread did not either. Trying to imply answers to others questions raised after discussions was closed is "ultra petita" or NPOV. So status quo: stil no clear consensus, notwithstanding the fact that consensus cannot go against rules, in any case (such as WP:OTHERCONTENT). --Emigré55 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Emigré55: There is a clear consensus to use only "far-right", and it doesn't go against any rules, certainly not WP:NPOV. ––Formal 🐧 talk 09:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude:Your conclusion is erroneous, when you use the term "only", which was btw neither in the question, nor in the debates or comments, hence also "ultra petita"; Plus, ONLY calling him so goes clearly against WP:BALANCE (as duly sourced), hence against WP:NPOV.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me to name and quote each person that argued for only "far-right" specifically? ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    High Guardian Spice

    Content dispute, not a matter for AN. Sandstein 08:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    There's quite a bit of debate over what constitutes a reliable source for post-release reviews of the show. It's possible Historyday01 wants to keep the reviews skewed positive by discrediting sources that review it poorly. It's also possible that they are right about what constitutes a reliable source for reviews of content. They definitely have a potential motive to want to keep the reviews positive, so I think, at this point, it would be a good idea for an admin to take a look at the sources cited, previously and currently, and clarify what a reliable source of reviews is to prevent any potential warring. Lobuttomize (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lobuttomize, Historyday01's removal of a "Know Your Meme" citation appears to be fine, as there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that it is a generally unreliable source (WP:KNOWYOURMEME, red table entry). Eidako's citation of a self-published source is problematic; I have reverted it and informed the user about the problem. If there is general doubt about the reliability of a citation, you may like to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. If there is edit warring after a warning, a report can be created at the edit-warring noticeboard. To not let the situation get to this point, Wikipedia offers the following advice:
    Creating a thread at the Administrators' Noticeboard is a final step if everything fails. Your question and my answer are probably more suitable for the Teahouse, where editors can ask all kinds of questions including how to deal with a specific situation. I thus recommend that someone closes this section.
    Best regards,
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are not sure if a source is "reliable" or not, go to WP:RSN and use the search feature for the domain name. If there has been a discussion on it, it will show up in the results. That is always a good first step, for if it has had discussion and the outcome was clear, you question is answered. You can always start a new discussion if you have a domain you aren't sure about. But ToBeFree sums it up, this is the last resort. We do NOT decide content at WP:AN, we deal with problems and right now, you can deal with your own problem. If there ever is a behavioral problem, the correct board is actually WP:ANI not WP:AN, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lobuttomize, Sigh. I have said time and again, that I am willing to cite negative reliable sources and reviews, it is just that I have not come across such reviews. The sites which have been cited for negative reviews have been from unreliable sources from what I can tell, up to this point. That's my only comment on this matter. I have no vested interest in keeping reviews positive, I only want to page to be neutral and use the best sources available, which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's guidelines. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspicious edits made by User:Ahmadyarpk

    Can someone more technically-minded please look into the edits made by User:Ahmadyarpk? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but it looks like he or she is editing the articles of closed colleges and universities to (a) claim that they're now open and (b) add "new" URLs for the institutional websites that are at best incomplete and confusing. Bluntly, I suspect that this editor may be involved in phishing or other nefarious activity. ElKevbo (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, need to ban this guy. Obvious scam is obvious. First off, all the websites he adds are .ORG sites, but were these legit USA sites they would be .EDU. I looked at some of the domain registries, and they are registered to PSI-USA, which despite the name is a German company notorious for use by Russian fraudsters. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked per the now-suppressed statement earlier that they were here for SEO purposes, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oldfart404

    User has been unblocked. I don't think this should set any sort of precedent as far as whether to default to a block/no block situation in the future, but if they do pop up WP:RFCN exists to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I blocked Oldfart404 (talk · contribs) for having the word "fart" in their username. They have made an impassioned defence of their username as being inoffensive, and I'm minded to accept it. However, I don't want to make a precedent for "fart" in usernames being acceptable in general, just that "old fart" may be accepted as inoffensive in British English, so I thought I'd note it here. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Personally I think the username is perfectly fine. I don't think the word "fart" is at all offensive (perhaps only slightly uncouth, which I don't think is an issue). Indeed, in the UK an "old fart" tends to refer to an older, out-of-touch person. As a self-label I personally think it's fine. — Czello 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It could be a regional difference but as an irishman, "old fart" here is equivalent to "old fogey", it's not really meant to be puerile or offensive. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with the username. I'm an old fart too. -Roxy the farty dog. wooF 10:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I think the username is fine. There is nothing wrong with fart.CycoMa (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) About half of the old guys I've known in my life have referred to themselves as "old farts" at some point (I am from Michigan). I've never seen anybody treat it as offensive. jp×g 10:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names to decide in such marginal cases. FWIW I also thought that "old fart" was common term for "older, out-of-touch person". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Oldfart here. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Providing restrictions on creating "Ghazwah Al-Hind"

    I can't understand why I am being prevented from creating the page titled "Ghazwah Al-Hind". I've tried saving my edits twice, but I'm not being allowed to save my edits. The reason being shown, is that the entry of this page related to the same or close topic has already been made. I searched and found that the similar title "Ghazwa-e-Hind" is associated with the page Indian reunification. But that page politically points to the reunion of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, after 1947 partition. But "Ghazwah Al-Hind" is a hadithic prophecy uttered by the Prophet Muhammad, which indicates the victory of the Muslims in Indian subcontinent through a war. There is a considerable difference between the two, and if the article itself contains an entry of "Ghazwah Al-Hind", it is completely irrational and different. Note that Bengali, Urdu and Arabic Wikipedias also have separate articles on this topic, so why this topic has been entered in another article in English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki N Islam (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wiki N Islam: all titles containing "Ghazwae Hind" or varaitions of that title were blacklisted due to years of persistent sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6 for example), and therefore can only be created by template editors or admins. If you want to create an article on this topic your best way forward would be to make it in draft space, then an admin can move it to article space when it's finished and accepted. I think that an article on this topic has already been deleted once before though: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind, and went through a recent deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June_9#Hadith_of_Ghazwa-e-Hind? You'll want to address the concerns in those discussions in any new article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @163.1.15.238: OK, I understand. Thanks for your kind suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki N Islam (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass killings under communist regimes

    There is a content dispute concerning Mass killings under communist regimes that I am trying to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Many of the regimes in question were or are in Eastern Europe as normally defined, and the article talk page carries a note that it is subject to Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals have already received notice of discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals and I are in agreement that the dispute may take longer than two or three weeks to resolve. I am trying to focus on content and to figure out how to let the community decide on the structure of the article in accordance with neutral point of view and reliable sources.

    Another editor brought to my attention that they were canvassed by one of the principals. I don't know what the purpose of drawing additional editors into the dispute is, because it will either be resolved by one or more RFCs, or it will not be resolved in spite of one or more RFCs, but I have already said that I do not intend to conduct a mass discussion, and I will abandon the DRN if necessary. That won't help the editors, because that will almost certainly end up either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement, which will probably sanction some of the editors and let the survivors finish working on the contentious article.

    I am only requesting two or four admin eyes on the case, and no action at this time, because I think that the community would prefer a resolution that doesn't involve mass banning of editors due to a dispute over communism. I am about to post another moderator statement to try to make some slow progress. Thank you for any attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor who has been discussing the article on its talk page has said that maybe it should be nominated for deletion. First, I understand and have stated at DRN that an AFD takes precedence over all other content dispute resolution vehicles, so if it is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold. Second, if it is nominated for deletion, I expect that the AFD will also be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only say, Robert, that you are very brave to take this on. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the article and talk page to my watchlist, and I've been keeping tabs on the discussion. @Robert McClenon: feel free to report any issues you see on my talk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It appears that they are going to argue at length about how to do the arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stephensuleeman, RIP

    Our colleague User:Stephensuleeman has, sadly, died (reported here: [12]); please lock their user page as specified at WP:DWG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I have the right?

