Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	52	0	61
TfD	0	0	12	0	12
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	5	0	5
RfD	0	2	30	0	32
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 140 sockpuppet investigations
• 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 6 Candidates for history merging
• 21 requests for RD1 redaction
• 31 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 46 requested closures
• 162 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7797 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Drone warfare 2024-06-07 14:20 2025-06-07 14:20 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish International Solidarity Movement 2024-06-07 14:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-07 12:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish User:Aoidh/ 2024-06-06 22:59 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Aoidh Al-Sardi school attack 2024-06-06 20:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic Malinaccier Dance of Flags 2024-06-06 17:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Indian National Congress 2024-06-06 17:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Telugu Desam Party 2024-06-06 17:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Agent Galahad 2024-06-06 02:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Elsett 2024-06-05 22:22 2024-07-05 22:22 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference 2024-06-05 21:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan List of Pakistanis by net worth 2024-06-05 16:48 2025-02-13 08:30 edit Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved Anachronist Pors 2024-06-05 13:52 2024-09-05 13:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli Rosguill Morty Smith 2024-06-05 02:51 2024-09-05 02:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Indian general election 2024-06-04 19:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Catalog of Fishes 2024-06-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A 2024-06-04 02:18 2024-06-11 02:18 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) 2024-06-04 01:59 2024-06-25 01:59 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Ori Megidish 2024-06-04 00:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 2024-06-03 23:20 2024-07-03 23:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-06-03 22:41 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Daniel Clancy (album) 2024-06-03 22:03 2024-07-03 22:03 move Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing Carlosguitar Israel–Maldives relations 2024-06-03 21:13 2025-06-03 21:13 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

SashiRolls ban review

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

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Site ban proposal: SashiRolls

ArbCom has declined this case, which punts it back to us. My concerns are I think representative of those who have challenged this:

1. The "consensus" appears to be a bare majority of votes, whereas I would expect consensus to be more robust where it comes to something as serious as a ban;
2. While the minimum 24 hours was met, this seems a very short time in this specific case.

Accordingly, I propose that we reopen the discussion, and request that the final closure provide a rationale in line with what would be needed at a contentious AfD or whatever.

I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith, I just don't think this represents our best work as admins. Guy (help!) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think admins are solely to blame; I don't think this represents our best work as editors. ——Serial ^# 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Paul August ☎ 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening I'm assuming we are discussing if we should in fact open a review? Or is the subect officially already reopened per Admin Guy? Jusdafax (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because MastCell gave a detailed and reasonable response at the case request, and more than sufficient time for discussion was given. As was pointed out in the case request, over 90% of comments had been made before the day of the close, things were slowing down, and there was a consensus based both on arguments and numbers. ~60% with strong arguments is enough for a consensus. Sashi’s efforts to appeal the ban proved what everyone who supported it said: this is an editor who has a list of enemies and views everything as a battleground. We’ve already wasted more than enough time on this, and the community has already resolved it. SashiRolls is site banned, and the close was within administrative discretion. We should not overturn it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, that response does not address the miscounting of comments supporting and opposing. If such things don't matter then why even bother with a consensus? Just let admins do whatever they feel is proper per their discretion. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Depending on how you count it, you’re looking at 60-62% (SilkTork below. I think I’ve counted a few times and get in that range as well.) Sashi had it at 55% by counting neutrals as opposed in his math I believe, which is also a way to do it. In my mind, I’d say that 60% is roughly 2/3. MastCell didn’t say exactly 67% he said approximately 2/3. 60% is around where I start referring to things as “about two-thirds” in my own speech, so I don’t think there really was any overcounting going on. People just have different thresholds for where they start using common fractions in their colloquial speech. MastCell and I both apparently share the trait of seeing it at around 3/5. 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 are the most commonly used fractions in every day speech, and people tend to reference them rather than the less common ones. I get the frustration here by some, but I also think the easier explanation was that MastCell was just typing like he talks. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The close said greater than 2/3 (">2/3"). When I asked MastCell about it [1], he characterized it as "a clear (super-)majority" [2]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ha! I’ve been working too hard. I read it as “~2/3” every time. I don’t really think that changes much in terms of consensus. I think 60% with good reasoning is a perfectly fine percentage to ban someone with since that is a supermajority and consensus is not just numbers. Anyway, apologies for misreading that. Striking the above :)TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, a site ban is one of the most serious sanctions possible. Consensus for such a measure should be rock solid and accurately reflect the tenor of the comments. I get it, you opened the ban discussion and are happy Sashi won't be around here anymore to annoy some deeply entrenched and connected editors a couple years ago. What percentage of content discussions with 60% consensus are closed as "successful?" It's probably less than 10%. Shouldn't a site ban closure aim a little higher than that? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think content discussions are the best analogy here, and yes, I’m aware of my biases. 60% is in the range where it usually can go either way in content discussions. Much above that, and it’s an obvious consensus, significantly less and it’s obvious no consensus. High 50s to low 60s is about where the “discretionary range” is for non-policy RfCs. If the arguments are strong, it’s enough to carry. I’m biased in this case obviously, but if there were another close, I’d find literally everything else has been tried to be a much stronger argument than try something less drastic. Again, I’m biased, but I think I’d feel that way if I was uninvolved too. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

i'd quibble with Tony about a lot of things, but not about the difference between 60% and 67%; this doesn't hinge on that. I think the broader point is, "what level of consensus to site ban?", to which I'd answer "overwhelming consensus", also known as the Kemp standard ("damsure of our evidence"). Because of the late oppose swing and because comments were still rolling in at an active clip, I didn't feel like this discussion got to that level of consensus, whatever the exact numbers might have been. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support to simply put the matter to bed. (I commented but didn't vote in the discussion, and don't expect to vote) I don't see a fatal flaw in the close, but the numbers seemed to not jibe, which is a good reason to not give numbers in a close. It is a ban, after all, and simply continuing the discussion for an addition 48 hours (my guess) isn't going to hurt anyone, and whatever the outcome, we can have faith in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You think that opening another couple of noticeboard free-for-alls will "put the matter to bed"? Oh, Dennis—you must be new here. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening and allowing it stay open through the weekend (or however-long) per Sashi's original request. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. I do not believe a consensus was reached in the initial thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support MastCell did pretty well even if we're thinking maybe not perfect and so a big thank you to MastCell for jumping into the breech on this. I think that a more thorough process and slower close is in order. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support for the reasons most thoroughly described by Darouet below. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Arbcom declined 9-0. How many bites at the apple do you get? Sashi continues to blame everyone else, bring up old, irrelevant grudges, and hasn't displayed an iota of introspection. Their only admission is that they may not have presented the case well enough -- not that they present an obvious, ongoing problem to the community. But, let's waste another month, and then another month. If they want to reenter, let them spend a few months examining why their block log is so long and consider the possibility that their actions, not those of everyone else, are the cause. As Pope Julius supposedly said to Michelangelo, when will you make it end? O3000 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Numerous arbs explicitly stated that they were punting this back to the community, so the unanimous decline hardly precludes further discussion here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If you think Mastcell's close was within admin discretion, and ARCOM's decline seems to say that it was. Then the appropriate thing would be for Sashirolls to wait the 6 months per the standard offer and appeal to the community. Why would we do any different in this case as opposed to others? Valeince (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valeince: I don't think ARBCOM's discussion meant that they felt it was within discretion. As is quoted below they said things like "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." They argue it's the community's job to figure this out, not theirs. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: In my mind, the only reason for an out of usual process review, which this is, is because the closer was found to have closed the discussion outside of their discretion. The ARBCOM case was built around this argument and was declined to be heard with the arbs confirming that since this was within admin discretion then the community can review. To me, that means that the review can happen when SashiRolls appeals the ban, which per usual circumstances is after the standard offer. Valeince (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd have said that they were pretty clear that the community can reopen the ban discussion at its own discretion. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree, and I think our discretion should lead us to use the normal procedures in these cases. Which is the aforementioned standard offer unblock request. Valeince (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Wait for a statement (appeal?) from SashiRolls, whenever they are ready; Oppose until then. There was a clear consensus there is a conduct problem. There was a sideshow whether the situation should be taken up by ArbCom rather than the community, indirectly causing a perhaps unfortunately-timed discussion close. Regardless, an open-ended discussion reopen right now will just become us chewing our own cud and won't solve a thing. A reopen in response to a reflective statement/appeal by SashiRolls indicating how they would change their editing behaviour would be much more productive. The Arbcom interlude didn't resolve much, but did establish that while opinions how good it was may vary, the previous close is certainly not so egregiously bad to require just being set aside. That being so, let's continue the discussion if and when it has a hope of resolving the situation better, not as an exercise in procedural fairness or just trying to reverse the flow of time. Martinp (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Guy's concerns. This is the nuclear option, the state of the consensus should not be in dispute. Springee (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni & O3000. MastCell already gave further clarification specifically referencing weight of viewpoints at ArbCom,[3] which contradicts this idea put out there that they were just counting !votes. Most arbs were also not impressed with Sashiroll's WP:NOTTHEM behavior, dubious requests for extensions, etc., so even if the ban was overturned, there's a pretty clear indication that the behavior wasn't going to change after their final-final-final warning. Even if the !votes had been 50-50, it still could have been closed in favor of the ban because the continued problem was demonstrated that other sanctions had been exhausted (i.e., opinions no matter the percentage opposing the ban did not carry sufficient weight). That is how WP:CONSENSUS works.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has guidance on following that up: Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result. The better approach would have been to take the first step of asking MastCell on their talk page to add clarification to their close with respect to weight if that is really the sticking point. They gave a further explanation elsewhere, so we're at a point there would need to be a very high bar for reopening the discussion. When an editor has a history of tendentious behavior that's repeatedly established to the point of needing the "nuclear" option, part of a closer's discretion is to not let the discussion languish when the problems/endpoints are clear and the situation is unlikely to get better by letting it sit longer. There would need to be a pretty grand reason for exception at this point after both the initial close and what happened at ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni & 03000. I found MastCell's reasoning to be very compelling, and SashiRolls has eaten enough of our time.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not only do we need a fair process, we need the appearance of a fair process. I don't think we have that. I'm concerned about a number of issues: 1) that the discussion was still very much ongoing, 2) that the editor asked for a delay until the weekend and didn't get it, 3) that reasonable people could have reasonable concerns that the closer was "rushing" to the close due to a bias. I don't have a clue if the 3rd one is true, but the arguments for it (active in a similar area on opposite sides, only minimally active with admin actions) aren't crazy. A ban is a really serious thing and closing such a discussion should inspire confidence that the right process happened in addition to the right result. I don't think we are there at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - what arbs said about re-opening: "If people want to reopen the ban discussion for greater input, that's a community issue." [4] "nothing in the closure of the request would prevent further community discussion" [5] "giving leave to the community to decide whether to re-open" [6] "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." [7] "there is nothing to stop the community from re-discussing the matter or overturning the close" [8] "leave it up to the community whether they wish to reopen the ban discussion" [9] the remaining 3 votes didn't address re-opening [10] [11] [12] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose MastCell’s close was within admin discretion, Sashirolls participated and there was enough time for everyone to have their say. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A close on false premises does not 'admin discretion' make, and particularly not on something as serious as a site-ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sashirolls had plenty time to respond to the previous thread dozens of times, and they just kept digging themselves in deeper. Just their behavior during the discussion would be enough to justify a ban, never mind the constant battleground behavior and general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited, plus the harassment that was the immediate cause of the discussion. Sashiroll's behavior in their arbitration request just confirms that they have learned nothing and will continue to cause problems if allowed back. Obviously, the correct result was reached, and that's what is important. Sashiroll can ask for a community appeal themselves if that's really what they want to do. Otherwise, this is just a pointless exercise. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited - Every page? Sashi's top edited page is Yellow vests movement. Is there any general unpleasantness or any disruption on that page? How about their other top pages: 2019–2020 Algerian protests, Sudanese Revolution, or François Rabelais? Actually, Sashi's conflicts are limited to a small group of pages (e.g. Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders) and editors. Case in point: the antecedent to the site ban proposal was a partial block, not even disruptive enough to merit a full block. I think you exaggerate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "The close was within admin discretion" and "the discussion would benefit from being open longer and seeing more thoughtful input" are not mutually exclusive positions, and so I don't know why the former is being advanced as an argument against the latter. Furthermore, citing pieces of CLOSECHALLENGE out of context isn't helpful; this isn't so much about whether the close was wrong (I'm not certain it was) as that it was too soon. A site-ban discussion can always use more input, especially from uninvolved editors. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm the only one that cited CLOSECHALLENGE so far, I will clarify that nothing was cited out of context. It also does mention the aspect of the timing of the close being challenged sometimes, but my main focus was on the weight aspect many people had brought up in previous conversations before this one. Some mistakenly thought that MastCell basically ignored WP:!VOTE and basically tallied votes. There was an easier route to clarifying that wasn't the case before initiating this next step is all. It's not extremely rare for a request to the closer to add clarification to their close as part of that process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Not much comment on the wikilegal bureaucracy this particular thread concerns, but I want to point something out: in the time since the ban went into effect and discussion began about reopening discussion and doing an arb case request, instead of being introspective or acknowledging any problems, SashiRolls has spent hundreds and hundreds of edits creating userspace pages that continue to point fingers everywhere else. Far and away the biggest reason I supported a ban is because, from what I've seen, it seems like SR is quick to turn a disagreement into a personal investigation, digging up dirt, combing through user histories, finding patterns, connecting dots in conspiracies, making lists, making winking insinuations about motives, etc. It's fundamentally incompatible with healthy interpersonal communication/collaboration here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, he did just get banned in what I think was a flawed process. That would cause a lot of people to get pretty upset and act poorly. That said, I suspect if this discussion does get reopened and he doesn't get banned it won't be long until he is unless he figures out how to behave here. If does get reopened I imagine that a lot of folks, including me, will be expecting to see evidence of improvements now. He seems to be a really productive contributor with big interpersonal skill issues (mainly a temper which also makes him really easy to troll). We've had a lot of those and most of them end up banned. But some improve. In any case, for me, it's a lot more about the process than the actual case at the moment. I'd like to see close ban discussions be taken at least as seriously a close RfA. This one wasn't IMO. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think we probably got the right result, but not in the right way. The close was made too soon - there were three discussions, all ongoing, the main one was trending toward oppose, and the user had requested a more nuanced ArbCom case where they would be able to address the concerns raised as they would be busy until the weekend (although the user had continued to comment in the thread, these do not appear to be considered posts, but quick emotional responses). The tally was vague and inaccurate - on my count there was less than 60% in favour of a ban, so not quite the 3/4 mentioned in the close. And the oppose views were not appropriately considered. I don't see a strong enough community support for a ban in that discussion. If we are to site ban this user (and it appears to me that SashiRolls is the sort of user we should be considering for a site ban because of their long history of personalising disputes with little understanding of how that impacts the individuals they are attacking and the wider community as a whole) then we should at least have the decency of allowing them to address the concerns raised, and to consider carefully the views of those in the community who feel a site ban is not appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review. ArbCom's decline to take the case does not mean they endorse the ban, just that a review of it is not within their remit. So that outcome says nothing about numbers of chances, bites of apples, etc. The ban itself is an issue where reasonable people can disagree and have opposite opinions, and I think there has been enough challenge to the closure of the ban discussion to warrant a review of it. I think SilkTork presents the problems perfectly, just above (and that's from someone who thinks a ban is probably the right result). We are, after all, talking about a total ban for an editor who has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia, and I think anyone in that position deserves fair treatment and to be seen to have received fair treatment. Whether one supports the ban or opposes it (for the record, I oppose it), I would hope everyone would agree that we should have a fair review process - and I'd say exactly the same about a ban that I supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I think MastCell's close was made in good faith, and that there's a strong argument that it was within admin discretion. But that does not mean it can not be challenged, and those who suggest otherwise do not appear to understand the basics of how Wikipedia admin actions work. All admin actions are open to challenge and review, be they good ones, bad ones, indifferent ones. All that's needed is a consensus to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I !voted at the SashiRolls' ANI to send the case to ArbCom to give them a full hearing (but did not !vote on the siteban issue), and even though ArbCom only considered MastCell's close, the 9-0 decision (and I assume ArcCom are familiar with the subject), makes me think we are at an end here. We have seen very good editors who – for various reasons – were just not compatible with editing on a collaborative project and had to leave. During the recent case, I have seen very reasonable editors like Cullen328, who advocated strongly for SashiRoll's most recent return, now !vote for their siteban. The long-term pattern is not good, and there is no evidence that it is changing. Regretfully, oppose and move on. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review - that was not a great close at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the close was not unreasonable by Mastcell, but I think was based on a couple of premises that we might as well take the chance to clarify. If only, because satisfying more of the community that a ban issued in their name was reasonable is hardly a negative. Given some of SR's behaviour around everything, I'm actually more hostily inclined, but I view it as important to not skip a process just because it gets me the result I might want in that instance. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I supported a ban and still do however it was closed too soon for my liking, Also supporting per Hobbit and NoseBagBear. –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a matter of procedure. The previous discussion was closed and closed properly. Arbcom reviewed it and agreed; so absolutely NO need to "re"-open. NOW if (and only if) SR were to request an unban, (with perhaps some considerations they'd be willing to give) and you were to say OPEN a NEW discussion - I might consider that. I know it's a silly point of order - but that's how wiki has always worked IMO. If you'd rather consider this a comment - then so be it. — Ched (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. I haven't been following the details of this saga, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with the AN close by MastCell, particularly in light of their reasoned defence of it at the ArbCom page. We promote our admins to make calls like these and unless it's completely out of left field (which with a 2:1 majority in favour of the ban doesn't seem plausible) we should accept the decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell certainly had the impression that it was 67%, which is why he closed it that way; but I have read through the discussion twice, and both times come up with a figure around 60% (59% first time, then 62% second time - some folks comments are not quite clear). I'd be interested in your own reading of the consensus tally in that discussion Amakuru. My view might be quite wrong, and it would be valuable to get a third admin opinion. SilkTork (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I was opposed to the community ban, I don't believe it is necessary for the community to re-open the discussion. I know much has been made about how "soon" the discussion was closed, but I would note it was kept open for nearly 72 hours, which certainly does more than just meet the 24-hour minimum. I also realize SR had asked for the discussion to be kept open until the weekend so they could have time to respond, but the fact that they contributed to the discussion more than 30 times (as was pointed out in the arbcom request) shows they in fact had time to respond. If Sashi wishes to be unbanned by the standard process, they are welcome to do so, but procedurally there was nothing wrong with the original discussion. Calidum 15:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I believe MastCell gave a great explanation of the close rationale, but like Dennis Brown stated, reopening will "put the matter to bed" and then we can alleviate any doubt. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MastCell's explanation in the Arbcom thread amply demonstrates, the close was procedurally sound. Not only that, the outcome was substantively correct. There is no need for "putting the matter to bed" more than it already has been. Reopening the thread would just mean piling up a heap of pointless wikilawyering and drama. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the way to "put this to bed" is to put this to bed, not to have another discussion about it. MastCell gave a lengthy explanation for the close at the ArbCom request and I don't see that there's any new arguments or anything else which would change the outcome. Dealing with disruptive users is a timesink. Hut 8.5 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose definitely a close call, but within reasonable discretion to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support- When the closing admins feels it is necessary to exaggerate the level of support, that's a bad close. If you are using good judgement, there's no reason to be dishonest.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – per Ched: the previous discussion was closed within admin discretion and Arbcom reviewed it and agreed. SR is free to request a new discussion of the ban at any time. Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10. -- puddleglum^2.0 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. There were valid concerns raised and I don't see any downside in reopening a discussion especially when it is about sitebanning a user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10 and my reasoning at the arbcase request. The ban discussion suffered from a number of major procedural issues and cannot be treated as definitive for a discussion as contentious as this one has been. CactusJack2 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I guess put me in the oppose camp, as the closer of the prior thread, but maybe that doesn't need to be said. My gut instinct is that these procedure-obsessed arguments obscure the fact that SashiRolls is fundamentally a poor fit for this project, and in some cases they're more a vehicle for people to pick a bone with me, personally, than the product of any conviction that SashiRolls is a net positive here. (That was evident in the WP:RFARB request as well). But maybe that's just my solipsism talking.