    This is a content dispute with no immediate need for administrative intervention. Please use the article's talk page. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello,

    I would like to introduce this change [13]. The Algerian government via its minister officially gave an assessment of the number of deaths during the sand war, assessment that I wanted to add to the article. I had used a source of the declaration from an Algerian newspaper, reverted by User:M.Bitton [14], so I brought a source from the official Algerian press agency [15], reverted too. Is my modification legitimate or the Algerian government is not a reliable source? I am asking here for your opinion because I feel that my freedom to modify is restricted. Thanks all. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was reverted because there is nothing "official" about history and as I said to you in the edit summary, that infobox was discussed on the talk page that I invited you to read and that you chose to ignore.
    information Note: Now that you brought this to ANI, I would like the admins to have a look at your editing history (which speaks for itself), also noting that you do this every time you get a longish block on fr.wp. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid making judgments too quickly this is not the first time today and I am starting to get seriously annoyed.
    The last message on the talk page dates from 2018. [16]
    The articles are from August 2021. [17]
    Nothing official? What could be more official than the Algerian government to give these data?
    I think there is a serious problem, on each article that I intervene in months apart, you go behind by reverting for wrong reasons[18], and after you end up accepting by changing the location according to your own criteria [19], do you have a special status on Wikipedia or is it a personal approach?
    You cancel a modification then you have to insist that you leave it while its author is a specialist but only where you want to put it.
    When I intervene to explain that the sentence does not conform to the source, you revert, I initiate a debate, you answer me with a personal attack, without answering the subject. [20]
    It is very problematic, there is a certain aggressiveness which will not help anything, I try to stay calm personally but I feel the impression that you are forcing yourself to control certain articles by using wikipedia to block certain modifications which seem particularly to bother you. Are you a super user?
    You talk a lot about wiki fr, I've never seen you there yet it's strange, I wonder if you have another nickname on wiki fr?
    Thanks. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you ignored what it says right at the top of this page, including the part in red, is telling. You can say that again: there is a massive problem with your edits and your cross wiki nationalist POV pushing. The reliable sources cannot be trumped by a what is said in a newspaper in a middle of verbal war of two countries with no diplomatic ties. The previous discussion where you made all kind of baseless statements before abandoning it is there (I'd have to be crazy to entertain, yet again, another time wasting exercises of yours). I watch fr.wiki for a laugh, but most important of all, to make sure that those who turned some of its articles into a cesspit won't be able to do the same thing here. Think what you want. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought, you are trying to explain your revert through personal interpretations. So, you judge what is right or wrong ?
    There is a real problem, we are absolutely no longer in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is very dangerous for the neutrality of the articles.
    You are confirming that you have withdrawn official and sourced information on the basis of personal interpretations.
    I think there is a serious problem with WP: NPOV.
    For information, the request was not against you, I wanted to know if my approach was correct, and if not, how could it be solved.
    If it was against you, from the start I would have mentioned the problems with the article pastilla, namely the non-respect of the Bouhlila source and your reaction to my opening a talk page dialogue.
    However, your scandalous personal attacks are intolerable and suggest that the problem is deeper. Disagreements cannot justify disrespect. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SegoviaKazar To answer your question, the Algerian government is a primary source, and it is not an independent source with regard to a conflict it is involved in. Unless that information is independently published elsewhere, it's best not to include it. WMSR (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KingdomHearts25‎ possible compromised account

    Hello. I came across User:KingdomHearts25 while looking through Category:All orphaned articles. I came across Revengers Tragedy (song) which I suspected was a hoax, so I sent it to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revengers Tragedy (song). As I suspected this was a hoax, I thought it would be a good idea to see if this user has made any more hoaxes. However, I noticed the current revision of their userpage looks like to be spam text. This user has been posting what looks like spam on their userpage since October 2020, including today (November 8th). Leading up to October 2020, this user had been making edits that look constructive. However, from October 2020 onwards, the only edits are the spam text to this userpage. Therefore, I think this user account is possibly compromised. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revengers Tragedy is not a hoax, please check it out before commenting . And yes, I have been using my userpage to make notes relating to creative projects I am involved as I like timestamps on what I add and Apple Notes, for instance, does not allow me to do so. Too busy to regularly edit Wikipedia, so not making too many "constructive" edits at the moment. My current IP, which I can always prove to anyone at any point, will match up with the user location (city, state) previously present on my userpage and I am always up for any possible tests that you may have to prove my authenticity, such as knowledge on articles majorly edited by me in the past (eg. Backstreet Boys discography). Cheers. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KingdomHearts25: Wikipedia is not a free web host. You cannot use your user page as a notepad unrelated to the project's goals. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a hoax, but the article appears to be inaccurate, so we end up at the same place. The article Revengers Tragedy (album) already exists for the album, and there doesn't appear to be a song of the same name. So this can be safely deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me attack

    User:Кепреч has been blocked by HJ Mitchell — curiousGolden call me maybe? 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kyivstar vandal again putting up a vandal photo. Please remove the photo, also from the commons, and block this range. thanks --Jphwra (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference to admins, I believe Jphwra is talking about User:Кепреч's edit here. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 12:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

    Moved to ANI. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems more like an ANI matter rather than AN, so I'd suggest taking it there (and don't forget to notify the user you're reporting on their talk page). Cheers. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 17:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Egaftrawefewg

    Hi. I would like to highlight the editions of User:Egaftrawefewg. In this edition [21], [22] and again [23] he posted a fake photo [24]. And He did the same in the article List of tallest buildings in PolandTokyotown8 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tokyotown8, this is not the right venue for this. Please take this to WP:ANI and notify the user you're reporting on their talk page. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had noticed this happening. Wasn't sure if it was malicious or just some kind of incompetence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

    Page protected for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    We have this Warsaw camp hoax edit-warring ongoing again. Last time I blocked the users, and got multiple suggestions of an immediate desysop, had a medical emergency which took me weeks to recover, and who cares that ArbCom fully agreed with me. I am not going to take any action again here, but we need an admin to stop it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you note that this user [25] should not have been editing that article at all due to the 500/30 restrictions Ymblanter?[26] I hope you are not questioning the enforcement of the ArbCom restrictions now. Do you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that you reverted a long-term user in good standing, who is perfectly entitled to edit the article. It is also not difficult to look at the edit history of the article and see very clearly that there is no consensus for removal of this material. Just somebody, based on the previous experience, is sure they are not going to be blocked for edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that “user in good standing” (sic) was tag teaming/edit warring together with a red linked account that doesn’t meet the 500/30 restriction imposed on this topic by ArbCom. JFC. We JUST went through the whole Esoterix/Icewhiz sock thing like a couple weeks ago. Yet here we are back again with some users or red linked accounts trying to “protect” Icewhiz’s “legacy” on Wikipedia, and here we are again with some admins bending over to enable them. Maybe the reason this keeps happening is because there’s absolutely NO CONSENSUS for inclusion of this piece of trolling by Icewhiz in the list and the only reason it keeps coming back is because Icewhiz’s old buddies from the ArbCom case days keep restoring it despite consensus and trigger happy admins protect them. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the edit summary[27] the edit warring editor in good standing wasn’t aware of the fact that the editor in question wasn’t permitted to update that subject. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you would have to discuss with her before reverting. It is still edit-warring, exagerrating by tag-teaming. Exactly as last time. Precisely the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if what you are doing there is not tag-teaming then I do not know what is tag-teaming.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What? @Ymblanter - Perhaps I should have insisted on apologies back then. (do you know what I’m talking about or you want a diff?) I learned my lesson now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about an essay page? An administrator is needed to stop experienced editors from fighting over the content of an essay? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please stop; consider gaining consensus for inclusion, as you'd do with WP:ONUS for articles." Done? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree - Breaking news! What a surprise! brand new account arrives to revert to Icewhiz’s version -->[28] So what are we going to do about this account popping up and breaking 500/30 restriction? @Ymblanter? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, of all administratiors, are you asking ME? You perfectly know that I can not do anything related to this page now without being dragged to ArbCom, and being dragged to ArbCom is not my first priority.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you brought this here. I’m going to enforce ArbCom remedy that can be seen here -->[29] and reads:
    All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring
    @Ymblanter if you have anything against me enforcing that remedy say it now please - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A dozen of users in good standing repeatedly restored the piece, because, well, there is no consensus to remove it to start with. However, the piece is currently not in the article, and we need a protection so that at least if it gets restored it gets restored by an editor in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella that language is no longer in effect. The current language is The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. I have no comment at this time about the dispute but felt it important to note the current language. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't we get rid of these problems if the page in question was simply deleted? What purpose does it serve (any yes, I've read the 2015 deletion discussion and find the reasons for keeping far from persuasive)? I really can't be bothered with nominating it for deletion myself, but would support anyone else who did so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is always an option, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page fully protected for two weeks after further reverts; possible responses to this action are finding something else to do or participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Can someone close this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nur-Sultan Astana

    The move of the article a year ago, when the city was renamed after the longtime dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, should have never taken place, as English Media and other sources always used and still continue to use the name Astana more commonly. As it was proven on the article's talk page by this source as well as a Google Trends reference:

    An exclusionary search using Google Scholar by year (as of 10 Oct 2021)
    Date range Both A and N-S Astana
    only     		Nur-Sultan
    only     		% both % A only % N-S only
    2020 1,760 6,450 3,800 14.7% 53.7% 31.6%
    2021 1,070 3,590 2,810 14.3% 48.1% 37.6%

    WP:COMMONNAME Was applied in similar situations with renamings, which took place in India, like Prayagraj or Ayodhya (district) in the past years, where the articles were NOT renamed because English sources still use the old names, but it is not applied with Nur-Sultan.