  I guess I also think that, if you look around the world today and decide that the single greatest injustice worthy of your discretionary time and outrage was the closure of the SashiRolls's community-ban discussion, then we have different sets of priorities. Partly for that reason, I don't intend to participate in further wiki-litigation on this subject, other than to say that an admin would have to be crazy, stupid, or both to volunteer to close this or subsequent discussions. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone would dispute that there are far greater injustices currently going on elsewhere in the world. In fact, I'm not comfortable using the term 'injustice' to describe this situation at all. However, I'm puzzled by your apparent implication that real-world issues over which the average Wikipedian has little control should be preclude us from participating in this discussion. Any admin could respond to scrutiny of their admin actions by pointing out that there are more important things to worry about. I don't think it helps the situation for you to use red herrings to dismiss the scrutiny of your close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 1:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support reopening the discussion that was held here to consider banning SashiRolls. There are several important reasons why the discussion should be reopened:

1. There was not a "consensus" for banning them at the time the decision was made, and
2. The vast majority of editors here who commented in the later phases (e.g. a couple days after the discussion opened) opposed the ban.
3. El_C, who in my mind was unfairly criticized by SashiRolls, nevertheless explained that they sought "no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls."
4. SashiRolls has suggested that longstanding content disputes may be playing a role in (at least some) admin views towards them, and that probably deserves some investigation.
5. A decision to ban a longtime and productive editor should be made on the basis of largescale community support. When a discussion by editors here has turned against banning, but a decision to ban is made anyway, that decision can come across as reckless. Using very powerful administrator tools in the such a context, and closing down discussion, would not be responsible.
6. SashiRolls asked for one weekend to defend themselves, and that time was not granted. Some have written that SashiRolls' posts prior to the weekend prove no such time was needed. I find that to be an extraordinary position, and not the conclusion of an unbiased observer. First, if any of us take editing and collaboration here seriously, we know that some disputes on Wikipedia go back for many years. It is wholly legitimate that an explanation of conflict might take at the very least a weekend of research, and a few edits in the interim prove nothing otherwise. Suppose that after SashiRolls' request for more time, they had written nothing at all: could their silence have been used to ban them? With such faulty logic, any outcome no matter how unwarranted can be justified. Second, what is lost by waiting a week to ban someone? Editors were still commenting frequently, and our views are what determine consensus. Lastly, if someone asks for time when they may be banned, the least we can do is honor that request.

I apologize if I offend any admins with these comments: I understand that admin work is difficult, and that work helps, among other things, keep the vandals at bay. But for regular contributors the bar for admin action is higher, and that's particularly true when we're discussing indefinite banning. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It was close, and a difficult decision to make, but the correct decision was made in the end. FWIW, if the consensus was close to NOT banning, and this question was asked I would felt the same way. I'm with MastCell. Any admin willing to take this up now has my sympathies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree with Vanamonde that closing within admin discretion isn't a strong reason to oppose reexamining a closure, and I agree with SilkTork and Nosebagbear that, even if the outcome is probably correct, it is worth being absolutely clear on that in this instance. What keeps me from supporting is that beyond the optics of the close, few people bring up valid problems with the outcome. Others have pointed out the weaknesses of the procedural points such as the length of time and being within discretion, and many of those in support acknowledge that they think the outcome was correct even if the close was not up to their standards. I don't think either side should be taken lightly, but WP:NOTBURO makes me lean towards considering whether we think the result was correct, and from the discussion here I don't see much reason to think it wasn't. I think the ideal course is to let SashiRolls make an unblock request themselves rather than decide an appeal on their behalf. This shouldn't be considered a veiled oppose---I agree with others that there's value in reopening the discussion---but I'm not convinced it's the ideal path for the community to take right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Sir Joseph (;tldr). Having seen the editor's username before but being unfamiliar with the rest of it, I had been watching the discussion intently and was looking forward to more discussion and the promised defence when it was unexpectedly (to me) closed. I disagree that the user's request for extension until the weekend is invalidated by their level of participation; they were reacting to a situation which requires much less time and effort than preparing a coherent defence. It is not lost on me that we are talking about banning a long-time editor. A request for unban is sure to require a much stronger consensus; it only makes sense that so should the ban. If there is a community consensus, it can only get more clear from prolonging the discussion, not less. Revisiting the issue doesn't amount to a verdict on the previous close one way or the other. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as an unnecessary timesink. The close was adequately explained, 3 times the required length of time elapsed before the close, and there was a consensus to site ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe there was consensus for the block. And anyone who pulls out the ol' "reblocks are cheap" chestnut in the future should be forced to review this debacle in its entirety.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the close was well within administrative discretion, which also seems to have been the arbitrators' opinion. If SashiRolls has this much-ballyhooed "defense" they can write it in a ban appeal just like anyone else. All of this procedural wrangling is wasting all of our time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per SilkTork. And the vote count fault is even more serious because the late votes were trending to opposing the siteban after El C's comment. That reminds of the vote trend discussion about bureaucrat RfA closes. SashiRolls should be allowed to present a defence with a less stressful time schedule, as the filer clearly had the time to his homework before presenting it as well. --Pudeo (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, there is WP:AAB#Appeals by third party, which indicates that SashiRolls has to initiate the process. If he wants a review, he can say so on his talk page, and the request can be copied to here. (And in that event, the discussion probably should be reopened.) In fact, there has been no notification of this discussion on his talk page. I'd also recommend that he post on his talk page the detailed response that he said he wanted to post in the original discussion if given more time, so that editors here can see that. It's strange to have the community try to evaluate the reopening prospect based on a request from a third party, and without the banned editor indicating whether or not he wants to go through it or what reasons he wants to give. Secondly, the community has a lot better things to do than to waste time on another discussion that will end up not changing anything. This really would be an unnecessary time-sink. And how many times does the community have to discuss this person, given how many problems there have been before? Thirdly, some editors don't much like MastCell's close, but it was a reasonable (and, I think, correct) close, so the case that it wasn't perfect does not mean that the participation of so many editors in the original discussion should be essentially set aside. ArbCom determined that the process wasn't manifestly flawed, and at most a further discussion will only determine that MastCell's close was reasonable and good-faith, but not unanimously agreed about. Fourth, SashiRolls' comments at the Arb request page are not particularly indicative that he will come forth with a good argument for leniency. Even though Guy advised him to take some amount of responsibility and avoid blaming others ([13]), SashiRolls' ended up saying "I will agree that I react badly to being continually targeted by a small group" of editors [14]. That's essentially saying that I regret that you treated me so badly. It's pretty unlikely that there will be a strong enough consensus to undo the ban. And finally, as I write this, the raw !vote count is 22 support and 24 oppose. Given how some editors clutched their pearls over the need that there be an overwhelming numerical consensus in these things, there better be a clear consensus to overturn the previous consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and notified SashiRolls via talk page template for completeness. Best, Darren-M talk 01:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: the close was within discretion and the user in question made 45 edits to the thread during the discussion, while also alleging they were being "lynched". The arguments about a productive editor are not convincing given the amount of community time already spent on various discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as "an unnecessary time sink" to quote Floq. I recommend that this editor spend six months or more in self-reflection and attitude adjustment. An appeal based on an acknowledgement of the full range of past bad behaviors, and specific promises of much better behavior in the future, without any blaming of others, might well succeed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - My review of the CBAN discussion and MastCell's explanation of the closing are sufficient to show that there was nothing wrong with the discussion or the close, and SashiRolls should remain site-banned. Common sense says so as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Initial closure was correct and well reasoned IMO. I see no legitimate reason to continue beating this horse carcass. -FASTILY 02:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment ( I previously !voted above ): A number of oppose !votes are based on the view that the editor is happy with the outcome or that SR's is just going to waste more time. Those are arguments for the ANI discussion. They are not arguments as to if the closing was handled properly. The question here shouldn't be if SR was rightly CBAND. The question should be if the irregularities are sufficient to call the close into disrepute. The fact that so many editors are saying the close was bad is a serious issue. If we can't get a consensus that the close was good the ANI should re-opened (unarchived) to allow the discussion to continue and a new and better closing to occur else editors will rightly loose a level of faith in the system. Additionally, Mastcell's comments above should give editors pause. The comments aren't saying why the close was proper (thought they as defend their closing in the Arbcom discussion). Instead Mastcell states they don't think SR's is a good fit for Wikipedia. They may be right but as a closer they need to be an impartial arbiter of the arguments. Saying they think SR shouldn't be here certainly looks like a super vote. The closing must stand on the merits of how the closer weighed the arguments, not on the closer's personal feelings on the matter. Springee (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee:I agree, Mastcell's comments above are just as bad if not worse than his close. When he says "My gut instinct is that these procedure-obsessed arguments obscure the fact that SashiRolls is fundamentally a poor fit for this project", he basically admitted that his close was a "super vote", not an objective assessment of consensus. In his mind, Sashi needed to be banned regardless so the procedure by which it was done doesn't matter. Then to cap things off he makes a afallacy of relative privation by comparing our complaint of his improper close to other injustices around the world. So Mastcell, next time you go to a restaurant and there is a problem with your food and you complain to the manager, I hope he tells you that you have no right to complain because there are starving people in Africa.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - for the most part per SilkTork but with difference regarding the result. I'm of the mind that community site bans should not be closed by a single admin., especially in cases where there are strong arguments on both sides. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The close was fine, there was enough time given for SashiRolls to respond, this is just wasting time. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support the closing statement misrepresented the discussion by overcounting those supporting Sashi's ban. That ought to be a bigger deal, but seeing many admins in this thread come down against a questioning of an admin's potential mistakes is not encouraging. You can chalk just about anything up to "admin discretion," but misrepresenting a consensus ought not to be discretionary. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - ShashiRolls has been afforded more than adequate due process concerning their editing privileges on this privately owned website. MastCell's assessment of the CBAN discussion was a reasonable weighing of consensus. Arbcom did not "punt it back to us"; they declined an Arbcom case after the community banned an editor. That should be the end of it, unless and until ShashiRolls chooses to appeal the ban to the community. - MrX 🖋 14:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• By my count, 6 of the 9 arbs plainly stated that this was a matter for the community to discuss further if we chose to do so. I don't know what you call that, but I call it punting the issue back to the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - While the whole thing met the bare minimum for procedure, it didn't seem as thorough as many bans have been. Combined with the fact it was on the bare edge of supporting for banning numerically, and I think redoing it more properly is a good idea. 74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - How many times are we going to re-litigate this matter? The close was a valid, proper assessment of community discussion, especially as measured by strength of arguments, and the outcome was substantively correct. Diffs were presented, both recently and from years earlier, demonstrating consistent battleground behavior and a campaign of harassment, as well as SR's extensive past block/sanction history. This misconduct has gone on for years and years (for just a flavor, see here) and SR has shown no willingness to conform his/her behavior to the community's (generous) norms. I would affirm the community's consensus to ban and move on. Neutrality^talk 16:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, help me to understand, because I really am not able to, how it is "valid" or "proper" to misstate the vote count? Personally I have to think a valid and proper close would get that part right. That would simply not fly at RFA, for example. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt that SashiRolls would pass an RfA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, hard to say given some that have made it. Though standards have gotten a lot tougher compared to the early days. Which may or may not help. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Because, Mr Ernie, discussions are explicitly not a vote count. Why are experienced editors belaboring this supposed vote miscounting when we have a long-standing and unchallenged policy that these are not votes? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, maybe it's because the closing statement explicitly stated that it would be inappropriate to close the discussion as "no consensus" with >2/3 in favor of a ban, yet it wasn't true that >2/3 were in favor of a ban. And the close didn't weigh votes or address any specific diffs, incidents, or arguments. So, maybe that's why people are thinking the close should be re-opened, because it's not a vote. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That.....makes no sense. Your objection is: "The vote count was wrong so we need to count the votes right even though we don't count votes in determining consensus." There is no reason to call for re-opening a discussion on supposed miscounting. WP:NOTDEM:This is no a democracy, the discussion participants were not a jury, due process isn't a thing, and votes don't count. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich's argument is sound. If this was a close based on the weight of the arguments then the closing shouldn't have said >2/3rds at all. It should have instead discussed why the arguments for were stronger than the arguments against. Also, while consensus is NOTAVOTE, the relative proportion of editors for or against something has always had influence on outcomes. Plenty of times we have discussions that explicitly state there are reasonable arguments on both sides thus we consider the number of editors for or against as an indication of the communities relative support for sound, opposing arguments. In this case the closing admin specifically justified "consensus" based on claiming over 2/3rds were in favor. That wasn't true. I get that many feel "consensus" might start at 60% (assuming sound arguments on both sides) but when talking about a CBAN why wouldn't we want to have a higher standard? Would we accept the same weak consensusish result if this were a discussion to strip an admin of their authority? Springee (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 69 users commented in the main banning discussion and SashiRolls made 9 posts. Any light that could have been shed on the topic was. The close was not an abuse of discretion or process and any claims that this should be reopened are just re-litigating the original discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not my objection. My objection is that the close said At a rough count, there were approximately 40 editors supporting a ban and ~18-20 opposed. and that was incorrect. The close also said While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus". That sentence means that this discussion can only be closed as consensus for a ban, because a close of "no consensus" would be inappropriate, because >2/3 of commenters supporting action. Except, that's incorrect. It's not >2/3. Therefore, it's not inappropriate to close this some other way, such as "no consensus", under the closer's own logic. It's not me who's doing the counting, it's the closer. These are the only specific grounds given for the close. He makes no reference to any specific argument made by anyone, or to any specific incident, or to any specific diff, or to any specific policy. He just talks the numbers, and he gets the numbers wrong. Therefore, the close should be un-closed. That's reason #1.

Reason #2 is that 22 comments in the 17 hours prior to the close means it was closed too soon, especially with a swing towards oppose. That's a separate reason from the closing statement to re-open the discussion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I did not participate in the original discussion but think it should be re-opened. Given the flawed analysis and how it was changing just before the close, with El_C's statement, I do not see why it could not of been left open until the weekend. Little copy edits and changes are not the same as having time to go through the evidence and properly respond to it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening the discussion. Per SilkTork, the votes were closer to 60% in favor of a site ban, but the thread was new and lively, with the more recent !votes weighing in against a ban. I'd also suggest a multiple-admin close. And in my opinion, the door should not be open to editors who are using WP and !votes only to continue past grievances, but who are essentially retired from building the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 04:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the arguments made at ArbCom relating to finding this to be within the closer's discretion are persuasive. I would decline a second community review for largely the same reasons that ArbCom chose to decline the case. We should not be looking here at whether we agree with the impacts of the close (i.e. whether we agree with the site ban), but rather whether we believe the close was so procedurally unfair that it merits starting from scratch. I do not believe that it does. Best, Darren-M talk 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As K.e.coffman and MrX have described, there is no need for us to reopen the discussion, and this has taken too much community time already. I'd say an appeal in over six months would be a more reasonable path. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per TonyBallioni. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel MastCell’s close was a well reasoned close, it seems evident that he carefully weighed the discussion. There is a consensus that this editor has caused ongoing disruption across many articles for a long time now; that is not to say editing opponents of SashiRolls have not caused some level of disruption too. Further reasons for supporting MastCell’s close was that additional comments to the ban discussion had slowed considerably, the editor in question had made dozens of posts to the discussion so their viewpoint was well known and they were given a fair hearing. Numerically there was clearly a consensus. The party to whom the ban applies, SashiRolls, can always apply for the ban to be partially lifted say, for example, after six to twelve months time. Then if continued improvement with a partial lifting occurs then they could ask for the ban to be fully lifted. This is my view on things anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ... discussion had slowed considerably ... - There were 22 comments in the 17 hours before the close. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • You keep repeating this, and it's really misleading. Of the 22 comments you mention (in the last 17 hours before I closed the discussion), almost none were !votes on the community ban proposal. Virtually all were comments on a "final, we-really-mean-it-this-time" warning or on taking the case to ArbCom. Commentary in support of, or against, a community ban had substantially petered out, after extremely broad input, and the discussion had digressed aimlessly in a few unproductive directions. The warning proposal was clearly not passing, and I left open the option of going to ArbCom (which I explicitly cited in the close and enabled by unblocking SashiRolls). The close was not "premature"; discussion of the community ban had reached a natural stopping point. I don't see any sign that you're going to stop repeating this stuff and bludgeoning everyone, and I'm not going to continue to contest every misleading assertion in this thread, but I would ask other editors to verify for themselves the accuracy of claims rather than simply accepting them through attrition and repetition. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I would argue comments and discussion are just as important as !votes, so not something that can really be discard as unimportant. There is nothing misleading about his factual observation of the momentum of the discussion from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Again, there was virtually no ongoing discussion of the merits of a community ban in those last 17 hours/22 comments, so to cite them as evidence of "momentum" is incorrect. Likewise, harping on the number of edits without addressing their content is, in my view, misleading. MastCell ^Talk 07:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
          • That you don't think discussion about whether to send this to arbcom "counts" for purposes of assessing consensus is probably now Reason #3 why I support overturning. Obviously if an editor thinks it should go to arbcom that means they do not think it should be closed as "consensus to ban". If an editor thinks the site ban discussion is deficient, then that means they don't support closing that discussion as "consensus to ban". That you consider that portion of the discussion to be irrelevant is further evidence that you did not correctly assess consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
            • This is another misleading claim. The discussion about sending the case to ArbCom (in the last 17 hours that the thread was open) comprised people who had already voiced their opinions about the ban itself earlier in the thread. Input from new editors, for purposes of assessing consensus for the ban, had virtually ceased. The thread at that point consisted of an inconclusive back-and-forth, among people who had already commented on the ban, aruging whether to send the case to ArbCom and repeating their previously expressed positions.