    Numerous attempts were made to correct the wrong on the talk page, but noone ever provided a source that Nur-Sultan Was the common name and noone corrected the mistake and moved the name back to Astana.

    Can someone pls help correcting it?

    --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You would need to open a RM at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He actually did, twice, followed by a move review I'm about to close. At this point, he should be blocked for disruption and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. No such user (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME + WP:NAMECHANGES both support my argumentation, that the article shoulda never been renamed as „Nursultan“. Common name, it's clear why, Nursultan never was the common name and Namechanges, because of:
    „If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well.
    --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-ban proposal

    Recently, Tecumseh*1301 has opened:

    I'd say that enough is enough, and propose topic ban of Tecumseh*1301 from the topic of Nur-Sultan/Astana, broadly construed. No such user (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the comments below, I would support a ban from all discussions related to article moves.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tecumseh*1301's other fixation is wanting to moving the article on Allahabad to "Prayagraj".English. And he has done this on many languages, for example: Azerbaijani, Hebrew (wanting אללהאבאד changed to פראיאגראי), Latvian, Russian (wanting Аллахабад changed to Праяградж), Scots – see his global contributions. An argument he/she used in English Wikipedia in the most recent Allahabad/Prayagraj move discussion was that since Astana was moved to Nur-Sultan, Allahabad should be moved to Prayagraj. After the failure of the last attempt to move Allahabad (which also had a move review), he/she then launched the Nur-Sultan/Astana RM. I tried to explain to him how to do evidence – see User talk:Tecumseh*1301#How to do evidence in Wikipedia move discussions, but I do not think he/she really understands. I do not think he/she is good at reading and writing English. Also difficult stuff, like doing research and weighing evidence in English, seems too difficult for him/her.
    I do not think topic banning him/her from Nur-Sultan/Astana will address the real problem, which is that he/she desperately wants to move Allahabad to Prayagraj, and having failed on English-language Wikipedia he/she wanted to try a WP:RM on another city and picked Nur-Sultan/Astana. He/she is trying to get Drvengrad changed to Küstendorf on Spanish and Swedish Wikipedias and on Wikidata.Global contributions 6 Nov 2021 A better approach would be to topic ban him/her from trying to change the names of places. I have no idea whether you would be able to explain such a topic ban to him/her such that he/she understood.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Toddy1 here. The disruptive behaviour seems to expand much further beyond Nur-Sultan/Astana and the common part of all the disruption is Tecumseh*1301's attempts to change place names. A topic ban from initiating RMs/Move Reviews about place names would be a more helpful solution in my opinion. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that the Nur-Sultan related disruptions are the direct follow-up of their opinions about a place-name in India -- a topic which should fall under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan discretionary sanctions. As a result, I don't think a topic-ban will suffice. Either they can stop disruption now, or they can get a full block. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To a certain extent, there are enough objections to Wikipedia article-name changes specifically for places in India that those tend to take longer than article-name changes of places in other countries. I'm not saying it's good or bad or right or wrong, it simply is. At Talk:Nur-Sultan, there was an argument for titling the article Nur-Sultan: newspapers, etc. generally use Nur-Sultan. Also, the existence of organizations such as the Astana Cycling Team that still use the old name is not considered a reason to not move the city article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user also badgered myself [33], SmokeyJoe [34], and Alaich Emis [35] about the Nur-Sultan matter, and shows no signs of dropping the stick. I agree that the problem centers less on this particular city and more on moves in general, and I would support, at minimum, a topic ban from the page moving process (inc. RMs and MRs), broadly construed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are WP:COMMONNAME guidelines right? So, what gives anyone the right to not Stick to the guidelines? Noone ever has provided a source, that Nur-Sultan was the common Name. It is as simple as this. So why is noone moving the article back to it's original Name? Everybody is discussing anything, but not the core of this discussion, what is going on here?
    I have stopped the Allahabad/Prayagraj move attempt as soon as being presented with evidence, that Allahabad still is being used more frequently in English sources. Before that, I thought other arguments also play a role, because I knew of Ukrainian cities and Astana being renamed, I thought this would apply to Prayagraj as well. But this is not the case. To me, it is crazy. Sometimes the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines are applied, other times they are not. But the real strange behaviour is, when I ask if anyone can Provide a source, that shows, that Nur-Sultan Was the common Name, suddenly noone replies. I have lived in the USA a long time, I surely understand English very well User:Toddy1, thanks for suggesting, that I didnt. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe some time in the future another discussion on the article's name will be had and there will be consensus to move. At this time, the normal venues have been exhausted with no consensus and there needs to be a period of calm. There is usually no "trump card" argument on Wikipedia (only if one side points to something critically important like a BLP violation; from the policy viewpoint, nothing is critically important in this naming dispute, regardless of how strongly someone feels about the issue). You may very well be right, but there wasn't enough interest in the discussion and the move initiative did not garner sufficient support. It can be very hard to move pages sometimes. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN closure challenge for ASPI

    A recent non administrative closure for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entry on the reliable source noticeboard marked it as a marginally reliable source (wp:merl). Multiple editors including myself challenged this decision but our efforts to overturn it have so far been unsuccessful. The closer suggested we take this issue to the administrator’s noticeboard (wp:closechallenge) so I have brought the issue here

    These links provide the background information to the dispute. [36]

    [37]

    Pinging the editors who were involved in the post factum discussions. User:Tayi Arajakate, User:Horse Eye's Back,User:GretLomborg, User:Mikehawk10 Estnot (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse closure The discussion was open for over a month, and the closure summary accurately captures the general consensus. While many of the bolded votes seem to vacillate between two of the pre-selected options, the closer wisely (IMHO) avoids falling into the trap of vote counting, and does an excellent job of capturing the consensus of the points that were being made. If you ignore the bolded "votes", there is a pretty clear consensus, and the closing statement seems to represent it well. --Jayron32 15:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Aye, seems like an obvious agreement that this source can be used with in-text attribution & people consider it an useful source but for opinions not facts. Even if we go by strict head-counting, it seems like Option 2 would have won ("Unclear or additional considerations apply") and the actual arguments give a clear indication of what the "additional consideration" is. I think the problem here is that the 4-options scheme that these RfCs follow is a bit of a Procrustean bed which does not represent nuances like "useful but needs in-text attribution" well, leading to confusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Having read through the discussion, I agree with the closer's conclusions. Number 57 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    school

    Hello everyone, 205.237.30.142 is the IP in our school. Please don't block it forever. Could you please allow students to create an account even if the IP is currently blocked? Can you modify the block setting? Joe Pig (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Pig Students may create accounts at home, or can request them at WP:ACC. It is not uncommon for school computer networks to be blocked due to extensive vandalism by students. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Pig, unfortunately there was a regular pattern of people editing inappropriately. The good news is that anyone who creates an account (such as on their cell phone) can still edit even with this block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But our IP is blocked permanently in the French Wiktionnaire, it's not a good idea. Joe Pig (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is only for the English Wikipedia. If you have a concern or dispute with the French Wiktionnaire, you will have to discuss it on the appropriate board at wikt:fr:. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already talked about this there, they understand, but they don't agree. Joe Pig (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no way we can help you here with that. Sorry:( DMacks (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Y'all, immediate block