              So a) novel input about the merits of the ban had virtually ceased, and b) closing the thread had no bearing on whether or not ArbCom was an option. Thus it seemed like a reasonable time to assess consensus for the ban and to close the thread. On another note, I can't really keep up with this firehose of misleading claims, and I'm pretty sure you're just going to add another one immediately below this, so I'm simply asking that people verify your arguments for themselves rather than taking them on faith or being bludgeoned by their volume. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

              • Oh you're having a hard time keeping up with the volume of comments? I imagine that's how Sashi felt during the ban discussion.
                That you disagree with my opinion doesn't make my opinion "misleading", and I wish you'd stop using that word when you disagree with me. I think that comments, even by editors who have already !voted, still "count" towards whether a discussion is "active" or not. You may disagree with that; neither one of us is being misleading. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
              • @Mastcell: If it gets a bit hot doing all that digging mate, I'll hold yer coat. ——Serial ^# 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
                • My points are that, at the time of closure, a) the thread had attracted substantial community input; b) novel input on the merits of the ban itself had wound down; and c) ongoing activity in the thread consisted of editors reiterating their previously expressed positions and discussing an ArbCom case (on which the closure of the thread had no bearing). Are you disputing any of those points? MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, I agree, I think you acted well within normal limits of discretion, my concern is primarily that this looks, to a lot of people, like a rush to judgment, and that is not a good look. I think it's highly likely that the result of any discussion of any length would be a serious sanction, either a TBAN or a site ban. This is mainly, for me, a question of "justice should be seen to be done". The process here was about as swift as a ban of an obvious troll, and I don't think that SR is an obvious troll. This leaves the door open for endless kvetching - a bit like the drama we see when an obvious Delete AfD is closed five minutes early. Guy (help!) 11:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I would paraphrase these arguments (from you and others) as follows: "the discussion ran for x days, but I think it should have run for y days, even though the outcome would almost certainly have been the same". That's fine, I guess, as long as you recognize that x is no more arbitrary than y. I've explained why I felt the thread was ripe for closure: novel input about the merits of the ban had virtually ceased; nearly 70 editors had participated (meeting or more likely exceeding standard participation for ban discussions); and SashiRolls had defended himself at length. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm obviously partisan here, but I find it troubling that you, Guy, are asking the community to expend this many pixels in order to rehash an outcome that you just said would end up pretty much the same as it originally was. Yes, there are editors who say that they feel that it looked suboptimal. There are also (more) editors who say that this reopened discussion looks suboptimal. And you are doing this in defense of someone who ignored the advice that you, yourself, gave him, and who seems to have said on his user talk page that he is not enthusiastic about continuing the discussion. In the end, you have simply enabled what you just called "endless kvetching". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I have struck my vote and comment above and am switching my vote to support as I decided to read into this much more closely; I have been swayed by some of the comments above, particularly the rationale expressed by Levivich, SilkTork as well as Darouet. While I still believe MastCell’s close was probably correct, there are enough concerns about miscounting of votes/comments and possible premature closure, combined with the fact that most new votes/comments coming in towards the end opposed the ban, that I feel it should be reopened. The final factor that swayed me was that he is a productive editor without disruption in certain topic areas, which leaves me open to the possibility that the community might, in theory, favour a topic ban combined with one way interaction bans.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony. There is nothing out of line with MastCell's closure. If you want to enforce a policy in a manner that is different than what is written, then you should be looking at changing that policy for future instances where something similar happens, which I believe is being done. Even so, changing that will not retroactively apply to this close, so relitigating it is unnecessary. Nihlus 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Guy's concerns regarding consensus and time as well as his reflection: "I don't think this represents our best work as admins". On that latter point, I note that a large fraction of Oppose votes a) consider the close as within discretion and/or b) interpret the ArbCom decision as validating the close. But reasonable (and in my view strong) doubts have been raised re both a) the propriety of that exercise of discretion and b) that interpretation of the ArbCom decision. To impose a severe sanction in view of well-reasoned concerns does not reflect well on WP. A note to those counting votes here: a large fraction of Oppose votes do not allay those concerns but merely reaffirm support of the severe sanction. I also agree with Springee and Rusf10 that, other issues aside, the closer's comments in this discussion do not reflect well on WP. Humanengr (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per SilkTork and Boing! starship.paint (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic bans from articles based on unpaid COI, with no evidence of problematic editing?

Bnguyen1114 was the subject of an article on The Intercept recently about his edits to the Kamala Harris page. He was subsequently doxed/outed on Twitter and here. Following that, he disclosed that he has donated money to and volunteered for various politicians over the years. Based just on the fact of those COIs, SlimVirgin topic banned Bnguyen1114 from articles about all of the politicians he has volunteered for in the past "and their opponents", without evidence of any problematic editing regarding those subjects.

I find this unsettling. It may be that there's sufficient evidence provided in the Intercept piece and in the history of the various Kamala Harris pages for a tban about her, but topic banning someone from other subjects because of disclosed past unpaid volunteering, with no evidence of problematic edits of those subjects, does not seem in line with our WP:COI policy.

I'm not arguing that Bnguyen1114 doesn't have a COI, that all of his edits were good, etc. The central question here is whether it's ok to topic ban someone from several pages due not to evidence of problematic editing on those pages but to the fact of a disclosed unpaid COI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. It looks to me like Sarah acted entirely appropriately. The COI precludes the user from editing those articles, but Sarah invited them to engage the respective talk pages. El_C 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you cite the policy text that says that disclosing an unpaid COI disqualifies someone from editing that article? Or that sanctions should be based on possible problems rather than evidence of problems? There's a spectrum of COI, and this isn't even at the far end of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a discretionary sanction, not per the COI policy. DS gives admins pretty broad discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

... And the user was alerted by Barkeep on 3 July to the existence of AP2 DS, so this action looks valid under DS. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Izno, this comment has made me think. As a purely procedural point I would note that this editor disclosed their COI prior to 3 July (the date they were given the DS warning). After being DS warned, they did not edit Kamala Harris. They reiterated (effectively) the same COI disclosure after 3 July when Sarah asked at WP:COIN, a disclosure which resulted in their topic-ban. The only mainspace articles they've edited since the DS warning is adding list entries to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. So this makes me wonder, can editors be sanctioned under DS for actions they committed before being warned of DS? The warning at WP:ACDS doesn't suggest this is forbidden, but it would make the requirement for warning moot if this were permissible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's right in {{uw-coi}}. El_C 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not, though. It provides suggested practices and says "avoid". These are indeed good practices, but it doesn't say you're prohibited from doing so, and doesn't acknowledge the spectrum of COI. By the same language, if I showed up for a day to phonebank for McCain in 1999 (I didn't), then it doesn't matter whether I've edited articles about him or how I edited them -- any admin can just come by and impose a topic ban "because DS"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Rhododendrites. WP:ACDS is by definition at the discretion of the enforcing admin. El_C 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse as I expressed a few days ago at Talk:Kamala Harris, I don't believe they were a bad faith editor or paid, but I do think their edits were problematic. In my lengthy reply at WP:COIN I noted specific diffs I believe to be problematic or attempting to remove unflattering information. Other admins like Drmies have labelled it problematic, as well. The topic ban is a DS, not per the COI policy, and I think the ban is well within admin discretion for DS, to ensure the smooth running of problematic areas. The editor in question can always appeal at WP:AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Per WP:COICAMPAIGN. Quite frankly, a one-week block might have been too lenient given their attempts to whitewash the Harris article. Calidum 15:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, they weren't blocked for something relating to the Harris article, they were blocked for making an edit in violation of their topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. They both involve editing topics for which the user has a conflict of interest, however, and should not be editing. Calidum 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Rhododendrites's accusation, unsupported by a diff, that Bnguyen1114 was doxed/outed on Twitter and here (emphasis added) is false. He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity (Redacted) by Katherine Maher, chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia. But he was not doxed/outed on Wikipedia. NedFausa (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

^^ This is gross. I'm not going to link to evidence of being outed obviously, and it's outrageous that people are ok with Ned repeatedly linking to tweets that dox Wikipedians while claiming with a straight face that it means Maher "confirmed his identity" (or, as Ned said on Bnguyen's talk page, "found him guilty"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly not okay. Redacted and strongly warned. What were you thinking, Ned? El_C 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I said "repeatedly" because there's another instance of the link that Ned just redacted on Bnguyen1114's talk page (but should be revdelled too), and both of these came after two other redacted edits last week on Bnguyen1114's talk page and at User talk:Katherine (WMF) (by Barkeep49 and Stwalkerster), but possibly for different reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand Rho's point and agree with the general proposition that volunteering for a political campaign should not, in and of itself, prohibit an editor from editing articles related to the candidate or their opponents. However, the devil is always in the details, and in this case, it all depends on what "volunteering" means, exactly. I'm not going to get into outing anybody but there is a difference between a person who volunteers to hold a sign on a street corner on a Saturday afternoon, and someone who volunteers, say, for a high-level leadership position within the campaign organization. In other words, there's a difference between being a "front line worker" volunteer, and being a "boss" or "executive"-level volunteer. It also matters if, for example, an editor's COI disclosures are accurate; if they're not (and I'm not saying they were or weren't in this case), but if they're not, that could be grounds for sanctions. In this particular case, putting together all the evidence, I think the TBAN was justified, and this edit definitely violated that TBAN, and so the block was justified. Still, I'd support some revisions to WP:COICAMPAIGN to clarify these issues and address the general problems Rho raises about volunteering and COI. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question What the Hell is the WMF doing doxxing Wikipedia editors? It's bad enough when Wikidemocracy does it. (waves at many off-wiki fans). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Technically, Maher responded stating that doxing Wikipedia editors is wrong, she criticised the person who did it, although simply by responding she did inadvertently bring more attention to the dox. I don't think Maher actually confirmed or denied that identity, or did any checking to see if the dox was accurate. Her only mistake was responding at all, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note the timing here. Katherine Maher, in her official capacity, publicly corroborated the off-wiki outing of Bnguyen1114 and insinuated that he was guilty of COI, nearly five full days before that charge was made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. NedFausa (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, she strongly warned against the doxxing, though. That's pretty key. El_C 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, she didn't. Someone on the Internet said "hey you have an editor with a COI" and she responded ~"COI is bad. so is doxing". That doesn't corroborate anything. You're repeatedly presenting this like Katherine Maher issued a statement on WMF letterhead explaining that somehow she knows the identity of Bnguyen1114 and confirms it is the person in the doxing tweet. It doesn't say that. It could be any tweet from someone saying "you have an editor with a COI" that she responded to with ~"COI is bad". It's frankly bizarre that you're repeatedly bringing up this tweet and engaging in hard core framing ("in her official capacity", "which owns and hosts Wikipedia", etc.) to make it say something it doesn't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweeting from her verified account, Katherine Maher decried the off-wiki doxing. But significantly, Twitter neither suspended the account she responded to nor forced deletion of that tweet, which remains online despite Twitter's strong policies against doxing. Maher is a highly experienced Twitter user, having posted 27.5K tweets since joining that platform in 2008. It's fair to presume she is familiar enough with its rules to realize that the user she chastised did not violate them. I infer that she was at minimum grandstanding, if not trying to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case, which anyone knowledgeable about Wikipedia could by then foresee was inevitable. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting Maher posted a tweet on July 2 to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case that was brought on July 8? Are you drunk? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, even a drunk (and I'd never accuse Katherine Maher of insobriety) acquainted with Wikipedia's internal workings could have predicted that a formal COI case would ensue from The Intercept′s exposé. When Maher tweeted "You're both wrong" she obviously meant the Twitter user she was directly addressing and the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page, whom that user had identified through simple deduction and whom The Intercept had named as Bnguyen1114. NedFausa (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So your theory is that, in order to influence an on-wiki discussion she predicted would come in the future, Maher responded to a tweet by saying that both COI and doxxing is bad? That's insane. That's patently insane.

You really should strike what you've written here about what Maher tweeted. "He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity, by Katherine Maher", "in her official capacity," "publicly corroborated", and "insinuated that he was guilty of COI" are all false accusations. These aren't matters of opinion where reasonable people disagree, these are straight-up lies. If you said these things about a fellow editor, you'd be sanctioned for it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Ned. You are acting below par at this time. Please make an effort to do better. El_C 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, Katherine Maher tweeted that the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page was "wrong." That person (Bnguyen1114) had not doxed anyone. He had edited Wikipedia. How was he "wrong" in doing so if not by violating WP:COI? NedFausa (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, you're not getting it and you should probably withdraw. You cannot cast aspersions on Katherine Maher with various conjecture. El_C 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I am puzzled; I thought you knew better. Levivich is correct: your assessment of the situation is wrong, and you're just adding fuel to the fire by those misrepresentations. There is no need to respond: refraining from further commentary on this matter is response enough. Please take El C's comment, above, as a final warning. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned's description of Maher's tweets bear no resemblance to fact. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I don't know what else can be said about this. WP:COICAMPAIGN is clear: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents." If you're arguing that unpaid campaign workers don't count, I disagree. In addition, the article is covered by DS, which allows admins to impose sanctions, including topic bans. Taking all the circumstances into account, I thought it best to topic ban him from editing about the politicians for whom he said he had volunteered, and their opponents. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm unclear whether the DS sanction was in-process here. Bnguyen1114 was given a DS alert on 3 July and received the sanction on 8 July. Between those two events they made a handful of edits to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements but nothing I would consider excessive. The letter of the law says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict but doesn't explicitly say that the editor must have made problematic edits, but I feel like that's kind of implied. I really mean this as a question (and not an implicit accusation) since I don't work AE, it just seems a little iffy from what I understand. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I want to return to the "no evidence of problematic editing" phrase in the original post. I hold SarahSV in very high regard and learned a lot from her when I first started editing over a decade ago. And I have no problem with the topic ban she imposed on Bnguyen1114 regarding Kamala Harris, most obviously, and also Joe Biden. I have no problem with the short block. But I have some concern about the topic bans she imposed regarding Josh Harder and Claire McCaskill and their opponents. As far as I know, Bnguyen1114 has not edited either of those articles, and McCaskill is no longer in elected office. I feel uncomfortable with what looks like pre-emptive topic bans when there has been no known disruption by this editor regarding these two BLPs. The only basis that I can see is that the editor behaved inappropriately at the Kamala Harris BLP and later voluntarily disclosed without prompting that they had done volunteer work for the other two politicians. SarahSV, can you explain why you concluded that these two additional topic bans were necessary? And why you exempted Jill Biden from the Joe Biden topic ban, broadly construed? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words, Cullen. GeneralNotability, this is a reply to your post too. I've been discussing COI on Wikipedia for several years, and I helped to write the COI guideline. COI is not about advocacy, or good and bad editing. It's about a tendency to bias that we assume exists when people have real-life roles and relationships that conflict with their role on Wikipedia. It's about the disquiet within the community and the undermining of public confidence when those conflicts are not dealt with. Most COI editing takes place under the radar. But in the case of the upcoming U.S. election, everything is being scrutinized, and suspicions about COI harm everyone, including the candidates (most unfairly when they have no involvement). I therefore felt it was important to bring to an end the discussions about Bnguyen1114's editing, which were harming him too.
    Drmies expressed concern in May about Bnguyen's editing of Kamala Harris, and Jpgordon asked him to step back from it, but he continued. At 01:47, 3 July, he was alerted to the DS (although he was aware of them already from the Harris page). He continued editing about Joe Biden's endorsements. On 7 July, Pudeo opened a COIN, and during that discussion on 8 July, Bnguyen1114 disclosed that he had volunteered in 2018 for Claire McCaskill and Josh Harder, in 2019 for Kamala Harris, and in 2020 for Joe Biden. I therefore imposed a topic ban in relation to all four. You asked why I included McCaskill and Harder. It would have made no sense not to include them. Either he can edit about them or he can't; the topic ban covered the area of his disclosure. As for Jill Biden, he disclosed only having had his photograph taken with her, so I did not include her by name, but being banned from Joe Biden broadly construed would include family members. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you're saying the tban isn't because of content policy violations/problematic edits or even necessarily because this COI is an example of an egregious enough COI such that it merits a preemptive tban, but because of the integrity of public confidence in Wikipedia. This seems to presume that some critical number of people who read the Intercept article will be able to follow on-wiki happenings and their concerns about Wikipedia will be assuaged by learning that he was topic banned/blocked. More importantly, going back to my original statement, I'm very uneasy with enacting sanctions against editors to send a message to external critics. As with any article-specific Wikipedia controversy, the process should be a highly visible investigation of the edits, using the talk page to discuss their merits/problems, and fixing what needs to be fixed. Maybe even writing up a summary in the Signpost for the external observers. But the editors involved should be treated just as anyone else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't recall ever having sanctioned someone to send a message to external critics. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Apologies if my indenting is incorrect, SarahSV, but I started donating to and volunteering for American political candidates way back in 1972, continuing right through the present moment. If I posted a list on Wikipedia of all the campaigns I voted and volunteered for, I would not expect to be topic banned from any of them unless I engaged in unacceptable editing behavior on specific ones of them. I will give you a specific example: I donated to and volunteered for the Walter Mondale presidential campaign in 1984. Should I be topic banned now from Mondale and Ronald Reagan, and every person that Mondale ever ran against? Even though I never disrupted those articles? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • SlimVirgin, my query above is simply re the DS. I agree with your topic-ban (at least in principle), and as I stated above and at COIN and the other talk I do find the edits to be problematic, but per my response at the top of this section I'm also curious on DS' limitations here.

    The disclosure he gave to you on the 8th at COIN is pretty much the same as the one he gave on 2 July in Special:Diff/965696863. All his editing at Kamala Harris, and the COI disclosure, were made prior to the DS notice. After the DS notice, as far as mainspace edits go, he only added uncontroversial bullet list items to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. It doesn't seem procedurally correct to sanction an editor based on DS, for actions done prior to notification. And although WP:AC/DS doesn't explicitly prohibit this, it does seem to go against the point of requiring a warning using an unmodified {{ds/aware}} template before you can sanction an editor. The notice on Kamala Harris' talk isn't sufficient per AC/DS#Awareness. So while I agree with the tban, I just want to query if this is indeed procedurally correct? Because, if it is, this kind of DS enforcement makes the very strict & specific alert/awareness requirements moot. For clarity, I don't disagree that the block was warranted per your topic-ban, I'm only questioning if the topic-ban itself was correct per the above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I cannot speak for Sarah, but with respect to procedure, the discretion authorized for admins by WP:ACDS, allows for AE action in this instance. Yes, even if the optics may not be that great in the limited sense of the post-WP:AWARE edits not having been particularly problematic. El_C 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, say, hypothetically, he had made no mainspace edits post-notification (pretending those edits at List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements didn't happen), and hence this topic-ban would be based solely off pre-notification actions, would you say that topic ban is still permissible (per WP:ACDS)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, failure to satisfy the requirements of WP:AWARE would make it against procedure to impose sanctions. El_C 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, sorry, let me clarify a bit... The scenario I'm trying to understand is: editor does something stupid, they get a DS notification, they get sanctioned for that pre-notification stupid thing they did. In this scenario, they are sanctioned after the warning, but for actions before the warning. WP:AWARE doesn't seem to explicitly say this isn't allowed? Applied to my hypothetical above, the editor was given the DS notice on the 3rd. Say he didn't make those edits on that list article about Biden, would it be permissible for an admin to give him a topic ban on the 4th as a DS, for his edits prior to notification on the 3rd? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, no, it would not be permissible in that scenario. El_C 04:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, his 2 July post was not the same as his COIN disclosure on 8 July; the latter was more specific. It was then that he acknowledged having worked as a volunteer for Biden and Harris, his main topics: "In 2019, I volunteered on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. In 2020, I phonebanked for Joe Biden's presidential campaign in the run up to the New Hampshire primary."

I'm curious about the amount of interest in this. This is an SPA, created in November, that focused on Biden and Harris: 2,682 edits, 97.5 percent to mainspace; 1,626 edits to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements; 11 talk page edits. The topic ban is limited to his disclosure; he's blocked only because he violated it immediately. He was alerted to the DS and he continued making edits about Biden. How many should I waited for? Five edits, 50? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, just the one :) -- I was only curious on the awareness part for the t-ban itself. I think El C cleared some of that up for me. I guess 'discretion' applies even wider than the wide interpretation I had for it before, with regards to the list edits (clue's in the name, I suppose). I was only curious about procedure, not your judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

From upthread The only mainspace articles they've edited since the DS warning is adding list entries to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. and the ban placed: is required not to edit certain articles because of a disclosed COI. The affected articles are anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. I read the ban in question as being "broadly construed" without using that wording (it should have, I think), of which List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is among the set of articles broadly construed. That's 100% a topic ban violation. Sometimes we give leeway to oldhands here and there as they adjust and sometimes we give leeway to new hands to see if they really can find something new to edit, but a SPA for these articles doesn't really fit into those categories. I think SV's actions here were within administrative remit. I also agree with El_C's interpretation, but that interpretation isn't interesting here if so. --Izno (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse the TBAN (including its scope, which is actually a lot less broad than it could have been, normally we go WP:BROADLY). This looks like a carefully tailored restriction by SV based on a good-faith reading of the situation. If Bnguyen1114 wants to appeal, in whole or in part, then let's hear it, but as an admin action this is well within the limits of normal discretion. Guy (help!) 08:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose the AE sanction, as I feel that the post-alert edits did not warrant the TBAN, either a narrow one or across the indicated list of COIs. Their prior edits might have warranted a TBAN but that should have been considered more fully as an ANI sanction, not AE through administrator discretion. I also share some concerns that this looks like a very pre-emptive and/or reputational based sanction. There's no way that the current process could allow sanctioning if they hadn't made any edits post-alert, and since their post-alert edits weren't problematic that's functionally the situation we're in. Overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thousands of strange edits to Vietnam geography

Do the edits by 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk · contribs) look familiar to you? I'll notify them, but I'm not going to discuss it with them on their talk page--I have the feeling I'm not going to get an answer. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi, maybe? The pattern of haphazardly moving things around and a fixation on obscure bits of geographical subdivisions fits, and his incarnations regularly change focus (I've seen him hit Mexico, Belarus, and East Timor at different times). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what if there were a few more such accounts, with similar names, making the same kinds of edits? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds about right. See here for one of the more spectacular messes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, you never actually attempted to discuss the problem with me, yet you brought it to the noticeboard and claiming that "I have the feeling I'm not going to get an answer". Does that even make any sense?

If you need an answer, then what I'm doing is creating stubs about locations (mostly about capitals). However, instead of creating a new page, I drafted the article in a redirect and then move it to the correct title. For example, when I created the article about Sóc Sơn, the capital of Sóc Sơn District, I drafted it on Soc Son, which is initially a redirect to Sóc Sơn District and then moved it to the correct title, Sóc Sơn, Hanoi 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The slightly stilted English seems awfully familiar too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 30ChuaPhaiLaTet, let me discuss a couple thousand edits with you on your talk page after you couldn't be bothered to respond to anyone else. Later! Drmies (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what about all these moves? I'm about to add the accounts to the SPI and I rolled back the regular edits, but there's more to do. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If it turns out to be him, we'll have to revert all the moves too; I did this with Eldizzino, that was around 1,500. As an aside, could some tech people please make a mass move revert tool? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, mass move revert tool is really badly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be worth making some noise for it at WP:VPT? It gets annoying to have to spend several days cleaning up the messes Conradi's socks create. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it might help, may be worthwhile opening a topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thread started at WP:VPT#Mass move revert tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a listing for conradi at WP:LTA, maybe I just missed it? Those listings can be helpful to other editors attempting to clean up behind a LTA sockpuppet. Is it worth it to create one? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is worthwhile to create one, especially since TC has a number of characteristic features making them easy to detect.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've scrapped together a script to mass revert moves, but haven't posted it on-wiki due to the potential for abuse. If I should carry out the revert, can I please be granted account creator rights for a bit so that I don't have to deal with the ratelimit? (I'm a global rollbacker, so technically I already have <code>noratelimit</code>, but this doesn't fall in the scope of global rollback) DannyS712 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Going offline for a while - will check back later today. If approved, 24 hours should be long enough to add the rights for DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I also developed a tool for this: User:SD0001/massMoveRevert.js because it seemed like fun. I don't think there's a problem keeping it on-wiki as we already have scripts for mass editing, mass deleting, etc. Any admin can use this (non-admins wouldn't be able to use it due to MediaWiki rate limits, as Danny says). The UI should be self-explanatory. Thanks. SD0001 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just gave it a spin, it took care of the vast majority of them; that was a huge help. It didn't work on a few, am trying to figure out now whether it was just problems with moving things over edited redirects or if they're just pages he moved around multiple times, but this definitely simplified things a ton. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are some 96 pages in Category:Articles with unsynchronized talk page redirects now. These seem to be mostly cases where new artilces about townships were created that formerly redirected to the district of the same name. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and The Blade of the Northern Lights: still 95 pages in Category:Articles with unsynchronized talk page redirects. These are out-of-sync because The Blade of the Northern Lights reverted the talk page moves while the article edits by 30ChuaPhaiLaTet are still standing. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to sort that out, though it may take a little while. Thanks for the ping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done several, but I need to mostly go dark for several hours; if there's still more to do I'll keep at it, any help is appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing

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

---

Should we site ban Wikiprofessionals, a paid-editing ring, from the project? ——Serial ^# 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• A more comprehensive analysis can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#wikiprofessionals inc. Sockpuppet investigations are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook/Archive

On WP:COIN, we have discovered a paid editing firm known as Wikiprofessionals Inc. The firm dates back to the early 2010s, and is suspected of creating multiple articles. This is a list of what articles Wikiprofessionals is suspected of creating:

Claimed by company

• Wissam Al Mana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gaby Natale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David F. D'Alessandro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shaherose Charania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• James D. Marks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pete Flint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Linx Cargo Care Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Standard Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Odibets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• XING Mobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Russell McVeagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (created too early for this company, but subject to substantial promotional SPA editing thereafter)
• Delivery Hero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BATS Chi-X Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (created too early for this company, but subject to substantial promotional SPA editing thereafter)
• Brown & Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TheBlaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Firefly Aerospace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Day Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pedego Electric Bikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neil Young (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More created by the editor who created Neil Young (video game executive)