    ...for User:GFYCAT XXD, and revdeletion, etc. And maybe add those images to the blacklist. 207.229.101.47 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Vandalism on 2021 Nicaraguan General Election Page

    This is clearly a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please follow the instructions and steps at WP:DISPUTE. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Asaturn has repeatedly vandalized the 2021 Nicaraguan General Election page, adding or removing information without consensus. This has occurred over the past two days (at least while I have been involved), and he has been reverted by myself, Lucasdmca, Innisfree987, and NoonIcarus, in addition to Alsoriano97 expressing disapproval on the talk page of Asaturn removing multiple paragraphs of information that Alsorian had added. I'm requesting assistance here because I do not want to cause an edit war and argue in five paragraph essays on talk pages like Asaturn did over the past two days (something I used to do years ago that got me blocked). Bill Williams 02:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick view of the edit history of 2021 Nicaraguan general election shows me and my fellow editors attempting to improve the wording of the article, while Asaturn removed large sections of text or added wording that disagreed completely with the consensus (hence he was repeatedly reverted). He also attempted to start arguments of multiple paragraph length on the talk page, which I did not engage in for more than a message or two because I did not want to argue with someone behaving argumentatively. Then he proceeded to notify an uninvolved admin who topic banned me many months ago, and tell him that I was violating the topic ban, and state the same to a user involved in the dispute, even though my topic ban was lifted months ago, and only pertained to American and not Nicaraguan politics. Bill Williams 02:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the POV tag should be removed from the article. To add a POV tag require the editor to make "clear what the neutrality issue is" what wasn't done. Asaturn rationale to include the tag is not based on our policies, and it's pretty much based on some kind of conspiracy theory about "western media" and etc. Several WP:RS called the election a "show election" and that's what matters for us, not if the source is from "east or west". Second, this same editor "contaminated" the article's talk page with numerous political discussions and talk pages are not WP:FORUMS. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For proof of what Kacamata stated, see these edits made by Asaturn and some of the reversions of them: [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Bill Williams 03:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this goes against normal WP:TALK practice, but I have edited your comment in order to remove personal details, specifically related to the possible IP address of the individual. If an admin agrees this removal was proper, could you please rev-del? It should not affect the substance of your post, or weight of your evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah my bad, I suspected that might be personal info but I thought I could add it since he publicly edited the article. My apologies for the mistake. Bill Williams 04:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I thought about filing a request on the same issue, but I haven't had the time. If I may add, arguably the most troublesome issue with the edits is the repeated and unilateral removal of referenced content, which has included entire sections ([47][48][49][50][51]). I warned the user at least twice about this behavior ([52][53], to no avail. Considering this, along with the conflict with other editors and apparent unability to reach a consensus, apparently shows that admin involvement is needed. If needed, there's also a thread in the BLP noticeboard that dates back to 2019 involving Asaturn that might be of interest: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive278#Ro Khanna. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the info, your comment made me look further into the issue. Coincidentally, I edited the January 6 Capitol Riot article, which is about supporters of a President storming into the legislative building to support the overturning of election results where the aforementioned President lost (US), and Asaturn compared that [54] to nationwide protests against an authoritarian regime that was fraudulently reelected (Nicaragua). If this isn't communist propaganda (frequently utilized by RT News, which Asaturn is also an ardent defender of, or for example a Belarussian news network recently announced that they were accepting a Capitol rioter for political asylum) then I don't know what communist propaganda is, because this is the most clear cut case of it. Asaturn has repeatedly made accusations of pro-Western, pro-US, anti-Ortega and anti-communist agendas by editors, when I have nothing against his communist views, but his vandalism in support of them. I am relying on reliable sources (e.g. NYT and WaPo) while he is peddling conspiracy theories without any factual backing or sourcing. Bill Williams 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    this truly is a perfect example of why Bill is banned from editing political articles right now. Asaturn (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Bill if this isn't you accusing me of being a communist I don't know what point you were trying to make talking about RT and calling Nicaragua an authoritarian regime that I'm "also a defender of". Good grief. Asaturn (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have any problem with you being a communist. I am simply comparing your edits defending[55][56][57] a communist-ally propaganda outlet (RT news) and mentioning how you use their methods of propaganda (comparing the January 6 Capitol Riot to political protests when the Capitol Riot was a violent insurrection) and the fact that you are comparing it to the Nicaragua protests. Bill Williams 04:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another barrage of direct personal insults! ONCE AGAIN you are in flagrant violation of WP policy. This is totally unacceptable behavior. I have never once "defended" a country, "defended" a propaganda outlet, or "used methods of propaganda." My mention of Jan 6 was to show how the Capitol riot which killed 4 people was called an "attempted coup" while the Nicaragua riot that killed hundreds was called "a protest" as a demonstration of a violation of TONE and NPOV policy. This isn't your personal forum for political rants or insults, this is a neutral encyclopedia website. Asaturn (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    you "warned me" twice in a row as if they were separate occasions. this entire spectacle is ridiculous. all I've ever added to the article is context for the information presented, which any rational user would agree is a good improvement to the article. the only content I ever "removed" was bad faith edits and speculatory NPOV violations from users like @Bill Williams. If I removed anything else, it was accidental. I MOVED content from one part to the other, as the entire header was a redundant list of individuals arrested prior to the election. Trying to claim you've "warned me twice" AFTER you refused to participate in the NPOV discussion on the articles talk page is rather silly. this is the first time I've had an actual discussion on this charade and, as expected, it's in the context of "my" violations of WP rules, not yours or the other editors violations of NPOV or tone, not to mention @Bill Williams endless accusations that I'm "far left" and a "defender of the authoritarian communist regime" - and other personal insults (totally unacceptable behavior on this platform). Where are the admins on THESE violations??? Why am I singled out as some violator of rules when all I've tried to do is improve a totally garbage biased article??? Asaturn (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, you were warned by NoonIcarus, myself, and multiple other editors more than "twice in a row." Furthermore, you removed far more than "redundant" information, including at one point your removal of the entirety of the lead, leaving it with only a single sentence, or deleting an entire section that was multiple paragraphs long. Additionally, can you show a single time when I accused you of being "far left" or "defender of the authoritarian communist regime"? I simply stated, with factual evidence provided by reliable sources, that you were adding communist propaganda accusations that were politically motivated to hurt Ortega's opposition. Also, I am very confused as to what "personal insults" I have called you. I only stated what occurred, which is that you pushed propaganda, and that is not an insult but a basic description of the situation. Bill Williams 06:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire lead was redundant as the entirety of it was already included in the "controversy" section. If the issue was that it was "only one sentence," perhaps it needs to be re-written without copying and pasting another section into it? Your track record of insults is all over this page and in the very post I am currently replying to. I'm not going to waste more time with your bad faith argument here. This isn't a forum. Nothing I added to the article was "communist propaganda," it was literally additional context on the arrests from the already-cited articles. If you are obsessed with saying "pre-candidate was arrested" but not mentioning WHY they were arrested or WHO arrested them, and then adding an uncited claim that the president personally arrested them, you are the one violating the rules here. The additions I made were very clearly cited as "alleged." For the 6th or 7th time, please stop insulting me personally, it is totally unacceptable behavior. Asaturn (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that this matters, but the edits I made to Ro Khanna were endlessly reverted by users with IP addresses registered to the United States Capitol. I was trying to add context to a claim that he "doesn't accept PAC money" by linking to FEC filings for his PAC. If memory serves me correctly, users claimed that the Federal Elections Commission was not a reliable source, and continually removed the PAC citation. I gave up because if