• Brian Farrell (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frank Gibeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aaron Loeb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kevin Chou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Schiermeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mike Verdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roger Dickey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bill Jackson (video game designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paul Bettner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Schappert (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mark Skaggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I, along with Bri and BD2412, support a site ban for Wikiprofessionals and their related accounts. We do not want another Wiki-PR and Orangemoody on our hands. Personally, I just think that paid editing firms are unethical and goes against Wikipedia's mission. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 23:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support. The firm is actually (we think) "Get Wikified" but has a habit of spinning off different brand names, over two dozen of which are listed at WP:PAIDLIST#Get Wikified. PAIDLIST also documents several OTRS tickets related to their drumming up article-creation business (pretending to represent Wikipedia officially) that was later reported to the WP community. As far as I know there is not a single editor with proper paid disclosure related to this group. You can find more background/documentation at this COIN thread (2019) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this one have the same quotes of get wikified on their web site The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Clear and deliberate breach of a range of our policies, most notably WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Note that an WP:SPI investigation has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop. BD2412 T 00:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am ambivalent about deletion, as some of the articles created have been substantially de-puffed by intervening editors, but I would definitely support moving them to draftspace with a note about their questionable origin for a thorough scouring before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a site ban as a blot on Wikipedia. Should the articles included in the list above be (speedy) deleted? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of the listed articles. Listing each at AfD would be yet more community time dedicated to these bad-faith editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and (reluctantly) deletion - we have to teach a lesson to customers as well as spammers: hire the scum and see the "article" deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and deletion per WP:TNT. If any of the subjects they made articles about are notable, they can be recreated with no credit to them whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not clear how a site ban against the company as a whole would be effective in practice - we clearly can't innately know who is editing on their behalf. We would already block repeated violations of WP:PAID anyway. I have no qualms with us levying a site ban against individual editors for this, but banning the organisation seems symbolic and ultimately futile. I'm also opposed to mass deletion - let's work through articles and assess against usual standards instead rather than going nuclear. Best, Darren-M talk 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  It isn't just a matter of bookkeeping - Banning a user means that their edits can be reverted/deleted on sight once it is clear they're another wikiprofessionals/Get Wikified mercenary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The only way we're likely to know that they're a member of the organisation is if they disclose per PAID, in which case they're then being sanctioned for abiding by the policy that the organisation was banned for breaching. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Banning the organisation will just encourage them to continue editing in a clandestine way. Darren-M talk 01:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment 2 points. 1) Perhaps would've been worth waiting until after the SPI to make this, since there's possibly (probably?) other accounts we're unaware of, since we only got this list from one source. So, if we get more accounts (hence articles) due to a CU check those should probably be added to this. 2) I'm not sure how I feel about mass-deleting these pages, many of which are noteworthy and some not too promo, but if mass-deletion encourages these companies/people to chargeback the company, perhaps the company will abide by WP:PAID next time, so perhaps it's the greater good. Not sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion - If they never cared enough to abide by the Terms of Use and disclose and did everything in their power to stay under the radar, then they're not someone we want around. There is a right way and a wrong way to be a mercenary on Wikipedia, and if you insist on the wrong way then we're not obligated to host your trash. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• If these are established articles that other editors have worked on, policy pretty much prevents us from deleting them en masse. They can be cleaned up and if they aren't notable, sent to AFD, but deleting all of them isn't really kosher unless you go through them one by one and determine if they are valid articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also note that there are some articles which this company has claimed to have created which they clearly did not (including articles that preceded their apparent existence and created by well-established editors). The articles that we have identified are those that are claimed by the company as their own, and that were created by obvious SPAs that typically were only active for a few months, at most. There is a slim possibility that some articles so identified are still innocent, so some further review is warranted prior to deletion. BD2412 T 01:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Undisclosed paid editing and persistent abuse clearly warrants a ban. Regarding deletion, moral support but that should probably be a separate proposal laying out the individual or group basis for including articles in the list or other relevant points. I haven't looked at the individual articles and I think we'd want a bit more detail and examination before spamming the delete button. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Any of these articles that seems to merit deletion can go to AfD. I notice that James D. Marks is there already. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and draftifying - The onus is against these articles, so send them to draftspace, where they can worked on and moved back into articlespace if warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• After looking through a bunch of these, I'm changing my !vote to Support and delete. Editors wanting specific articles to be undeleted can use WP:REFUND and explain why. Just as with sockpuppetry or site-banned editors, it's important that undisclosed paid editors not see their dishonesty rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I added some other articles in case of draftification; some are G5/G11 noms already ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: there is nothing CU can do here. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support a ban here. I support banning all commercial editing. I’ll add on to what Drmies said above CheckUser is rarely useful against paid editing these days for a few reasons. Admins should block under WP:NOTSPAM when they see it and not wait on CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ban and deletion I support to ban all of the users and to delete all of their pages. If there are any pages that are actually worth keeping, we could refund it (and try give no credit for the company due to their dishonest moves). Note: The company(on their Q&A) acknowledge this policy but calls Ignore all rules a loophole for the whole COI thing(obviously not)The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should run a CU also. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 05:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ban, delete, do not pass go, do not violate WP:COI. Per BMK, anyone who wants to take responsibility for improving work produced by TOS violators can ask for undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - ban, delete blatant promo, others send to draft or userfy - nope, not good for our volunteer spirit, the project or our reputation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC) ^{On 2nd thought, I clarified. 13:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)}
• Site ban, but not a fan of deletion. If you think an article should be removed, send it to AFD. (For example, Firefly_Aerospace looks fairly reasonable after multiple editors-worth of rework.) --Izno (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion per above. "Hire UPE, get your article deleted." Sending the articles to AFD puts the burden on volunteer time. Editors are more important than pages: we shouldn't ask our volunteers to review the work of UPE. Just delete it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I only support deleting the articles we know were the work of UPE; I have no idea if the specific articles on the above list are all eligible or not, or if there are others that aren't on the list. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I work for this company Support duh Naleksuh (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban and delete. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Of Frank Gibeau (among the list above), we don't learn much; but we do learn that "Gibeau's 2016 compensation as Zynga's CEO was $24.5 million." So there could be quite a lot of moola sloshing around this vanity article racket. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion per above. The way to restore the asymmetry in our favour is that we take such action whenever we discover UPE – E.g. despite paying your money, your PAID article has to evade detection every day until the end of time, whereas Wikipedia only needs be lucky on one of those days and your article is gone. Britishfinance (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should also automatically WP:SALT every article that has been deleted as WP:PAID, which would increase the asymetry even further, and head-off the legion of 50-edit new editors that instantly re-apppear to re-create these deleted articles (normal editors can apply to get them released). Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and deletion per Levivich. AFD is also risky - it is not uncommon to see ads on freelancing websites for keep votes at AFD. It is also not uncommon to see socks show up to get spam pages retained at AFD too. MER-C 08:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• @SuperGoose007: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I've boldly added a short statement which should be picked up by the bot, does that work? Of course, SuperGoose007 should feel free to change/ re-sign it when they're back. ——Serial ^# 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you It looks fine; we'll find out for sure at 10:01 (UTC) - when Legobot next updates WP:RFC/POLICY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban/ deletion per Thomson/ Levivich. To coin a phrase, since this material is clearly contentious, it seems only fair that the onus be on those wishing to keep the contested material in mainspace. ——Serial ^# 09:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban, and deletion where no other editor has participated significantly - there might have been a benefit in a broader CU-op on the accounts (a la OM) before coming here, but in any case, a ban seems reasonable. I'm also increasingly thinking that we should consider any known director of a banned UPE company as "carrying" that status to any new organisation. I've backed a CSD criteria in the past for clearly badfaith UPE (that is, where a username is the company name, I'm okay to let them disclose if they do so on demand rather than insta-CSDing), so long as no other editor has participated significantly. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site-ban and deletion. We can't keep content created in violation of the Terms of Use, regardless of whether others have edited it or whether the topic is notable – the TOU take precedence over any other consideration. We urgently need to establish a process for immediate removal/deletion of all WP:UPE, just as we unquestioningly remove or delete copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps WP:IAR should be amended to note that the Terms of Use do in fact override. It is "ignore all rules" that this firm was using as their raison d'être. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Which, if they'd bothered to read IAR, they would have realised that isn't how it works. Writing blatantly promotional material and editing sans disclosure are disruptive, whereas IAR only applies to actions that would benefit the encyclopaedia if not for the rules. And even then, IAR does not override Foundation-derived policy or the ToU. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support site-ban, deletion and salting as default provided the evidence that the article was created in violation of terms of use is good on balance of probability, but if anyone wants to nominate specific articles for draftification which they are willing to decontaminate, that would be OK. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support bans and deletions. I agree entirely with Levivich: sending the articles to AFD puts the burden on volunteer time. Compare Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free and don't ask our volunteers to review UPE work. Since the company has apparently falsely claimed some articles as theirs, review is warranted (were they created by SPAs typically only active for a short time? Delete!), but AFD is not. Deletion will surely be a stronger strike against UPE editing than bans of long since inactive SPAs. (I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned; they should.) How hard will it be for the individuals involved to create new accounts and write new articles? Incredibly easy, considering how soon CU evidence goes stale. (I won't say how soon, because WP:BEANS.) Bishonen | tålk 12:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC).
• Procedural/administrative question: are we sure that all of these pages were created for pay? I remember when WikiWhateverIt'sCalled started advertising their services, and we found they were claiming TONS of pages that were likely not written by them. Haven't looked at the pages, but it's a concern when I see so many people clamoring to immediately delete with no review (and yes, I know there is also a group saying that only those pages that haven't been edited, which is better). Primefac (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  They did claim a bunch of pages which they didn't create (see COIN discussion), but those were omitted here. I believe the above list are the pages from the list on their site which turned out to be created by SPAs. Though this isn't certainty that they were created for pay (or, even if they were for pay, that it was this company which created them), but it's probably the closest we can get to certainty given their opsec. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of striking out one which was created in 2007. It may have later experienced UPE which we can just revert or edit out. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Bri: Whether or not BATS Chi-X Europe was created by this company, it has a long history of SPA edits, and certainly bears scrutiny. BD2412 T 17:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support bans and deletions No. Just no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support bans but review the articles before deleting them. Wikipedia needs to vigorously defend itself from being used as an advertising billboard, so the offending spammers have to be shown the door. The articles shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt but I'd prefer them to be given at least a quick appraisal before being deleted. Reyk _YO! 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban but oppose deletion without review. I went through that list and recognised one of them as a major NZ law firm who were recently in the news a lot. This in itself doesn't mean much but if this paid editing firm dates back to the early 2010s, can someone explain to me how they created an article on 2006 [15]? The creator was active for that short time and disappeared Special:Contributions/Lawgeek18, so the possibility of it being paid can't be easily ruled out but it illustrates the problem with deleting articles just because someone has claimed they were created for pay without evidence. Either they've been around for a lot longer then early 2010s or they weren't the creator. Even looking at the major edits after creation, I see [16] from 2008 and [17] from 2013 by the same editor which whatever their flaws, look to be an editor with a genuine interest in NZ law etc over a long period of time Special:Contributions/Sammy2008, i.e. not likely someone who was part of the paid editing farm. Special:Contributions/Tessatelle contributions in 2017 look questionable [18] [19] except they seem to have been mostly rejected by User:Drmies anyway [20] [21]. This [22] which is by an editor Special:Contributions/MarkoMetal who does seem to be associated with the paid editing farm (I'm assuming from the block log) which is interesting since it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing the law firm would pay for. It could be a competitor, but I wonder if more likely it was content added to try and seem like an innocuous editor. I guess an additional possibility is they recognised that there was no way that the content could not be covered in our article, and so tried to get ahead of good faith editors by adding a section but keeping it as mundane as possible. That section has undergone major changes and IMO it would be weird not to cover it (it was a big deal in NZ). Still, I can perhaps see people arguing for deletion of even the current version of that section for complete recreation by someone who isn't violating the ToU. But the whole article? Finally I see [23] which seems to be from a public library in the Lower Hutt library system [24], IMO it's unlikely it's from a paid editing farm. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Has wikiprofessionalsinc even claimed all those articles? I looked at the 'portfolio' on their website, I don't see where they say they created those articles. Whether they created them, worked on them, whatever seems unclear from the website. I looked at the chat, and I don't see whey they said they created all those articles they listed on their website. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: My review of their claimed articles was not aimed at determining whether they were created for pay, but whether there was evidence that they were subject to COI editing. That said, almost all of the articles on the list were created by SPAs doing clearly promotional work. Of course, there were also some articles "claimed" by them which were created much earlier by established Wikipedians and with no indication of COI editing at any point along the way. In examining the claimed articles, I erred on the side of suspicion. BD2412 T 17:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Wait what? That mean's if an article was created earlier by established Wikipedians with indication of COI editing after creation they are in the list? Only articles created by established Wikipedians with no indication of COI editing are saved? That's even worse. At first I thought this list had no review. Then I look more carefully and find there was review, although as I said, at least with the Russell McVeagh, the creation has a question mark even if it's well before the claimed time frame and at least some of the major contributors don't seem to be associated with the paid editing farm, and of the only editor clearly associated with the paid farm added negative information. The proposal here is to delete all the articles listed. WTF would we deleted articles created by established Wikipedians just because some fuckhead paid editor edited at one point of time? Delete the fucking COI editing. Don't delete the work of the established Wikipedians! Even in cases of copyvio problems, surely far more serious, we may delete any contributions after the copyvio was added including from editors acting in good faith because we can't hope to recover the non copyvio from the copyvio. But if there is a version before the copyvio, we revert to that. Sorry I find this so disgusting I don't think I'll be participating further. Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (EC) I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. (This was before I read the above reply, as I said there, I won't be participating further.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban and delete every contribution - Wikipedia is not a PR tool and violating our policies on such a large scale is irredeemable. - MrX 🖋 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose if there is confirmed UPE I would support a ban and deletion, but these are probably not their articles and accounts. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, if there isn't UPE then this is Orangemoody redux, as we already know they're loosey-goosey with the facts and have claimed credit for pages that others have worked on. Either they're mercenaries or they're scammers; either way they should be excluded. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 18:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support site ban. HOWEVER: we really have no proof, as far as I can see, if any of the stated accounts or edits or articles are theirs. We should review articles for UPE and notability as per usual.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and deletion of articles created by them I appreciate that that will delete pages of notable companies and individuals but the best remedy to combat this kind of behaviour is to be staunch and nuke the lot. It gets more complex when they added to articles created by legitimate users. In that case, I suggest we revision delete up to the point prior to their involvement. Schwede66 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That would only hold if no-one had made a single substantive edit at any stage during or after their edits. I am against acting on articles not created by them, it's just asking for issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and delete Unchecked abuse just encourages more abuse. Sensor1776 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions. I don't like deleting articles that might have some value, especially if other editors have improved them. But when we see this kind of insidious abuse of Wikipedia policy and of basic ethics, we need to send the strongest message we can and try to attack these people where it hurts most - in the wallet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and delete Unchecked abuse just encourages more abuse. Sensor1776 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban, but we cannot delete work to which good faith editors have substantially contributed on the basis of G5. And we cannot delete as contrary to the claims of serice unless we have evidence thatit actually is. It's common for undeclared paid editors to claim credit forwork they have not done. Usually they do this to buildup an impresive but false resume, but sometimes it's to harass competitors.. The way yo deal with bad articles on nonnotable people is to delete them. The way to do with hopelessly promotional articles that could not be rewritten if usually to delete them as G11, but the much better way if the person or organization is really so important that readers would expect to find an article is to stubbigy or merge or redirect. We should not use afch, because far too many articles sent there never get fixed; subiffying or merging, the original methods, at least provide some information for the readers while a proper article is writtten by a good faith editor. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As a longer range solution, it seems that these bad faith promotional editors seem to be able to convince reasonably respectable companies and people, including acadeics who should know better, that their paid editing will be acceptable; this is to a considerable degree because of our comoplicated rules, by which some paid editing if declared according to the correct technicalities declared is acceptable. We can fix this ourselves, without the WPF; we can fix this simply and immediately, by resolving that 'No paid editing shalll ever be permitted on the enWP. . We have the right to make requirements for enWP beyond the WMF's TOU. If other language WPs wish to follow us, that's their look out. (to be fair, there will be a number of problwms, such as dealing with existing articles, and improving requests for articles and requests for changes. (I have no personal animus against declared paid editors as people--at least two are personal friends, and I think both of them recognize their practices are not really defensible) DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No paid editing shalll [sic] ever be permitted on the enWP seems a little extreme. We have some (from personal encounters, two) editors who have followed the rules as is and have disclosed their paid relationship with clients, as well as refrained from editing the articles themselves, confining their suggestions as edit requests on the talk page. The point that should be stressed is that undisclosed paid editing shall never be permitted on the enWP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ban, Delete, Snow. Zero tolerance for UPE. Cabayi (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions. According to their FAQ page (Internet Archive: 20200712120055, "wikiprofessionalsinc" .com, subpage "faqs"), their justification for policy violations is using WP:IAR as a "loophole". They "absolutely" "guarantee acceptance of the article to Wikipedia", stating that "there is no doubt that it will be accepted". We should change this, indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions - Paid editing like this should not be tolerated on this website, If these articles are found to be notable they can be recreated by neutral editors, Deleting these would show we're serious and that paid editing like this won't be tolerated here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban, deletion and salting of articles created by these accounts: As Britishfinance suggests above, there is a need to establish asymmetry such that the consequences are worse than neutral for a firm's clients. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Neutral, at the moment, on deletion. Many of these articles appear to be the kind of corporate cruft we could do without and never miss. However, TheBlaze (later moved to Blaze Media), Delivery Hero, and Russell McVeagh contain information that is in the public interest (political alignment of a media outlet, controversies over labor practices, and sexual-assault allegations respectively). XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Adding my 2c after some thought. Support site ban. If we're banning accounts, some of these are not obviously connected, so those should be avoided. Support deletion if the articles have not been substantially contributed to by editors in good standing, and if deleting the articles wouldn't cause wasted effort (eg some articles, like Delivery Hero, we'd just have to create again immediately, waste of time deleting it). For those articles that are kept under this criteria, add {{upe}} badge of shame. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and I believe that the articles can be quickly sorted into those that have not had a substantial edit from other editors (which can be deleted right away) and others that can be dealt with in the usual ways. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban (and request a global ban). While I personally support deleting all their spam, I would note that the idea of speedy deletion of undisaclosed paid spam in violation of Terms of Use has been repeatedly rejected at WT:CSD. Because, I guess, we desperately need new spam articles or something? Guy (help!) 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  JzG did you mean to add this in the section above? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban; Oppose blanket deletion. The articles should be deleted if and only if they meet our deletion criteria. Some doubtless will, others won't. I clicked on 3 of the articles about companies at random. Linx Cargo Care has 4000 employees and is owned by major institutional investors; Delivery Hero is publicly traded, has 18000 employees (supposedly) and runs many well-known food delivery brands worldwide; Day Software was formerly public, now owned by Adobe. None of this is prima facie evidence of notability, but it makes it very plausible at least some of these companies (and perhaps the other articles - haven't checked) have enough 3rd party coverage for an article, or at worst should be redirected not nuked. Therefore, no objection to zapping any and all that do specifically meet our deletion criteria, but no to automatic delection as a shortcut or "punishment". BTW, we've been down this road before, where 15 years ago (+-) we nearly nuked Arch Coal since its initial version was written by a spammer. Martinp (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Note about CheckUser and paid editing

I'm writing this just as myself and without having consulted the team, but as there are several people asking for CheckUser above, I think it is worth giving a longer explanation of changes in behaviour here over time. As a bit of background, I've been involved with paid stuff from an SPI angle since at least early 2017, which was before I was an admin. I continued to help in the area as a sysop, and initially was fairly involved as a CU with paid cases.

In the 3.5 year timeframe I mention, we have seen a pretty large shift in how the paid editing model works. Previously we would regularly see fairly large sockfarms of 10, 15, 20, 30 plus accounts. These invariably were operating on VPNs, and given the degree of coordination and the technical details of some of them, they were likely in the same physical location, either being coworkers or the same person.

In 2018 and 2019 User:SQL and myself started a project that for the most part blocked the overwhelming majority of commercially available VPNs from en.wiki. User:Jon Kolbert, after his election as a steward, began a similar project on a global scale, and earlier this year, ST47 created a bot that targeted other types of open proxies on en.wiki. The combined result of these efforts is that while possible, it is difficult for a commercial operation to maintain a profitable sockfarm by relying on VPNs.

Over 2018 and 2019 as the impact of these blocks began to manifest, there was actually a sharp decline in the number of large sockfarms for paid editing. What instead became apparent from the technical and behavioural data was a few things:

1. Different people were writing the same commissioned articles
2. The people were unlikely to be working in collaboration with one another
3. The majority of spam we were seeing was coming from freelancers, not marketing firms

I can think of a specific case where we know for a fact that the individual who was commissioned to write the article was living in North America, but where the accounts involved in its creation were operating from two different cities on another continent. These were white-label products being farmed out to individual people. When there are multiple people in multiple locations showing up, CheckUser is going to show them as  Unrelated because they are.

I'm saying all this because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in the community of how these organizations currently work. Risker did a lot of work with the Orangemoody investigation, and can speak to how it was then, but the type of commercial editing we're seeing today has a very different model from Orangemoody. I see Ivanvector has commented at SPI against fishing in a case, and Drmies above has already indicated that CU can't do much. I'll send a note to checkuser-l in case there is anyone else from the team who wants to comment here on what they have seen, but I think that the community should be aware of what our limits are in terms of effectiveness. We'll look at cases where there appears to be socking, but our time is one of our most valuable assets, and trying to figure out if two different freelancers are the same person usually isn't that useful. Especially in the time of COVID, where even if they work for the same firm, they're probably on their home wifi and won't show up related.

Administrators should block spam as they see it and not wait for CU if it is obviously a violation of our core content policies. We relied on CU for a long time to help deal with paid editing, but it is becoming less useful now as our other tools to fight against the mass paid farms have worked extremely well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Let’s talk about how admins can block spam when they see it. Suspected spammers, or only after they confess or have a WP:DUCK outcome at SPI? Draftify or delete? Tony, this is not a criticism of you; you have done and continue to do a good job of policing this area. But I think we are in a bit of a limbo wrt proper procedures for well intentioned admins. Is there an admin field guide to a) identifying actionable material and b) what to do once it is positively identified? You made a very good case for not depending on checkuser for (a), but now what? It is very frustrating for all concerned to file what feels like a solid SPI report only to have it returned as "too late for cu" or whatever. And an SPI "warrant" is really the key to g5 else the whole system grinds to a stop under the weight of the full blown AfD process times tens to hundreds of bad-faith article creations. This RfC is certainly a special case, we can’t sustain a community ban for every entity on WP:PAIDLIST. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bri, no need to worry about offending me. We've worked closely together in the past on this stuff and I still really value the work of people at COIN even though I'm less involved there than I used to be. My motivation for posting this is that while we've discussed this as a CU team on calls and trainings, I don't think it really has been communicated as well to the community, so I want to be clear what they can expect from us.

In terms of how admins can handle it, my thought process would be something like this: is an account clearly creating promotional content? If yes, have they created content elsewhere on the project? If the answer to that is no, they're a spam-only account and they should be blocked. Our policy is not "you can spam unless you sock" it is "you cannot create promotional content." If the content isn't bad enough for G11, it can be dealt with after the block by PROD or AfD by other uninvolved editors at COIN or ANI. When I'm going through SPI and I get to a case where it is clearly just two freelancers, I block them both as a regular admin action for promotion.

We've done a pretty good job at decreasing these large farms, and we're now at a level where a bunch on lone wolfs and white-label writers are trying to make a buck. That's a lot easier to be dealt with effectively at the regular admin level without functionary involvement if its clear what is going on from the edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

as a checkUser myself, although not a very active one, I agree with Tony. There's usually no need for a check. Promotional editing is clear enough on the face of it. Specific undeclared paid editors are often clear enough, wihtout checkuser, and the way they work , usually makes the additional information from checkuser not really necessary or worth the trouble.At present, if there's really as case of private information or doxing or impersonation, I think the sipler course is to invovle arb com directly. Back 3 years ago, arb com was less willing to get invovkled , so therere was a reason for using checkusers instead. That is no longer the case. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that while I agree with the message Tony is delivering, it is definitely sometimes still useful to run a checkuser, as we can often pick up large farms of socks and articles. I's still quite common to come across large UPE farms through checkuser. It's difficult for a non-CU to distinguish between a freelancer meat farm and a paid sock farm, I appreciate that. Sometimes - perhaps often - a CU will say that nothing can be done, or they won't look for whatever reason. But sometimes something can be done. So as Tony says, don't necessarily wait for a CU, but also definitely don't afraid from requesting one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been said. In response to the ping: I declined that case because we're required by policy to see justification for a check before using the tool; I don't see it but offered that I would take another look if a more concise case could be made. With respect, I think that the filer doesn't understand SPI very well: for one, of the 29 accounts listed, only three can actually be checked. Several that cannot are already related to other investigations which were certainly not involved in paid editing, which indicates to me that the filer has not really investigated and is counting on the CU to do it for them, and that's not our role (as I had said, checkuser is not for fishing, and I hadn't said it but the clerks' job is not to make your case for you, though they often do comment on evidence and/or dig up their own).

I may be quicker than some to decline investigations ported from COIN, for the reasons TonyBallioni suggests, that we're unlikely to find anything useful for a COIN investigation. COIN investigates multiple accounts working together commercially, while SPI investigates multiple accounts operated by one person: CU tools really can't do anything else. We've been advised recently that "suspicion of paid editing" is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for checking, and I tend to agree. There can be overlap between COIN and SPI, and like zzuuzz says we can sometimes uncover large operations when they're technically related (but as Tony says they're more often not these days), but we need to see valid suspicion of sockpuppetry supported by evidence before we can check. That's the rules we're given. All that said, and despite Arbcom being more assertive about compliance in the last year or so, that bar is still pretty low honestly.

As for what can "regular" admins do to counter paid editing? Advocate for stronger policies against it. We're evidently still relying on these paid operations to do something else wrong (like sockpuppetry) before they can be blocked. That strongly indicates (to me) that our policies against this activity don't go far enough. I don't have suggestions to offer in this regard, just commentary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Range blocks work well on some ISPs. Depends on the ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Just in regards to Tony's comments above, one of the things I've been noticing recently - especially in regards to sites like Freelancer - is that a large portion (and posisbly a majority) of paid editing jobs are being subcontracted to other paid editors once someone is hired, with a preference towards people who do not have a history of socking. I recently was curious about the extent of this and started mapping the relationships between paid editors on Freelancer, but we're looking at situations ranging from people who are regularly hired but always subcontracted, to people who subcontract 10-30% of their work, and of the major paid-editing accounts I could identify well over half were subcontracting in some fashion. This would create CU problems, because even if you know which sockmaster was originally hired to perform the task, it could be a completely different farm (or not a farm at all) that then does the job. This isn't insurmountable from a DUCK perspective, but does damage the effectiveness of CU. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, yes, that’s what I’m getting at. As I mentioned above, I can think of one case where Freelancer or Upwork, etc. confirmed the identity of the person and that they were in North America. The accounts that created the article(s) they had been hired to create were from two distinct locations using two different devices on legitimate ISPs on a different continent than North America. The Upwork person had subbed the work out white-label. In cases like this, CU isn’t going to help you, and I agree that subcontracting is likely the majority practice these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is close to being the majority practice of Freelancer. I was suprprised just how often I'd see a FFreelancer have reviews from other Freelancers whom I know are doing paid WP work. Not only does it help avoid CU, but it hides the job, as the subcontractor just hires someone for "wikipedia editing" without specifying what the work is for, even if the original advertisement was more specific. (Although duck blocks based on original job remain viable). In the case of Upwork there are fewer clear cases of subcontracting from other freelancers as it is against their ToU, but there is a much higher percentage of subcontracting from companies such as Wikiprofessionals Inc. Just looking quickly today, in the last 48 hours 1/5 of WP editing ads on Upwork are very likely to be subcontracting, but the problem is less about number of ads as the number of separate jobs each ad can represent. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you TonyBallioni and Bilby for these details, they're very informative and do inform on what is most useful. This would need to be a separate discussion, but it's probably also worthwhile having a discussion on other potential methods (such as fr-wiki's use of "fake buyers", which I suggest we'd want community sign-off and a degree of ARBCOM oversight, were we to go that route). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Ivanvector: both suggest that a change in policy could help here (Tony's was way above, saying that he supports banning all commercial editing). I've had some mixed feelings on this. Often it seems that we have the policies, it's just that they aren't enforced. Other times it seems like we have people willing to enforce the policies, but it seems like there is a glitch in the way many people interpret the policy. I suppose we should just take one step at a time, whichever will be more effective at the time. Coming up with a new policy on Commercial editing would probably be effective now. So all we need to do is define commercial editing, ban it, make it easy to enforce. I will suggest that we leave WP:Paid editing disclosure alone - since it is part of the ToU it has special status and is very difficult to revoke. If we were to go through the complete process to change the disclosure process, the resulting policy would be weaker (easier to change) than the combination of the current disclosure policy plus a new policy on commercial editing. This is not the best place to discuss a new policy - can somebody suggest the best place to take this? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I’d support a ban on commercial editing and specifically phrase it that way so that the “What about WiRs/WMF employees” strawman doesn’t derail the discussion like it does every time any policy change in this area is discussed. Something I disagree with Ivanvector on to an extent is that we need some sort of change to work effectively now: spam-only account is a valid reason for a block. Always has been. Admins have just been trained to go the SPI route post-Orangemoody since for a while the biggest threat were these massive sockfarms. Admins can apply existing policy more liberally than they are today and have a big impact without requiring something like a commercial editing ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that promotional editing is probably the biggest issue facing enwiki today. Given my druthers, I'd be a lot more free with WP:G11 than I am, but I try to hew to the community opinion, which seems to be a lot more accepting of this, especially in draft space. The past year or so, I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing drafts at WP:AfC. Left to my own devices, I'd G11 90% of what comes through there, but I figure if I did that, I'd find myself on the wrong end of an Arbcom case. I'd be more than happy to see an RfC that put some teeth into our WP:COI policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the current policies are not stopping the problem. The question, then, is if progressivly tougher policies will change anything? The people we are talking about are already banned and will already have their content removed on sight. It makes no difference. I do think we need to have a discussion about solutions, and the WMF needs to be invovled, but if we're really serious about the problem the solution is unlikely to be in hardening policies that don't make a difference anyway. We need to work out better methods of detecting paid editing, better means of stopping the ads, or better means of removing the demand. If we achieved that we'd either be able to enforce the policies we have or we would have less need to enforce them. - Bilby (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that spam is currently our biggest problem and have the numbers to back it up. I swing the banhammer at everyone I suspect of UPE and shove their articles into draftspace because sending them to AFD is too laborious and risky (of being kept, either by spammer intervention, default or, rarely, because they are actually notable). My experience is similar to TonyBallioni and Bilby - I don't bother with SPI unless I know it will be useful, which isn't very often. That said, I rolled up a 25 article spam sock farm because they used the same tactics last week. I welcome any constructive RFC that either enhances COI, PAID, increases the notability threshold (especially for sportspeople, or maybe propagating the enhanced CORP sourcing to living people to enhance sourcing for spam-prone occupations) or otherwise make it harder for spammers to spam.

But what's missing here is measures to reduce demand for spamming services. This is particularly hard, given that PR is valued in the corporate world. MER-C 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking along the same lines. There are so many ads from people seeking a WP page so that they can be verified on Instgram, or to help their career as a minor speaker/hypnotist/author/colsultant/surgeon/whatever, that if we killed the possibility of these minor articles we'd make a huge difference. Only then we'd need to delete a lot of existing articles. - Bilby (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing we can do is to set up a venue like Wikipedia:Copyright problems but for UPE. After seven days, if there is no rewrite by a legitimate editor and there is credible suspicion of UPE the suspected text or the entire article can be deleted at the discretion of the closing administrator (regardless of notability). The spammer can't remove the tag (unlike PROD) and there is less overhead than AFD. This venue could also work well with paid-en-wp at wikipedia . org for the handling of private evidence. MER-C 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the idea of somewhat rewarding UPE with us cleaning up their garbage for them. Tapad was an article I came across the other day. It's now a GA. All the UPEs managed to do was get it declined half a dozen times for promo editing, eg Special:Permalink/565913721. Then others cleaned up the mess. Honestly, blatant UPE should just be CSD'd (time for A12?), rather than a PROD-like process giving a chance for improvement. It shouldn't be anybody's job to clean up that mess. Nor should we give the impression that we'll clean up people's UPE for them. If the article is notable and could be written encyclopaedically by someone else, I'm sure it can be started from scratch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Another strategy that might work for decreasing "verification" articles and some other forms of mercenary editing is to tighten the requirement to make pages in mainspace to extended-confirmed. We at #wikipedia-en-help on IRC have been seeing a rash of draftpages being moved to mainspace by their authors in an effort to bypass the (frankly unreasonably long) review queue; without fail these are all moved back to draft or taken to AfD; an extended-confirmed creation requirement would block this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 19:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I'm confused. You say the AfC queue is unreasonably long, but you suggest extended-confirmed protection as a solution? Not to mention, there's plenty of editors here who write articles, are efficient with their edit count, and heck, got autopatrolled before they got extended-confirmed. I don't think this restriction is a net plus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, I would want the ability to move out of draftspace to be extended-confirmed only, but this leaves the loophole that ACPERM is only autoconfirmed, which incentivises these spammers to make autocon-busters specifically to post their spam to mainspace. Extended-confirmed is much harder to game. I view the issue of the AfC queue and trying to circumvent it as separate things, since those looking to seriously bypass it are almost always mercenaries. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 07:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I don't agree that commercial editing is our biggest issue, I mean, the Nazis are back, among other things. Some commercial editing produces good encyclopedia content, and that's our overall mission. I'll agree that it's our most complicated issue, certainly, but I fear that outright banning all commercial editing risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have policies that enable and guide commercial editing so that we can ensure compliance with our standards, and many for-pay editors follow them, but we don't have the volunteer power to keep up with the torrent of spammy garbage that is constantly contributed. That's where I think the policies could be strengthened. Off the top of my head:
  1. Purge noncompliant commercial contributions, in the same way that we purge copyright violations. Contribs violating the TOS can't be presumed to be compliant with our site license anyway.

1. Deprecate speedy deletion criterion WP:G13. It is abused far too often to "preserve" adverts masquerading as draft articles that would be immediately deleted under WP:G11 if they were in any other namespace. This goes as well for any proposal for a time-limited "review" of commercial drafts. The sort of entity that misunderstands Wikipedia to the point of trying to buy themselves an article probably also doesn't understand the difference between an article and a draft, and an unaccepted draft surviving for six months is plenty of time for a freelancer to dupe a client into paying for work that we'll delete later; Orangemoody exploited policy naïveté extensively. If it's an advert, delete it immediately. If our goal is to eliminate abusive commercial editing we are far too lenient on this.
2. Salt commercial titles by default, and by that I mean add a criterion "previously created for pay" as a creation protection rationale. If something has been created for pay before it will be again, so let the next editor draft something compliant before we allow it to exist in article space.
3. On that note, have a speedy criterion similar to WP:G4 for recreated commercial articles. If any page previously deleted as spam is recreated and has not been brought into compliance, delete it immediately.
4. One more after edit conflicting with Jéské Couriano's comment above: make cross-namespace moves a permission which can be revoked by admins if it's abused or used incorrectly, pending an explanation from the user that they understand the article creation requirements.

Just some thoughts, but if the community gives admins some teeth, we'll bite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm open not to deprecating G13, but to introducing a new general speedy criterion based on Risker's comments that we should not allow content from UPEs anywhere on Wikipedia. G13 has some uses outside of preserving obvious UPE, and I would rather take that burden off it by adding a criterion that applies to such content in any namespace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I figure the idea lab may be more appropriate to get some ideas on policy here, rather than AN? I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Stronger_policies_against_(undisclosed)_paid_editing. Slight discussion fork, but probably the more appropriate venue for what this section is turning into. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User subpages are usually better. Idea lab tends to be where ideas go to die. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Noting, since I was mentioned above in relation to the Orangemoody situation, that I agree with TonyBallioni and the array of other checkusers that CU is largely irrelevant to stopping paid editing. Orangemoody was a special case, in that the "paid" part of the editing wasn't really the reason for the investigation; it was the blackmail, the assumption of identities of other editors, the copyvios, and the leveraging of WP policy that justified that case. The overwhelming majority of "commercial" editing today is done as individual rather than serial sock accounts. Block the accounts, move on. I agree with most of what Ivanvector says above, as well; just get rid of the spam, don't allow it even in draft space, and move on. There are good reasons to have articles about some commercial entities, but there is almost never a good reason to have an article about a law firm, a lot of the financial entities, the people involved in these sorts of organizations, and so on. Notability standards can still use a significant upgrade. Risker (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Outlining a new policy on Commercial editing

(moved to User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy)

Let me try a general outline before moving this to Village Pump of a better space .

• Intro
• Defining commercial. editing
• Allowed editing
• Prohibited editing
• Enforcement

Commercial editing Commercial editors, those who edit Wikipedia as part of a commercial transaction, have historically caused problems on Wikipedia by violating our policies on NPOV, No advertising, No spam, No promotion, .... Their actions are currently regulated by WP:COI, and WP:Paid editing disclosure, but problems have continued. This policy supplements WP:COI and WP:PAID and all commercial editors must follow all of these rules.

Defining commercial editing

A commercial editor is any editor who accepts payment or similar inducements to edit a Wikipedia article. The following type of editors are automatically considered to be commercial editors.

• Firms that advertises that they will edit or create Wikipedia articles for pay or similar inducements.
  • The owners, managers, employees, and contractors of these firms.
• Firms that sell goods or services that do not include Wikipedia editing or writing services, if they edit Wikipedia
  • Owners, managers, board members or employees of the legal, public relations, marketing or sales departments, or employees who receive a commission based on sales or revenue (more later) ````

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think this should probably be a separate draft. Noticeboards are a poor venue for drafting policy. With a separate draft you also have a talk page to discuss development, at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ok, thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • A first draft is ready at User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Also plugging in MER-C's proposals at User:MER-C/Paid2019. For a policy to be effective there needs to be adequate enforcement abilities given to administrators, otherwise it'll just be ignored like current policies are. There seems to be various past proposals to strengthen wording, but wording alone won't help if it can't be properly enforced. I like MER-C's for the various enforcement and review processes. I like some of your proposals, like the suffixing of (commercial) to usernames, and addressing previously raised concerns like WiRs. I think a mixture of both your and MER-C's proposals could produce the policy needed, and ideally one that can pass as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I entirely agree. It may take me awhile to plug this in (right at the end where people will remember it!). @ProcrastinatingReader: do you want to go ahead and give it a try? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can individual articles be contested?

An editor has removed the deletion tag from one of the articles explicitly listed for deletion here [25]. I'm not sure if this is allowed. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That was me. I've been around long enough to remember (and be an active participant) in a similar, but stormier and more restricted discussion of Arch Coal. Regardless of who creacted Delivery Hero, I think it is similarly clearly notable. I'm afraid I haven't been active enough in the intervening 15 years to fully follow the process proposed by the discussion closer of deleting and then restoring to draft, but think it is a decent article as it stands, which can be improved but does not need to be in order to be acceptable. I'm happy to follow any process, but would love to minimize needless bureaucracy. I removed the CSD tag also in part since it was inaccurate as placed: it was tagged G5 which does not apply, since creator was not banned at the time of creation, and others have edited since creation; and G11 which also doesn't apply since it doesn't only serve to promote. I recognize this was a good-faith attempt to force-fit consensus here into CSD categories, though in my personal opinion this illustrates the dangers of trying to bypass our established deletion criteria by an ad-hoc consensus (I would call it drive-by consensus) in a debate on a different topic, whether to ban someone.

I also looked at Day Software which I WP:BOLDly redirected to its new parent owner since that seems a more suitable outcome than full deletion; at Linx Cargo Care Group which I don't know or care about enough to have a firm opinion (I think it is marginal) and so took no action; and at Firefly Aerospace which I also suspect could be kept as-is, but was and is not tagged for deletion so I also didn't do anything. The talk page makes it clear on the latter there has been some conflict between people with apparently vested interest (pro and con) on this company.

I recognize my edits in this matter are somewhat irregular given the close above, but then again a consensus on deletion, outside of established deletion criteria and process, of 30-odd articles as a group as a conclusion of a user ban discussion, is somewhat irregular as well. Happy to step aside if this is counterproductive. Martinp (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I feel 100% the opposite. Re-litigating individual articles via AfD is unnecessary given that the community has already reached consensus here. The remedy for those who disagree on a case-by-case basis is to personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of their own reputation. Simply short-circuiting the deletion which has already been announced as the RfC outcome is not an option IMO. Hope to hear from others on this. - Bri.public (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of their own reputation - isn't that what Martinp just did (by removing the tag, contesting the deletion, and posting the paragraph above)? Primefac (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

AFD is more about assessing the notability, not the current state of the article. Also consensus was to delete articles created by Wikiprofessionals, but it's unlikely that these were the articles they created. The list originally included several articles created by established editors, obviously it wouldn't have been acceptable to delete them but the error rate is probably still much higher than what RHaworth was desysopped for (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth). Peter James (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO, an experienced editor in good standing contesting CSD is in accordance with the last sentence of the close, just skips/substitutes a few steps (article is tagged, article gets deleted, article is restored to draft, article is moved back to mainspace, CSD is contested, article goes to afd if someone disagrees with its existence). I think you linked the wrong diff. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(resp to all 3 comments above)Indeed, if we want to follow established process, irrespective of the nature of the consensus that was judged here, we should find a different way of implementing it than tagging one (but not others?) of the articles in the list with *technically incorrect* CSD templates. A consciencious administrator would have removed the tag rather than deleted on the basis of the placed CSD tags anyway, since neither criterion that was specified (G5 or G11) actually applies: creator was not blocked/banned when article created; others have made substantial contributions (top 10% of editors represent just 31.2% of edits sez the articleinfo xtool); the article is not wholly promotional (note extensive criticism section). In addition, Delivery Hero survived an AFD as a speedy keep (after notability was demonstrated) in 2016.