Ro Khanna's paid staffers really want to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform, and admins aren't going to stop them, I won't waste my time. This was over 2 years ago and completely irrelevant. If anything, it shows my track record of attempting to make good faith edits and being thwarted by obsessive NPOV violators who attempt to abuse the rules of Wikipedia to censor other editors. Asaturn (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I was already attempting to deal with this. I have multiple messages on these users' talk pages and on the talk section of the article, which they are refusing to engage in. Bill is currently banned from editing American political articles for this exact practice. He and others are accusing me of being some sort of "authoritarian communist" agent. I have clearly explained the NPOV issues in the talk page and on their user talk pages as well as in a COI notice board post. As I said in all of those places, I'm not familiar with the more advanced editing systems but all of these users are making accusations and not assuming good faith. There's no claim of a "conspiracy" from my end. The multiple issues with the article are clearly explained on the talk page. I thought we had reached consensus when these editors continued to wipe away my good faith edits and insert their own uncited opinions. This is ridiculous and a blatant attempt at badjacketing. Asaturn (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is going to be my fifth time stating this, if you ever read a single one of my responses to your rants, but I haven't been banned from editing American politics for eight months, and that is irrelevant to this dispute on Nicaraguan politics. Additionally, I have not, nor have others, made any accusations against you of being a "authoritarian communist agent." You are just a normal person with no ties to any communist government as far as I know. You are the one making unfounded accusations that I am pushing Western propaganda. Bill Williams 04:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at your above comment dude. This is ridiculous. You were banned for this and IMO you are violating that ban. Nothing I added to the article detracts from the factual nature. The removal of the info I added removes context to fit your preferred narrative and violates NPOV. I'm done here. Admins, choose an outcome please. Asaturn (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, can you read what I am saying for once. I was never "banned for this," only topic banned from editing American politics specifically, and that topic ban was ended eight months ago. You repeatedly accuse me of violating NPOV when I added reliably sourced information, and you removed it, and you were reverted not just by me but multiple other editors on numerous occasions. Bill Williams 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in bed without my glasses and I thought it said 2021 but it said 2020. So to clarify, you WERE banned from editing political articles, and you SHOULD be banned again since you clearly have learned nothing. You continue to insult me (calling me a "defender of an authoritarian regime" and other insults). This and your NPOV bad faith edits (claiming arrests "were so Ortega could win" without citation) and other tone violations are a clear cut case for your ban from editing at least the Nicaragua article. This is what this discussion should really be about. Like your uncited claims made in the article, there is simply zero evidence that I'm doing anything wrong. Asaturn (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have learned from my past mistakes, and did not revert you numerous times, instead letting other editors take care of your vandalism, while you repeatedly reverted myself and others. Once again, my claims are reliably sourced[58] and clearly state that "The outcome was never in doubt after his government jailed seven of the leading potential opposition candidates, clearing the field for Ortega to sweep to a fourth consecutive five-year term. With all government institutions firmly within Ortega’s grasp and the opposition exiled, jailed or in hiding, the 75-year-old leader eroded what hope remained the country could soon return to a democratic path" which backs up my claim and proves that you have not a single source backing yours up. Bill Williams 06:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a dubious claim: he had 5 opponents on the ballot and yet still managed to get 75% of the votes. If you have a source that can explain this, feel free to add it to the article. Adding opinion articles that are all one point of view while removing any that cast doubt on their claims violates NPOV. This is becoming a discussion that needs to take place on the talk page of the article itself. Asaturn (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asaturn has just [59] made yet another revert of another editor, this being the sixth[60][61][62][63][64] editor who Asaturn has reverted or been reverted by in just the past two days. Bill Williams 06:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill, please go find something else to do. As I mentioned in the comment, the revert was made without real explanation. The edit I made reverted the revert and the additional edit I made corrected the mistaken wording that was made in good faith. The original citation said "organization backed by..." I changed it to "organization affiliated with." This is in reference to Urnas Abiertas' claim of only 18.5% voter turnout. My citation adds credibility to the organization, as their association with Wilson Center means they receive US Congressional funding. This also shows they are associated with https://idea.int, a globally recognized elections observation organization. If you want to remove this context which lends credibility to the claim that election turnout was much lower, then by all means, be my guest. If you do this, do I then get to accuse you of being a communist sympathizer, as you have done to me for the past 2 days? Asaturn (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bill Williams: this is clearly a content dispute, so please stop calling edits WP:vandalism. Calling edits, even bad edits, vandalism when they clearly aren't is a personal attack i.e. something which will lead to you being blocked if repeated, and also discredits any complaint you have. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is referred to as vandalism when the edits are repeatedly removing or adding information that is opposed by all other consensus editors, especially considering he has reverted or been reverted six times. That is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Bill Williams 06:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bill Williams: It's WP:Edit warring. It's probably not vandalism. Calling it such if it's not vandalism is indeed a personal attack and so far you are the only editor who seems to have a clearly demonstrated need for a block. Edit warring is a serious problem, so frankly I have no idea why you would make a false accusation rather than concentrate on the actual problems with Asaturn's edits. It's just lame to repeatedly call stuff vandalism which isn't vandalism when you could actually describe the problems with the edits according to our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism can most certainly include blanking entire sections of an article [65][66]. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" considering he has been warned and reverted numerous times, this can be interpreted as malicious intent, and the fact that he is using unverified information (he cites no sources while my fellow editors and I do) and he uses original research[67]. Is there some definition of vandalism that I am missing? Bill Williams 07:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keys words malicious and without any regard to our core content policies. It seems clear that Asaturn is not doing anything maliciously. They have a different via as to how to achieve compliance with our content policies from you and other editors. They may be wrong on what their edits are achieving and if they're wrong that's a problem. it doesn't automatically turn their edits into vandalism though. Indeed a lot of the worse edits are made by editors in good faith with the attempt to improve Wikipedia and are clearly not vandalism but are incredibly harmful because the editor has allowed their POV to get in the way. I'd further note that even if Asaturn is right, if they keep edit warring they probably need to be blocked. (Although this could easily apply to anyone else in the edit warring albeit while it doesn't justify edit warring, in a WP:1AM situation it's often only the one who needs to be blocked.) But you've provided zero evidence that Asaturn isn't trying to improve Wikipedia, indeed all the evidence such as their own comments leads us to believe they think they are making encyclopaedic improvements. One more time, trying but failing doesn't turn their edits into vandalism. So please talk about the actual problems with their edits not made up ones. If they keep edit warring, then talk about that. If they are removing source content and adding content that is unsourced please talk about that. Discuss the actual problems with Asaturn's edits, not made up ones. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should look closely to 2021 Nicaraguan general election history, to its talk page and to Asaturn's editing history. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 07:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's why the above dispute is so silly. If Bill Williams wants people to look into Asaturn's editing history, they need to accurately explain to us what the problems with Asaturn's editing history. We're not the ones bringing the complaint, they are. So don't call stuff vandalism which doesn't seem to be. Instead, describe the actual problems with Asaturn's edits so we have an incentive to look in to it, don't call it vandalism when a cursory check suggests it isn't the case. Further that fact that this discussion had I think 25 replies from existing participants before anyone uninvolved had joined in isn't helping anything. (To be clear, this isn't really your fault Kacamata.) Such complaints are often closed with no action in part because no one can be bothered working out what the heck is going on. There's rarely any good reason for such lengthy back and forths between existing participants. Talk to each other somewhere else perhaps directly on your respective talk pages, or maybe just drop it. There is often no need to reply since whatever new comment the editor said should have already been sufficiently addressed in one of the earlier replies or just doesn't need to be addressed. E.g. this will probably be my last comment in this discussion at least until and unless someone else gets involved and says something new and I feel it's worth offering my view because I feel I've said enough. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly not sure why Bill hasn't already been banned after insulting me numerous times and even going so far as to doxx me (which was removed by another editor or admin). I have clearly demonstrated I am attempting to add good information to the article and follow NPOV guidelines. I'm new to editing so may make a few mistakes, but I'm not trying to spread "communist propaganda" or whatever. Asaturn (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not insulted you a single time, unless you can provide a single shred of evidence. Additionally, I never "doxxed" you, you literally edited on a public website called Wikipedia with your IP address, and I simply added one of its edits to this page because it provided evidence showing that you have been repeatedly reverted. Also, it is completely and utterly false to claim that you are "new to editing" considering you have had an account for 13 years and edited regularly for the past two. Bill Williams 07:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing a word here or there doesn't mean I'm an expert editor. I am still very much confused by how Wikipedia works, even if I did create an account 13 years ago. Asaturn (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asaturn: don't crow here. I haven't looked at your edits but if you've reverted against multiple other editors and no one in the discussion agrees with you but you keep reverting, you're very close to earning a block yourself, if you haven't already earned one. You need to achieve WP:consensus for your edits, and stop trying to force them in by edit warring. It doesn't matter if you think your edits are achieving policy compliance if you haven't been able to convince anyone else of that. As always if you cannot achieve consensus by discussion with existing editors, seek outside help somehow rather than just edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "don't crow." I asked for input on the talk page as you can see for yourself. Very few people participated. Bill did his usual insults and implied I was a communist agent. I have added neutral information to the page. As I said, I am new to editing so if I made a mistake it was not intentional. I am not "reverting everyone's edits." The example provided by Bill was a revert to a good faith edit I made that simply deleted it rather than correct it or replace it. I "reverted it" to bring the old text back so I could improve upon it (which I would assume even Bill would agree it is now improved as it lends credibility to the claims that voter turnout was only 18.5% not the 65% claimed by the Nicaraguan government). I apologize if whatever I said comes off as insulting, but I've been dealing with 4 or 5 people just endlessly deleting any good information I was attempting to add to the article. It's pretty ridiculous. Thanks for your time in looking into this dispute. Asaturn (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is now the seventh[68] and eight[69] editor in two days who has reverted or been reverted by Asaturn. If this is not vandalism Nil Einne, since Asaturn knows that many editors consider his work malicious, and during this very discussion in this noticeboard he continues to make said edits, then I don't know what vandalism is. I am concerned about this because [70] this page had 8,000 views yesterday and 15,000 the day before, meaning that hundreds of people view this page every hour, and it is significantly changing with every edit Asaturn makes. Bill Williams 07:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My changes are not very significant. I have mostly added more details and citations to support the information already present in the article. Asaturn (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asaturn is one of the worst cases of WP:BATTLEGROUND I've seen here on Wikipedia. Almost all their edits are an attempt to push their POV in articles and talk pages. This is pretty much their edit pattern on WP. They had a lot of conflicts in several other articles and their arguments are always the same: "western bias", "US propaganda" and things along these lines. I could present diffs, but I don't have time to do it, right now. However, any careful editor who look into their edits will see what I'm talking about. They pretty much destroyed 2021 Nicaraguan general election and its talk page. This article was good enough to make the MP (I know because I voted for it to make the MP) and Asaturn destroyed it, just to prove their point of view and this is not even the first time they do it. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a POV on the Nicaraguan election, I simply think the article itself pushes one western/US/Euro-centric POV without very good neutral sources cited. I have added plenty of information that are cited via verifiable facts which happen to support both the pro-Nicaraguan and pro-US points of view. Personally I have no stake in what happens in Nicaragua. I hope for peace, but beyond that, it's not my country and I don't live there. Asaturn (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like you thought that there were "western/US/Euro-centric POV" in several other articles before this one? This is pretty much all you do here on Wikipedia. You go from article to article trying to push your POV and saying that the article has a "western/US/Euro-centric POV". This article made the MP meaning that the article was evaluated by numerous experienced editors and published in the MP by a sysop. You tried to add YouTube as a source on the article, and then you claim that you "added plenty of information that are cited via verifiable facts". You were reverted by several editors. All this says a lot about "who's right and who's wrong" here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 07:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the citations in the article are from US-based and European-based news sources and most of them offer no citations or clarification. That being said, I was accused of vandalism even when I used those same citations... so it seems like the POV issue lies with everyone else, not me. I was not aware that a YouTube video published by the organization being cited (at https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/) was not a good source. I don't want to get into a political debate, but it's clear that some editors are attempting to push an agenda via this article. And since it keeps being brought up ("This is pretty much all you do here") - My talk page comments regarding RT was a question about the inconsistencies of labeling RT "government propaganda" but labeling PBS "public broadcasting." It was a question so I could better understand how sources and citations work on Wikipedia. I was never "defending" RT. Asaturn (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the talk page was empty when I started editing the article, so I'm not sure how I "destroyed the talk page" unless that was an accident and there was something there (but I don't see that in the history). Are you referring to the fact that I'm basically the only person contributing to the talk page? Asaturn (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He is referring to the fact that you filled up the talk page with over two dozen paragraphs of your rants, which included numerous instances of bolded wording, and some cases of all caps or enlarged font, basically implying that you were yelling through your computer at the dozen editors who disagreed with you. Bill Williams 07:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if what I was saying came off as yelling, I was simply applying emphasis per WP rules. It is frustrating to spend hours adding good information to an article only to have someone call you a communist agent spreading propaganda and then post their own paragraphs on talk pages and noticeboards implying you're vandalizing Wikipedia. My hope was that the emphasis would make it easier for users who think I'm a secret Ortega defender to get to the point. Hope you can understand. Asaturn (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the talk page on the article. I am trying to come to some consensus for adding context and verifiability to the "18.5% voter turnout" claim. The sources I added as citations were removed by you, so the claim is now in the article without any citation. This doesn't seem like a helpful edit IMO. Asaturn (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally have no source, while the "18.5%" turnout is sourced by [71], which is a reliable source [72] unless you can prove otherwise. And if you want to rid the article of that, contend with [73] which is also a reliable source. Bill Williams 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem confused. I never argued that UA is cited by a few news agencies. In fact, I'm the editor who added the metholodgy for the research used to come to the 18.5%. I also added a few more citations to IDEA.int (an international elections monitoring org) and Wilson Center (a DC think tank funded by US Congress) which add credibility to the claims made by UA! It's kind of confusing that you're both labeling me a "communist propagandist" while also saying I'm "vandalizing the article" by bolstering the claims of the organization that is directly challenging the official voter turnout number. Which is it??? Asaturn (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Bill, please stop replying to my replies that are made to other users. If you want to contribute to a discussion on the article, please take part in the discussion on the talk page. Replying to everything I post (even when it isn't directed at you) is getting really annoying and seems like bullying/harassment at this point. You are making me feel unwelcome. Asaturn (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mobile editor trouble

    Semi protected by MelanieN EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A major problem at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board is occurring. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism, Aspersions and calling my sister names User:Fred_Zepelin

    Hello everyone,

    I received an email today that a page Wheels (2014 film) I made years ago been suggested for speedy deletion even though it was voted keep years ago. I was new to Wikipedia (as I still am), but was having personal medical issues before. Now I am better and decided to give it a go again. I litterally just found the in window editor. Yay! So much easier! I updated the references on the page. It seems all of my references IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all taken down by @Fred_Zepelin. He had also taken down other references in the past the are viable. There was no discussion about any of this on the Talk page.

    I looked at his page and there are multiple mentions of vandalism from other users, that were deleted.

    Then the person went on my talk page and called my sister a name or something.

    Then he mentioned to other people, that I was another person and a sock puppet.

    I just honestly don't want to get tangled in a mess or drama. I was excited to make some edits and give this a try again. I am feeling better and it was fun to do the edits, but I am unaware of how to deal with this situation and am not interested in feeding someone's negativity. I am here to edit and have fun. Not have conflict with people.

    Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Also suggestions about how to get mentorship if you have any. Thank you in advance for any help you might be able to offer. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I don't think the person was tagged. I want to make sure they can defend themselves. He also did send me an email that was civil. I just want to be transparent. User:Fred Zepelin Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the talk page note as specified at the top of this page.
    Regardless, this is just messed up. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL ‐Talk‐☖, that wasn't "messed up". The sockmaster claimed the Binaza sockpuppet account was his sister (although before he was blocked, he denied having anything to do with the Binaza account). I literally asked "How does your sister Binaza feel about this?" There is no "sister". Those two accounts were working on Wheels (2014 film) and Donavon Warren. Film Fanatical10069 started the Donavon Warren article way back when and immediately started working on the Wheels (2014 film) article just minutes after Ugochukwu75's appeals were finished being denied. Then he tried to erase evidence of starting the article (here) and shortly thereafter claimed that he didn't start that article. (here). Fred Zepelin. (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another noteworthy aspect - despite having a high level of proficiency, this Film Fanatical10069 account is asking for "mentors" multiple times, including in this discussion. The Binaza account asked for the same thing in that account's final edit; I assume they felt the walls closing in with the their sockpuppet investigation about to expose them and were trying to play as if they were a new child-like account, staring at the Wikipedia world in wonder. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Everyone,
    I figured out why I was emailed after so long. When @Fred Zepelin put the notification of speedy deletion on my talk page (or wiki did) it sent me an email. I honestly have not had an email from Wiki in years. I did not receive one for Donavon Warren, I believe because I did not create that version. But I was happy to do some quick research and update some of the links. Since then I have discovered the visual editor and it's a game changer. It really is!
    I am happy and pleased you caught a sock puppet or multiple sock puppets. Sock puppets go against policy. I am here to update Wikipedia and be professional. I obviously am not a sock or that sock or whatever is suggested. My account is 6 years old, Fred's is 30 days. I am still learning but am trying to take the proper channels and keep discussions civil. I ask Fred please stop posting on my talk page Fred.
    Vandalism - From my understanding deleting valid references repeatedly goes against policy. In the instance of Fred deleting the following references on the Wheels page. IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted, saying they were paid promotional websites. I have made notes on the Wheels talk page regarding those references. It looks like there are multiple other past references that are taken down as he seems very emotionally involved. If you can please just look at his edits on the page Wheels (2014 film). He has been warned about vandalism by multiple users. Is this against policy?
    Casting Aspersions - He has been warned about this on multiple occasions. He keeps posting that I am a sock puppet every where he can. It's on 7 pages now I believe. Is this against policy?
    And yes. I would love mentorship. I found it frustrating before and gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted. But I am ready to get back into it. It's important to me to understand how this works so I can create more pages and make more edits. That's what I am interested. But it's important for me to understand it this time. To my knowledge I have done everything to have proper sources and it was marked keep. Will all my references be taken down in the future? Am I dealing with this correctly? Is this the proper channel for this discussion?
    In the meantime, I will try to focus on people who are deceased, older movies or blockbusters that have not come out. They are just tough to find and most pages have already been edited heavily and there is not much new information. I will do more research about mentorship and how to find one.
    Thank you again for every ones help. I really am thankful for any instruction, advice or knowledge you can pass down. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget that Ugochukwu75 deleted multiple concerns from his talk page about paid editing. He then admitted to undisclosed paid editing after he was blocked. He denied it beforehand. He was paid to edit Donavon Warren and paid to edit Wheels (2014 film). After he was blocked, Film Fanatical10069 showed up after 4 years of zero edits, started editing Wheels (2014 film), tried to delete evidence that he started the Donavon Warren article, then denied starting that article, and after I pointed out he was lying, now says "gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted". Evidence speaks for itself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL, @SVTCobra I apologize for another comment. I really am not trying to get caught up in this drama. What is the policy on this?
    BTW - Did I do that linking correctly? Thank you again. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is where you said you didn't create the Warren article. Here is the evidence that you did create the article. Here is your deletion, yesterday, of the talk page bit that points out you created the Warren article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fred Zepelin I don't want to keep stating information I have already stated. Yes, I obviously deleted that 4 year old section. Same as you have deleted multiple warnings of vandalism and warnings about aspersions on your very own page.
    Let's keep this professional and let the advanced users advise or take action on this. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You just linked to a false positive by a bot, and also linked to Liz's warning to me, which I have not deleted, and you said I deleted it. Stop trying to deflect. Explain why you said you didn't create the Warren article, and then deleted the evidence on your talk page that you did create it. You also deleted multiple concerns on your talk page about paid editing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to engage with you any longer. This was clearly articulated to you here. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's literally nothing at that link you posted that explains why you created the Warren article, then denied you created the article, and wiped the evidence from your talk page that you did create it, and why you now admit you created it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fred Zepelin: My apologies. I'm someone who has had people try to use MJL's Evil Sister and my sister as a means to get at me (generally offwiki), so I wrongly assumed that was happening here.
    Next time, if you are going to make a sock allegation, maybe provide a diff or something next time? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've provided over a dozen at this point. Getting frustrating. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant originally when you first confronted FF about it, but I guess that's pretty moot now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: User:Binaza is a confirmed puppet per this investigation. In this edit the sockmaster (as far as we know) claimed Binaza as a sister, yet here we have Film Fanatical10069 claiming the same 'sister'. Fred Zepelin seems to have lost 'their cool' regarding this situation, but there is something going on here that is not OK. As far as I am concerned, it began at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_filmdaily.co_a_reliable_source? and it opened up a rabbit hole of sockpuppetry and paid editing some of which has extended to Wikimedia Commons. --SVTCobra 08:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am going to start from the end here, which is, I believe Ugochukwu75, Binaza and Film Fanatical10069 are all the same people or are engaging in meat puppetry. When I wrote the essay titled WP:NANE i noted that a common tactic employed by editors engaging in less than ethical practices is the act of reporting editors (who are about to nab them) to admin related noticeboards, it’s no surprise seeing this play-out precisely as I stated. They claim Fred vandalized, this isn’t true, they claim Fred also called their “sister” names, again very untrue. That all three accounts indicted here are all one and the same people or operating in the same sock/meat paid farm is undeniable. This SPI in itself is enough indictment warranting a block if Film Fanatical10069 is claiming to be related to Binaza. RoySmith tagged the SPI as technically unrelated, but hasn’t checked for behavioral evidence due to time. If or when they do so, OP would be blocked as well. Generally speaking I believe more effort should be put into consideration when handling possible sockpuppetry pertaining to behavioral evidence, any editor with Checkuser privileges knows too well how easy it is to beat a Checkuser and know they make majority of their nabs when the editor being reported “slips up”. Furthermore I’d also like to point out that the OP asking for help as though they were confused is puzzling, seeing as they have shown proficiency in the past. I think I also document that in the essay I wrote as a tactic optimized by editors engaging in socking/UPE. I have tackled undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia way too long to know there is something very wrong here. I’m in total agreement with both SVTCobra & Fred Zepelin, the sole mistake on the part of Fred is mildly being “too confrontational” which is a very common mistake with anti spam editors due to frustration. A mistake I painstakingly learnt to correct. Having said it’s safe to say Fred wouldn’t be making that mistake again as I would teach Fred how to tackle UPE better without much confrontation, asides that this whole report in my opinion is likely a deflection tactic. Lastly let the record reflect that the OP has been here for 7 years with only 150 edits, and prior this, their last edit was 4 years ago. In my opinion, a quintessentially example of a WP:SLEEPER. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Celestina007 Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time. Given the circumstances, I must clarify, I am not a meat farm (I don't even know what that means exactly), nor did I ever claim to be related Binaza. The @Ugochukwu75 user is the one I believe made that claim. @User:Toddy1 said "There seems to be a difference in behavior shown in the filter logs" regarding my account and that other person. So I am not sure how to refute those accusations. But I will try to offer my two cents on this. I have not touched the Donavon_Warrren page. I simply went back and added references that were missing and never put on the Wheels page, that's it. I only learned after that it can't be deleted if marked keep. It seems like @Fred Zepelin deleted valid references. Again IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted. I have received no response on that. That's all I have done. Was update references for a page that was made 7 years ago and was marked keep 4 years ago because Fred marked it for speedy deletion after deleting valid references and half the article. And yes I have explained why my account was inactive, I got discouraged, just like this is discouraging. I logged on today to upload and have fun editing, yet I am tied up in the mess. I don't know if 150 edits is considered proficient, but I don't think I am there in the slightest. I honestly can't even figure out how to update the formatting on my talk page. So circling back, please help me understand your thoughts on this. What would my sock puppet motivation be? To come back to life to keep a page that was safe? If I was sock, wouldn't I have come back sooner? What would updating 4 refences accomplish? It looks like 6 other people tried to create that page, are they socks? Why have the deletion questions not been addressed? Also, last question, this is exhausting, is this normal? Should I expect this long term?Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 19:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends. Can you explain why you were looking to create an article about Lisa Hoggarth? Is that a paid editing gig, or just a random article you wanted to create? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. I don't know who that is. This is from 4 years ago? Please explain. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence of this user's socking:

    Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."
    Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

    Hope this sheds a little more light. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have answered this question 4 times. @User:Toddy1 has even clearly explained it to you. At this point, I really don't know how to handle this. Does anyone else have questions for me? Should I leave this alone until it's resolved? The whole point of this discussion "Which I Started" was to deal with the fact that @Fred Zepelin constantly deletes valid links and keeps vandalizing a page I created. Yet it has turned into the user who blatantly vandalized the page, accusing me being a sock puppet. Why did you delete valid links @Fred Zepelin? Why do you keep making accusations on other peoples talk pages about me being a Liar, Sock Puppet and Paid Editor without any evidence? What is your motivation to take down that page? Are you going to turn around and upload another movie with the title Wheels? I just don't understand the logic here. People are not addressing the reason I started this discussion. Is it ok to vandalize? Is it ok to delete valid links? Is it ok to name call? What am I missing?  Again, any help is greatly appreciated. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked after I did some more digging. Behavioral cases can fool you, and I still won't disclose details (because I'm not here to teach them to be better socks....) but I'm very confident that this is the same person. It could be a meatpuppet, but really, I'm betting its the same person. I think we're done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Language barriers and bias in WP:BEFORE