Thus we are in WP:IAR territory, which is fine. Given the context, collectively it seems we want to nuke all these articles bar case-by-case exceptions rasied by established editors. Well, I'm raising Delivery Hero as one such objection. As discussed already in the 2016 AFD, and as is clear from a cursory internet search, the company clearly notable. They own the Foodora chain and have bought up other similar food delivery chains globally, and dealt with quite a bit of pretty public controversy regarding employee/contractor classification that is covered in the article. Regardless of its history, I think it would be very difficult for anyone to look at this article individually and conclude it shouldn't exist. To say I "personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of my own reputation" is pretty melodramatic, but I am asserting that I'm pretty sure this article should stay, that's is OK (though doubtless can be improved) the way it is. And that notwithstanding our collective desire to nuke spammer detritus, perhaps we need to be a bit more careful than zapping something just because it appeared on a list. For instance, I think Firefly Aerospace is another similar example, though I'm less sure of that one. Martinp (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd see two pieces here. First off, G5 does apply. Undisclosed paid editors are already banned from editing Wikipedia; they are editing in violation of our policies. The fact that they hadn't been caught yet doesn't change that, just like edits by any banned sockpuppet before they get caught aren't suddenly "not banned". So everything created by a UPE in the area for which they are being paid is a banned edit, and subject to G5 or the like. Undisclosed paid editing is basically a topic ban that applies to every editor, and edits made in violation of that should be treated accordingly. That said, in the case of edits by a banned editor, an editor in good standing may choose to take on responsibility for those edits. Now, that does mean "take on responsibility"—that editor is, when they do so, for all intents and purposes the one who made those edits. But if they are willing to do that, that is permitted. I would just caution that if you take on responsibility for any edits which were inappropriate, you can then be sanctioned exactly as though you personally made them to begin with, so check carefully. If in any doubt, work on it in draft instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade: You are incorrect. G5 does not include UPE creations per this discussion from a year ago. There are additional discussions in other archives (an earlier one) indicating that there is no speedy deletion criterion related to UPE creations. --Izno (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Izno, that discussion rejected the idea that everything written by an editor engaged in UPE was G5 eligible. That of course was rejected; only the UPE stuff is. However, local consensus cannot override global, so until and unless UPE is permitted, it is banned, and known UPE is G5-eligible. Period. That particular discussion was just a poor NAC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade:, that's an interesting argument, but if truly put to the test, doubt it would fly. Consensus has on several occasions failed to endorse it. The text at WP:G5 makes it clear the actual blocking/banning (as a labeled act) is meant to be pertinent and the sockpuppet situation is dealt with as a separate bullet. However, in this case your argument would struggle even more, since the creation of the article predates by several years the banning of UPE in the TOU (2014+-?). G5 also requires the article have no substantial edits by others. This article was created, by the spammer, in 2012, in their sandbox, and submitted to AfC, where it was passed and moved into mainspace with some improvement by others. It survived an AFD as a Speedy Keep in 2016. It has now been edited by 87 users and the spammer's contributions represent 6.2% of its content (unless they were using multiple accounts I guess). There is no concievable way G5 applies in the way it is written. If people continue to want to have this article deleted, let's take it to AFD (or I guess DRV, if some admin wants to first nuke it by invoking IAR on the basis of the discussion above, without reference to CSD). I'm pretty comfortable that a 5 day discussion by deletion process regulars on the article's merits will result in a Keep. If people want to significantly expand G5 for UPE-tainted articles, let's reach a consensus on that in a relevant venue, but Delivery Hero won't exactly be a good poster boy for it! Martinp (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, certainly. I'm speaking more generally; cases where we have a sock get caught and know that they've pulled several of them. In this case, you've already said you'd take it on, so that's fine anyway, and regardless in this case (Wikiprofessionals) it was explicitly discussed and the community decided that everything known to be by them needs to go, but since in this case you're taking it on, that no longer falls under it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of the outcome of the debate on G5, could someone also look at Alaba Lawson? The G5 tag has been removed there as well. I have emailed evidence to paid-en-wp that this is another work by the banned entity. Will there be a response when it been evaluated? The discussion at WP:COIN referred me back here for resolution. - Bri.public (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• There is an interesting case as to whether known UPE (which the community has, unfortunately, decided does not currently suffice as a deletion grounds) breaching the TOS warrants deletion. I suspect that were we to quiz Legal they'd almost certainly say that since we can set the paid editing policy to what we want, so long as we were considering the issue they'd want no part of designating it either way. Since they wouldn't, I'm reticent for us to use direct TOS enforcement on the issue rather than deciding a new CSD (or formally expanding G5). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal Close request

A non-closed appeal by @Steverci: could use a look at by a non-participating admin. I've copied the archived discussion into a collapsed form below. If anyone instead wants to continue the discussion, please de-collapse it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion copy

Topic ban appeal Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk) I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc Steverci has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc Steverci is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc Steverci, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC) You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC) *self-trouts* apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk) I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Steverci, those edits you would like to revert are potentially problematic, but they are not Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia's definition. As for the listed articles, they do not provide a good impression of moving beyond the need for a topic ban. Have you considered bold work on areas other than Armenian wars and related? There's a lot of work needed on Armenian articles unrelated to various conflicts. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Nosebagbear specifically asked me for articles related to the topic ban, which includes "broadly constructed" "ethnic conflicts". I'm mostly interested in editing Armenian articles, but also other things. But above I was told that my edits weren't good because they were too safe, so I gave some articles of more potentially contentious subjects, and now you say that it looks bad that I'm appealing the topic ban because I'd like to edit articles related to the topic ban. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Perhaps I misunderstood your opening post then where one of the topics you stated was covered in your topic ban was Armenia as a whole, rather than just conflict-related topics. Can you clarify what you take to be the scope of your current ban? I mentioned the above because dropping a topic ban of Armenia would allow freedom to edit a wide range of articles, without being drawn back to areas that bring higher incidences of editing disputes. Desiring to work in less problematic spaces within existing topic bans can be a reason to remove or reduce a ban. CMD (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Can I clarify the exact TBAN phrasing as indef TBAN from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey - I don't think Steverci is trying to misconstrue or even being careless on it, just for specific discussion in case a narrowed TBAN is considered as an alternative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Narrow TBAN? I'd be willing to narrow the TBAN to conflicts involving one or more of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey or factions within them. I don't know if Steverci has any interest in articles on Armenia/Azerbaijan outside of those areas, so it might be a pointless suggestion. I don't think there's sufficient activity to warrant removing the full TBAN on the truly problematic areas at this point. I'd be happy to say that Steverci can appeal in 3 months (whether the current TBAN is narrowed or not), rather than the usual 6, since that could give a decent editing basis - I haven't spotted any particular problems that warrant a long pause time between each appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I'd be open to either the narrow TBAN or another three months. The former would allow me to clearly demonstrate the TBAN is no longer necessary. For the latter, I'd appreciate if we could define a minimal amount of required edit activity. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with Deepfriedokra here. Tbans are given based on a history of problems. Tbans are lifted based on a history showing there is no longer a problem, and in this case, there isn't enough history to clearly demonstrate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you making a third party appeal on an appeal? I participated in that, so can't "adjudicate" it here, but I can't help be curious what the purpose of this post. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked Nosebagbear if his suggestion – for me to be able to appeal again in three months if I demonstrate the addressed concerns are no longer a problem – was the official consensus, since there was no official closing and nobody proposed anything else. --Steverci (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As Steverci says. It also would only be dubious if I was making the original appeal. Asking for a close on an appeal, especially where I've participated is fine. Nosebagbear (talk)

I think that if I were to close that discussion, I'd do so by saying that there is no consensus to lift or narrow the TBAN - I can't see how this appeal could be closed successfully at present. If I were to contribute to the discussion, I'd say that while Steverci has made some useful contributions since coming back (and I thank them for that), making 150-or-so gnomish edits to historical biographies doesn't give us a huge amount to go on in terms of judging whether or not they have developed their ability to work collaboratively in contentious areas. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think that's certainly legitimate, and also appears to be Steverci's interpretation (at least in the sense he didn't ask for a close with a narrowed TBAN, but instead a tweaked time before the next appeal). Do you think it's legitimate for a 3 month time to be used here - if it doesn't get formally closed, then any reasonable pause before rediscussing it seems to meet the spirit of the rules. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, since this wasn't closed either way, I'd say that there isn't a formal restriction on how long they should wait until appealing again. I wouldn't advise them to do it immediately - rather, I'd suggest that they keep editing and build up a good track record showing that they can collaborate well, so that we've got something to go on. Three months of active editing and positive interactions with others (especially people they disagree with) would probably be fine; six months of occasional solitary gnoming probably wouldn't be enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is good advice, I would recommend to @Steverci: to follow it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what Girth said. Good advise, and I agree that a non-closed appeal doesn't put a time limit on the next, although waiting is obviously wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965

Moved from WP:VPM § Temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965

Hello! An administrator deleted the above-mnetioned article after a discussion some years ago. I need some information from that article for a future article. I would be very grateful if an administrator could temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965 for 10 minutes or so. I'll make a copy and transfer the article to my sandbox page. Then he/she must deletete it once more. Thank you very much! --Mbakkel2 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have emailed you a copy of the last version prior to the deletion discussion. Note that if you plan to use any content from this article you are required to attribute the source; a link to the deleted page will suffice. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I mis-read: what you want is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:RUD specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Slightly of topic but would a link to a deleted page suffice for attribution? I thought it wouldn't since the page history and thus the list of contributors is inaccessible for non-admins. --Trialpears (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Attribution to a deleted page is acceptable in cases like this, though obviously not ideal. We do it all the time for "subst-and-delete" TFDs. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes but then we include the list of contributors in the edit summary as documented at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors, right? That's at least how I've been doing it and I would feel quite iffy about just leaving just a redlink for attribution. --Trialpears (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scroll down a bit to WP:RUD and you'll see you're pretty much spot-on. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why can't we just undelete and move to user or draft space, so all the attribution will exist? I'm not at all convinced that linking to a deleted page satisfies copyright concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sashirolls reopen close

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

---

I have closed the above Sashirolls ban review as no consensus following a long reading. Review is welcome. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good close and very well explained. Britishfinance (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close: it was closed after discussion died down (~2 days without new comments); it explained how !votes were counted (including unclear !votes), how !votes were weighed, and how the ultimate no consensus conclusion was arrived at. I'm bummed there was no consensus to re-open the discussion but I wish Sashi luck on his future appeal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - also irked on the result but the explanation and process of it all was top quality. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - good timing (~2 days idle), good explanation of your rationale, obvious that you actually read the discussion, and open to review. Unlikely that everyone will be satisfied, but so it goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• A review of a close of a review of a close? I need to get out more :-) (Of course Sashirolls can just appeal and then we'll all be here again.) I think that only have been closed as no consensus.P-K3 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - As others have said this was a good summary of the recent discussion. It's too bad the original discussion was not treated as well. It also highlights one of the problem with supervote or other problematic close closings. When a no-consensus case gets closed with a "consensus" it's basically impossible to overturn. Those who wanted the consensus outcome come to the follow on discussion and say "all is well" Since overturning needs a consensus not just another no-consensus a basically impossible bar has been set by a bad closing that went with the majority (but not necessarily super majority needed for a consensus). Springee (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  +1. Closes should be overturned unless there's consensus that it's a good close, as opposed to being overturned only if there's consensus that it was a bad close. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, sounds real good in theory, if it weren't for the fact that, objectively speaking, the majority of banned editors deserved to be banned. The reality is that the encyclopedia and the project are vastly more important than any individual editor. The community has the right to protect that asset, and if that means that a mistake slips through occasionally, well, what of it? All that's happened is that a person can't edit a website. It's not a big deal, go find another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Hmm, that is good commentary on the process. If an article is moved and disputed, it is moved back and discussed. If a person is banned thru a disputed close, then it stands and must be overturned. Articles matter, yes; but do people? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close - well thought out statement. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The close of the discussion about the close was proper and valid and the closer closed it with a good close rationale. I just wish the closer of original close examined the discussion a little closer in their close as it was closer than the close disclosed. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I supported opening it back up just to end the matter once and for all, but it is very clear that there was no consensus in that discussion. To be honest, the very fact that the discussion took place was ample enough time to air all possibilities, so I'm satisfied that we have said all we need to say about it. In a nutshell, the close accurately reflects the discussion that took place, so I would endorse it, thus the original ban close stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close, and I really hope that everyone can now move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I hope your retirement is now more peaceful. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's very nice of you, thanks. And here I would have thought that you might foster hostile feeling towards me, so I'm quite pleased to see you say that. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good close. I look forward to the review of the close of this close review thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close, but.... My feelings about this are pretty much the same as user:Springee. When MastCell cast his supervote in the original discussion he effectively gamed the system by imposing a high bar to get the result overturned. The original discussion should have been closed "no consensus" which would have ultimately not resulted in Sashi being banned. Instead, we now need to get a consensus to overturn something that didn't have a consensus to begin with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - in prior discussions, several editors said things along the lines of "god help any admin who tries to close this", as if editors are an unruly mob just waiting to pounce on the poor helpless closer. Well, this proves that actually, we "rabble" only "freak out" over bad closes. Good closes are widely respected, even by those who disagree with the ultimate result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Right outcome for the close. Disagree that the arguments in favour of opening were stronger, but I agree that it’s clear there’s no consensus to reopen/unban. I’m mainly commenting so we don’t get another “consensus” that closes should have consensus to stay closed when they’re challenged. It’s not very hard to get even the best possible close of a contentious discussion to “no consensus” on review. All you need is the people on the losing “side” showing up and bringing some friends along. There’s a reason we expect consensus to overturn consensus: we expect that sysops and other experienced editors act in good faith and with understanding of policy, and that their decisions are not arbitrary. If you get rid of those assumptions, whether it be for behavioural discussions or content discussions you’d either get significantly less people willing to close, or a whole bunch of people hedging with “no consensus” closed since there’s no reason to stick your neck out while closing a difficult discussion if it defaults to being overturned. Basically that model simply isn’t an effective way to run a self-governing community. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - Echoing those above. While the original close was poor the correct close of this was no consensus. Now that said, I think Springee, Bison X, and Rusf10 made some good points that could merit some exploration in the future. In situations like this where there was such a clearly bad close it should probably not be you need consensus to overturn but rather consensus to keep. As they point out this is normally the case with things like contentious article moves. Eliminating the first mover advantage should be a goal in the future to ensure fair and just treatment of our editors. PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• The notion that there is an added barrier (excepting consensus to revoke) to revoke existing consensus is invalid, because it was placed with consensus and not at will. The general viewpoint on the close varied widely, so the notion probably stems from the idea of "no consensus" equating to "status quo", ideally this discussion should have had a clear outcome of endorse/overturn but it's hard to mandate that in a consensus-building system and is only possible if we choose to move to an absolute numeric measure, which I believe has a higher chance of being gamed compared to this half-bad status quo regime. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close in the context of the system, and probably the right result overall. (despite that I supported reopening) Maybe a systemic problem that you need a consensus to take a 2nd look at a strongly-questioned process which meted out a severe punishment. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Salting

Category:Moowoo17, and similar 'Moowoo' pages have been created and deleted 8 times in the last 24 hours by a range of socks. These are clearly being created by an LTA, but is it worth us considering salting them? Best, Darren-M talk 22:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to the title blacklist to cover the whole lot of them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, gracias! :) Darren-M talk 23:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, who is this? zzuuzz, you blocked one of them, User:Suix Xar, three years ago, as a sock...who is this rat child? Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah--User:The Suix, acting like this for a few years now. Less interesting than I thought--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the original is User:The Suix, however there's an impersonation by My Royal Young going around, for example this one. It don't matter much anyway.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just imagine if these people got dates--we'd have a lot less work to do, but we'd likely have to alert the authorities and the family members. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

...and the rats.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The KKK took my baby away

So, Nathan Bedford Forrest is best known as a Confederate general, a mass-murderer of African-American soldiers who tried to surrender, and a racist cult leader (I'm sorry, "Grand Wizard") of the KKK. Even in Selma they removed his bust a couple of years ago, though the DoC (a hate group) and the FoF ("Friends of Forrest", haha) replaced it. Anyway, what do we think of the user name "NathanBedfordForrest1"? Is it impersonation of a famous person? Is NBF at the level of A. Hitler yet? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp, we could look at their edits to see if there is some sort of NOTHERE or POINT behavior. Have we tried discussion of user's nom de plume? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the user's edits and they appear to be here in good faith. I would similarly suggest discussing the issue with them and giving them instructions on how to request a rename. I think it's definitely not within the spirit of our user name policy, but given they haven't shown any bad faith so far I think it's worth just asking them to choose a different name. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Selma is not far up the road from me: I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone would pick that username in this day and age--in other words, I'd ask them and go "hey did you know that you picked the name of a mass-murdering slave-owning racist", but you know, what's the point. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There are bad people on both sides? I tend to doubt this is a coincidental name. Clearly offensive and must be changed. Didn't add to WP:UAA as I see Deepfriedokra is here. Okra cures all ills. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Should have run CU earlier. Widr, you blocked the range they're on for two years, last year, but you're not a CU, I don't think so this means very little, maybe. AmandaNP, you ran CU on the range a few days ago, saying "Obvious not new, disruptively attempting to "fix" things", and on that range, where I don't recognize anyone, there's a few odd users and odd interactions. Can you have a look? Drmies (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User now says they'll abandon the account. Still should be blocked. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's the Incorrigible Troll / Starship9000 person, and have blocked accordingly (compare Special:Contributions/IluvRobertELee). I therefore also have these suspicions about the check AmandaNP did, which is another now-abandoned account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. You have my vote, if jerk catcher ever becomes an elected position. Please consider the range also, and that one IP--and did this person ever do anything useful? Cause there's a few accounts in there, one of which should a great interest in the modern display of the ole rebel rag. Thx, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I think. I've taken those actions I've observed to be appropriate at this time, knowing that will never stop anyone else doing anything further, though I accept it is not everything. Also self-confession. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mid-September RfA Flight

Building off some recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about the lack of new RfAs, one idea that has been mooted is formally running people at RfA together. So I wanted to let people know that I am planning to nominate a candidate in mid-September RfA. If you, or a candidate you are nominating, are interested in joining a flight at that time reach out. Beyond WP:ORCP, Lee Vilenski, Nosebagbear, and I have also offered to give feedback to candidates who might be interested or a candidate could look at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination to find a potential nominator. Again if you are a potential candidate or nominator who would like to take part in a Mid-September RfA Flight please do reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, ifr we can't have solid people like Guy Macon and Levivich promoted then I doubt anything much will work. It functions as "votes for Sainthood" right now. Guy (help!) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have pretty modest ambitions for what this will accomplish but the benefit of this particular endeavor is that we can just do it, no RfC or culture change needed. Also as someone who passed RfA a tad more recently than you, I would dispute as a BLP violation the idea that I'm a saint :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you want someone to run next to whom your candidates will look good in comparison ;) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious question, was there ever an RfA for Levivich? I'm not seeing one, but I can't imagine he wouldn't pass. I can't say I always, or maybe often, agree with him, but he seems someone I'd trust to do a great job. Hobit (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I was checking back at this page about something else, and noticed this thread. To answer Hobit's question, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Levivich is a red link, so the answer is no. For the very little that it is worth, I think that Hobit would do a great job. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobit, no, and there was Drama before I got round to it last time. Guy (help!) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Block

Can you please block 2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C||2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C two Dalip Singh Rana with the reason "removing content from pages"? --List of people from Chamar caste 2405:205:1104:FACD:0:0:1B20:48AD (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You will probably get a faster response at WP:AIV. Aasim 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)