    I've noticed a lot of articles on Non-English (mainly Asian) films getting put up for PROD and AFD by good-faith users, but its not rare for many of these to turn out to indeed be notable when a user who is able to speak the language and read its script comes along and takes time our of their day to provide sources. It seems to me a somewhat problematic to delete articles on foreign language subjects when its very possible none in the discussion is actually able to do a throughout BEFORE check on the subject. I don't know if there is any way to try to remedy this issue, but I thought it might be worth bringing up.★Trekker (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BEFORE is a collection of suggestions, not some kind of holy text. If an article is unsourced and nobody has bothered to provide a source, deletion is a perfectly legitimate outcome. ("If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion" if you want the actual policy.) If someone subsequently finds multiple independent reliable sources, we can always either re-create or undelete the page in question. ‑ Iridescent 06:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent's reply may be sufficient but I do wonder if it is possible for a Group or other collaboration of some kind to work on such articles? Munci (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was a holy text. Its still a problem that preventable deletions happen disproportionately to non-English subjects.★Trekker (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a discussion that would be better suited to the village pump, it's not really an administrative issue. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the result of systematic bias. An inescapable reality, really. ✗plicit 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    it’s not systematic bias. The solution is for editors to source their articles properly. On en.wiki editors have to use their best efforts to determine notability regardless of the languages sources are in. Well sourced articles don’t tend to get deleted. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing definitely is an issue. Well-meaning and sometimes not so well-meaning editors often source foreign films and actors (plenty of English-based too) to press releases, imdb, instagram, facebook, etc. So the first impression is poor sourcing. With english based, it's relatively easy to abide by WP:Before and find something reputable, but the odds go down dramatically in foreign languages. AfD may be the best chance at having another editor find those sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought it was strange that I can create an unverified article and other people are required to search for sourcing first before they can delete it. Seems backwards. Levivich 17:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly agree! - Donald Albury 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost like some of us are here to build an encyclopaedia. But other people have their own motivations, I guess. WilyD 00:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking the /42 range

    2607:FEA8:6940:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    I would welcome quick confirmation whether or not I've done right thing today (see here).

    Background: Over the last 6 months I have had a blocked registered user repeatedly evading that block by IPv6 editing. Despite my blocking of numerous addresses on the /64 range, they keep coming back to edit. So, using this tool I determined that a /42 rangeblock was the most effective way to deal with this. I can see no collateral damage (as there would have been had I blocked on other ranges). But as I've never gone outside the /64 range, and am still rather new to range block matters, I'd welcome some oversight of my actions. I did try to support this editor, as deleted talk page posts will show, but have become frustrated by their constant attempts to evade their original block. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've found the MediaWiki documentation very helpful especially the table showing how many addresses are in a range. I don't make range blocks that often, but /42 seems large. It's the size of an organization-level allocation, and if we treat a /64 as a person, it covers about 4 million people. If the only edits coming from that range are disruption, I don't think there's major harm, but you might want to consider multiple, smaller range blocks next time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not assume that it covers 4 million people. It covers 4 million /64 ranges, yes, but with about 2 billion /64 ranges for every human being on Earth, there's no reason to think that every /64 has a person behind it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes Thanks for your comments. I did actually start from that page before I blocked - hence my concern, as I was aware of the logarithmic increase in addresses affected. I have just gone back again and looked once more at every possible set of Special:Contributions between /64 and /42, and the only other one that comes close to catching most of this person's IPv6 edits, with virtually no collateral damage is a /48 rangeblock, but many are still missed with that. Rangeblocks above /42 seem to be ineffective in catching them all - so I'd still welcome guidance as to which would be the next best rangeblock to apply to this editor's myriad of dynamically assigned addresses if /64 isn't doing the job, and I seem to be constantly firefighting and revert multiple edits from yet another set of /64 address. I should stress that I am only too happy to have a more experienced admin remove the rangeblock if they feel I've overstepped what was appropriate or acceptable, especially as I set a longer than normal expiration time for that block. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good enough reason. You shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole across such a wide range, and given Suffusion of Yellow's comment, I'm less worried about unexpected collateral damage. The /42 struck me as big at first, but sometimes that's what's needed. Seems like this is one of those times since smaller ranges wouldn't be effective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I've been playing with Johnuniq's rather useful-looking rangeblock calculator at Template:IP range calculator, and think a /48 block plus a few extra /64's might have been better than the /42 to stop them coming back and trying to edit again. But I am rather learning on the fly here! See IP calculator below. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    /42 isn't that wide – /32 rangeblocks (that's 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 IPv6 addresses or 4 billion /64s) happen fairly regularly; heck, I've blocked /29s (34 billion /64s) belonging to webhost providers before. IPv6 address space is rather cheap compared to IPv4, so people can afford to own far more than they actually assign. I tend to not think about mathematical IP count too much when I make rangeblocks because assignment patterns vary so widely – I think "number of discernible individual logged-out users/amount of total logged-out activity" is often the more useful metric. To make an example, there are /24s (and probably even individual IPs) in Asia that have more active IP editors on them than the entire /16 that I am editing from (because a) different ISPs cram varying numbers of users onto their ranges and b) our editor base isn't evenly distributed), so even though the IP count may be 256 times larger on my range, the amount of collateral won't scale with that. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good rangeblock. All or most of Ontario who uses Rogers is on this giant 2607:FEA8::/32 range. Their geolocation is good; for many ISPs globally it's hit-and-miss. It looks like communities (which is more apparent for smaller ones, that is not something like Toronto or Ottawa) appear to be on /42 subranges. So, for example, you blocked Barrie, Ontario on 2607:FEA8:6940::/42. Innisfil, Ontario is the next range down from Barrie at 2607:fea8:6900::/42. Cambridge, Ontario seems to have a /41 range at 2607:fea8:6000::/41, but note that it's equal to two /42s back-to-back. There will be some collateral damage from this block (there are some legitimate users on the range), but as it's anon-only the effects should be minimal. There may be more Rogers ranges for Barrie other than this /42, but as far proximal IP addresses outside of this /42, they are almost certainly not who you're trying to block. Maxim(talk) 14:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP range table for these IPv6 addresses

    Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses:

    2607:fea8:6940:1800:532:c9ed:eb2b:9fe1
    2607:fea8:6940:da00:546e:bf26:55f6:d1bf
    2607:fea8:6941:ec00:7561:dc9a:25b7:fc7c
    2607:fea8:6961:9800:d9f:eb15:6e91:b739
    2607:fea8:6962:b100:5a4:38f1:73c6:95b4
    Total
    affected    		 Affected
    addresses    		 Given
    addresses    		 Range Contribs
    4M /64 4M /64 5 2607:fea8:6940::/42 contribs
    384K /64 128K /64 3 2607:fea8:6940::/47 contribs
    256K /64 2 2607:fea8:6960::/46 contribs
    64K /64 65536 /64 2 2607:fea8:6940::/48 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs
    5 /64 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:1800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:da00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs

    Giovanni van Bronckhorst

    PROTECTED
    Page protected by Barkeep49; closing-- Asartea Talk | Contribs 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An admin really needs to protect this page immediately its getting beyond a joke over there! PP was requested 2 hours ago but the vandalism is getting more and more! Tommi1986 let's talk! 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tommi1986, page protected by User:Barkeep49. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need a block review

    Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Blkfrasure? This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bfrasure. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, WP:BIGDADDY, the lesser-known senior branch of WP:BROTHER  :) ——Serial 15:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you want to unblock a sock? Why isn't the sock-master himself blocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The other relevant discussion here is User_talk:Bfrasure#Other_accounts. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, this does seem to be a case of father and son with the same first initial, not sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sceptical of the -it's only my son- claim, but I'll leave it with you fellas. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can never know for sure in these cases—even CU can't tell you who's behind the keyboard—but self-doxxing twice over would be a lot of effort for a lie. And not a level of effort I'd associate with the kind of person who'd create a sock with a near-identical username. (Not a fella, by the way. /lh) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Éric_Zemmour#Request_for_comment_on_the_description_of_Eric_Zemmour's_ideology
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1055024264"