• Andy Auld (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy Auld (aviator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy Auld (Scottish aviator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Andy Auld (pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we have some admin eyes on this article's talk page? It was originally deleted at AfD, but was restored to mainspace virtually unchanged. So, it was tagged G4. But now the tag has been repeatedly removed ([26],[27],[28]). So once again, a sordid episode involving the ARS breaks out; note the usual edit-warring, disruptive editing and spurious claims on the talk page... —— § erial 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the usual tag teaming. Note the familiar names. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Take it to AfD, easiest solution. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There already was an AFD, for the exact same article, with extremely high turnout for AFD. Voters shouldn't be forced to endlessly relitigate this if nothing has changed. SnowFire (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree the article should be speedy removed back to Draft. Just as a matter of policy: let's take the standpoint of those in favor of the article that the AFD was wrong. IMO, the Wikipedia compliant options are too either file a pro-forma DRV to overturn the AFD, or else to resubmit an article that, at least in some vague form, has addressed the concerns raised in the AFD, such that there is at least some plausible way that the AFD might go differently. The additions while in Draft state did not fix this deficiency, such as the extreme reliance on a short blurb on a fansite without a listed author or publication rules (peppered with 10+ passing references of the name). I'm willing to believe that this article could actually come back some day, but it needs to stay in Draft until this is fixed. SnowFire (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

SnowFire, I have no objections if anyone wants to draftify it, but if any of the current editors moves it back to mainspace without independent review then I think they should be blocked. Guy (help!) 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The diff between the deleted version and the current one shows no significant change. This is a valid G4 and frankly a rather disappointing attempt to end-run around deltion process and then weasel in more edits via DYK. People should know better. Guy (help!) 15:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I know the ARS don't like being called a tag team, but to avoid that its members should try harder bot to give the impression. Unfortunately—because I didn't collect the diffs while the page was up, apologies—I can't see the discussion anymore, but if an admin would like to look at the deleted page and See just how many separate "Contested deletions" were made, by the same editors multiple times, then I think that's the dicdef of tag-teaming (let alone budgeoning). (Contested deletions: [29],[30],[31],[32],[33]) —— § erial 15:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• We should all slow down. Articles are resubmitted to main space all the time. I have a newspaper account now, and found multiple articles. In addition the DyK editors thought it was notable. There is no need to rush the deletion, as someone said above an AfD should be a proper avenue. Consensus can change. Look at Skyscraper city which was snow deleted four previous times and is now at a fifth AfD. Speedy was not the right outcome here IMO. I know that this audience has not been friendly to me or the ARS, and the snark is evident in the comments, but I am hoping that we can be reasonable and allow an AfD to proceed. There is no rush IMO. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a question of "liking" the ARS or otherwise (and I'd ask you to retract the that my argument was subjective), but of learning from experience. You personally asked me to assume good faith on the now-deleted talk page; but you were happy to join in the bludgeoning of the discussion. That does not good faith show. —— § erial 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I woke and saw the notice on my talk...then clicked to contest the speedy. Did not notice the discussion in that process. I did some work on the article and had just crawled out of bed. Sadly I am still tired from my C19 experience. Did I post something about you? Or was that another editor? I will retract if I did. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted something about local consensus and dyk. But to my memory nothing about you. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The current fuss has been occasioned by the article's appearance on the main page last night as a DYK. I regularly watch the main page (and have another article about the comet up there currently). So I saw it there and approved. It's also on my watchlist and so I saw it light up there when someone nominated it for deletion. Such mechanisms are the routine reason that editors are attracted to such disputes. The matter is being overdone as a deletion issue because the subject was a reasonably prominent squadron leader and we have a page about the squadron. See WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, Andrew Davidson would not object if we redirected the pilot article to that of the squadron, and then fully-protected the former against recreation. He wouldn't mind that at all, because it would be fully in keeping with WP:ATD  :) —— § erial 16:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger would be more sensible than deletion, of course. People seem to get over-excited about pilots for some reason. My most successful DYK was Tammie Jo Shults and she was nominated for deletion too, just like they tried to delete Chesley Sullenberger. And now we have Tolulope Arotile. It makes little sense but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I also had the article watch listed as Andrew did. I do not think it serves the readers to merge. The subject is a living war hero and when he dies there will be an obit which would likely be enough for us all to agree to WP:N. I found his exploits printed in the Cedar Rapids Gazette this am. My hope is that we could follow process here. The article should have the consensus to merge, delete, redirect, or stay in it's latest incarnation. I for one will add RS. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. No-one was following process by gaming the system, avoiding DRV and sneaking an article that had been deleted by consensus back into mainspace. On the other hand, Amakuru's tagging it G4 was absolutely following process. —— § erial 16:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It was in draft for about 6 months. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS changes as evidenced by the other article I mentioned. As I said, my newspaper account is active and there is quite a bit that can be added to an article which was DYK material yesterday. And i want to say again, I made no references to you in any derogatory fashion. Perhaps JzG can rep-open the talk page so that we can see it? Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You were clearly referring to me right up there' (I know that this audience has not been friendly to me or the ARS, and the snark is evident in the comments) (Yes, I know you can pretend that you were speaking in generalities, but considering I had mentioned the ARS in the very post before yours, you'll forgive me for a) not jumping to that conclusion, and b) not believing in coincidence). —— § erial 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: I said this on the old talk page, but that is not what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is about. If you read the guideline, it's about a small clique attempting to ignore core policies. A well-attended AFD with delete votes from editors in good standing across Wikipedia who were not part of some sort of canvassasing campaign is exactly the reverse of a local consensus: it's a strong consensus across the wider community at a page accessible by all, unlike a single talk page or a Wikiproject page. You can think the AFD was closed incorrectly, that's fine, large groups of editors can be wrong, but the problem was not "local consensus." Please cite some other policy, because it comes across (unintentionally, I'm sure) as a claim that this AFD was attended, by, say, 3 deletionist editors who all hate aviation and vote to delete any topic involving planes, which was not the case here. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Local consensus is determined by whomever is active during the AfD Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time. The original AfD was quite close, and def not an overwhelming delete. A different admin may have had a different close. In any event I am moving on...6 million other articles and i am presently researching a building from 1888. I cannot do anything about JzG's delete of the article. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I won't belabor the point, but that's a trivial definition of "local consensus" that would apply to every AFD and thus be meaningless as a reason to overturn any one AFD. When people cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in a fashion to discredit a decision, it usually means something a bit more specific and a bit more hostile than your version: that 4 super-haters of Epic Fantasy Saga X voted in lockstep to delete all the articles about it, or that 4 super-fans of Epic Fantasy Saga X voted to keep everything even articles about fictional in-setting rock formations. Anyway, good luck and good editing with the building from 1888! SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, 1888? A modern one then. The oldest building at my school was built in the 2th Century. The school was already a couple of hundred years old by then. Guy (help!) 10:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• We judge the reliability of sources, in no small part, by how they handle corrections and retractions. Today we had an untrue statement on the Wikipedia main page, "during the Falklands War Andy Auld helped make operational the Sea Harrier, a short take-off and vertical landing jet fighter". Not only is it factually untrue, it's not even what the cited source in the DYK nom says (which is also not an RS, but never mind that for now). This is a flub (and flubs are an inevitable result of trying to come up with multiple new articles for the main page every day even though we just don't have the people or the articles to do that), but besides that, is Wikipedia going to print a retraction or correction on the main page? Nope. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:General disclaimer.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  A general disclaimer is no substitute for admitting when we published, on our main page, incorrect information. We should act the way we expect our sources would: with a "corrections" box under DYK correcting and apologizing for this error. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich The statement about Auld is actually true. I did not write it but he pioneered the use of the sea harrier. I know that you were a delete !vote in the original AfD, but I hope that we can assess new RS and follow process in deletion. The SD seems out of process and the speed of it all is not needed. I know that you are an editor who studies process and knows the back alleys of WP. So I imagine how you may feel if you worked hard on an article, saw it accepted to DyK and then woke to this fracas. (For some reason I have been credited with starting the article- however I did not) I just helped to improve it. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, in my opinion, it all depends on the answer to this question (which I don't know because I can't see the now-delete article): what new sources were in the recreated article? If there were two new sources that met GNG (reliable, secondary, independent, in-depth... meaning at least 250-500 words about the subject IMO), then a WP:BOLD recreation seems like it's OK. Otherwise it seems against consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, actually it's not the result of trying to populate the main page, it's the result of people who are very motivated to get their article on the main page. This causes much lameness. Guy (help!) 17:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, as I understand it, the entire point of DYK is to motivate people to create new articles with the "carrot" of having those new articles appear on the main page, hence the 7-day nomination window. In my view, we should just put good articles up at DYK, regardless of when they were created. (Not necessarily articles that have GA status, just articles that are good. Although maybe limiting what goes on the main page to GA and above is not a bad idea.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, yes, but what actually happens is that most of them are the same people over and over again, with ever more tortured hooks trying to make trivial articles sound interesting. Guy (help!) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Which is another reason to just shut down the main Page entirely. It's lameness incarnate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Lameness incarnate" :) brilliant! —— § erial 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Having gone through the process myself, I agree that DYK appears to be dominated by a handful of prolific authors, so much so that they all must review a nomination before one of theirs can be published. Hemiauchenia (talk)

MOS:TENSE and MOS:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding Philishave article

I am wondering who shut down the discussion in the talk:Philishave dispute regarding whether the discontinued Philishave brand should be in the past tense or the present tense. I could not find an admin taking part in the discussion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure needed

Hi, I requested a formal close for an RfC over a month ago on June 15th and it is still not closed. ProcrastinatingReader left a proposed close on June 23rd but never closed it. I made a post here previously, but it was never answered. Could someone please close it? It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that wasn't a proposed close but just a note (to whomever wishes to close) to highlight that the discussion wasn't properly advertised, or for a sufficient duration (having been delisted from the only place it was advertised after one week), for the broad change(s) originally requested. Aside from that, there's enough issues with that RfC (sockpuppetry etc) that I felt it would be worth noting any closer should take extra care to read that discussion, and the previous RfCs, before closing. Adding to these issues is the minimal participation, compared to the much wider participation in the discussion closed by SpinningSpark just weeks before, which was also open for discussion for 2 months (compared to 1 week of this one). Combined, I don't think it's appropriate to assume consensus to overrule the SpinningSpark close (from the two-part RfC, not the no consensus one) based on that discussion. As a sidenote, I also find it strange that the most popular outcome from the previous RfC, which SpinningSpark also outlined in his close statement and suggested testing in a future RfC, wasn't provided as an option in this RfC. Multiple respondents asked for that option again in this RfC as an option. I think this RfC was structurally flawed.

Deferring to WP:ACD: if the previous discussion was relatively recent or the newer discussion has much lower participation, it may not be appropriate to overrule the first one. If it were me closing it, I'd close it as no consensus personally, for all the aforementioned reasons. I think the messiness of that discussion has probably prevented sooner closure, and perhaps my response at WP:AN/RFC has also caused confusion (if people think I'm closing it and haven't closed for that reason, in which case I'll clarify there). Pinging SpinningSpark as the closer of the previous two RfCs for his thoughts on this, and perhaps he might want to close this one as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Do you think we'll need yet another RfC to settle this? I looked at the previous RfCs and tried to limit the options based on that, but the sockpuppeteer and another editor were irritated by that. I'm not sure how to proceed to get this cleared up. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm happy to work with the other editors who responded to this RfC to formulate a better, longer-running RfC if you think that would be appropriate. If you think that is a good idea, it might be best just to close this one as being without consensus so we can move on. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, I'm not one for bureaucracy, but I personally can't see how a consensus can be inferred from this discussion, so another one might be needed. I also considered responses and the main points from the previous recent discussion and I believe they're still applicable currently, though those editors didn't participate in this discussion to reiterate them. Likely they didn't know this discussion was happening. Let's just wait and see what others think. SpinningSpark's thoughts, as the closer of the previous few discussions, would be particularly helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, the bureaucracy is becoming stifling here. While I am sure you mean well, continued attempts to get a magical consensus out of this mess are not helpful. This is one where there have been something like four RfCs on the same issue. There was also some sock puppetry which has made a mess of everything. The original RfC was closed noting that there was consensus for part B [inclusion of candidates who had won delegates] with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. We are asking for a close that respects that as the status quo, without prejudice to someone starting an RfC to reconsider it (and hopefully tidy up this mess). In my view the discussions and events that have taken place since the first RfC has created some doubt whether the consensus might have changed (due to the second RfC and other discussions), the effect being that some editors might want to exclude some candidates who have won only a handful of delegates. It was a messy/difficult close to begin with, and the events since haven't made the consensus clearer. I do not see us establishing a clear consensus without a RfC that clearly addresses the "handful of delegates" issue (if someone wants to initiate one). Can we really not agree to the existing status quo as a baseline, with others able to start a new RfC to challenge that? That is the only way I see through this, but if you see another I think editors would like to hear it. Unless another solution is on the table though, dragging this on in the hope that the previous somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs (here, here, here & here) and other discussions (including here, here, among other places) since are going to suddenly offer a clear consensus is not helping us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, a no consensus close would keep the status quo, which would be the result of the two-part RfC. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. I gather that you oppose my opinion that this should be closed with no consensus, but you also state that the status quo should be continued, which is slightly contradictory? I think you might've misunderstood my comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a bit frustrated. This thing has become a mess and attempting to try to make sense of everything that has occurred and correct for sock-puppetry is not helping us here. I do not like the idea of completely blowing up the consensus that was initially reached. There seems to be consensus that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg should be in (because they are over 5%, won significant number of delegates, or they won a state/contest). The lack of consensus seems to be about Gabbard (and possibly Klobuchar) which seems to revolve around whether winning 2 and 7 delegates respectively warrants inclusion. We have wasted so much time on this already, I would not like to see us simply declare that there was no consensus for anything and ignore general consensus concerning the other candidates there. But whatever we do here, it just needs to happen. A decision just needs to be made, because we have been discussing this over and over again since February. Debating this close, and holding it up does not seem to have been productive to me. Those involved agreed to close it on that basis I described above, lets just get on with it. If a no consensus close is where we are going to end up, so be it. But please can we close this? Delay and procedural wrangling here are not our friends.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I bear some blame in this, too, and for that I apologize. ProcrastinatingReader, the reason why I didn't include the "has >5% of the vote or has won delegates" option is because I thought there was no consensus on the matter at the time. My assessment looking through the past RfCs was that the complexity of the choices being offered was preventing a consensus from being reached. Because the most recent RfC before mine had had a large number of participants, and was closed by SpinningSpark as reaching no consensus, and because SpinningSpark did not say anything about a status quo consensus existing, I assumed that the most recent RfC had taken us back to square one. So, perhaps I don't properly understand under what circumstances RfCs supersede each other. In my mind, choosing a single metric was the clearest way forward, and having both the percentage and delegate metrics seemed unnecessary as it would be no different for who is in this infobox than having the delegate criterion alone. My only goal here is to have a clear consensus that we can point to, and to avoid ambiguous terms like "significant." So, I would be just as happy with the option Darryl Kerrigan is talking about as I would with the delegate-only option. Like Darryl, I really just want to move this forward in a timely manner, so I welcome any advice on how we can identify a clear consensus, whether that's finding a way to make it clear that the two-part RfC represents a present consensus or starting a new RfC. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Particularly, the following comment by SpinningSpark on the complexity of the options in the no consensus RfC guided my thinking when I created my RfC:
  

"RfCs work best when a simple yes or no question is asked, preferably after a discussion has teased out a proposal that might have broad consensus. Having "other" as an option is guaranteed to make the discussion a mess; it's an invitation to get as many different answers as there were participants." — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: Could you please weigh in here? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 21:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Brahma Kumaris

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris, "article probation", is hereby terminated.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Brahma Kumaris

Posible Vandalism in Animators articles

There is an IP editor than recently has been deleting parts of articles related to Walt Disney animators, w/o citing sources. I have reverted some of them, but the user sometimes seem to do constructive edits. So maybe we need some with some expertise to check his edits. There are some variation in the IP number, but seems the same user to me : Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:3C40:98DE:73D:D436 , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:E6:4318:1D1E:8568 , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:80F1:9662:D87D:3E8B , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:F915:4EA:E8DB:CF51

Could some expert take a look a this issue ?.Thank you (I also copy this message in the talk page of animation wikiproject) Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You can view all the contribs with a /64 I believe, here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy on suppression of extreme racist vandalism?

I'm thinking of two recent examples I've seen: [34] and [35]. Should that be removed from view? If so, can any admin be asked to do it, or does it go through Oversight? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think something needs to be WP:REVDELeted, you should ask an individual admin or just email it to oversight. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above, definitely ask for it to be RevDel'd. There is also an IRC Channel that is very responsive, #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. It's a shame that this type of vandalism seems to have increased recently. -- Dane ^talk 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Typically this kind of thing is revision-deleted under criterion 2: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" or 3: "Purely disruptive material". While edits like this are hideously offensive, oversight is for things that for whatever reason shouldn't be viewed even by administrators, and so is usually reserved for things like libel or the disclosure of personal information (accidental self-disclosure or WP:OUTING). I see these edits have already been revision deleted, so that should be sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• RD3 would be my go-to, but RD2 is good too. It falls under both, as GorillaWarfare says. Guy (help!) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Unban review

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Topic Ban Appeal
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#CurtisNaito and TH1980 editwarring on Talk:History of Japan
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

In May of this year, I closed this discussion and lifted User:TH1980's TBan from editing Japan-related articles. I have since become aware of some issues, both with the original unban request, and with the user's editing since the ban was lifted, which lead me to wonder whether my act was an error, and I would welcome a review of the whole situation.

• First, the request for an unban was not, it appears, entirely accurate. TH1980 said in their appeal I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. That is not true: the findings of fact in this arbcom case included that TH1980 has in the past both edit warred and hounded another editor, and it ended up with an indefinite IBan with Hijiri88 - that is a sanction. The assertion that the concerns were about a single article is also not correct - the discussion that led to their topic ban actually concerned edit warring on two articles, Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan.
• One of the concerns which led to their TBan, and which were discussed at considerable length in a couple of ANI threads in the past (see links above), was TH1980 making GAN nominations for the two articles mentioned above without getting talk page consensus to do so - both articles have long histories of edit warring and cover contentious material, and there were concerns that one 'side' had used GA status as a barrier to other people working on content. Since the ban was lifted, TH1980's first edit to Korean influence on Japanese culture was to nominate it for GA, without an edit summary or any talk page discussion. I also note that they requested that the first person who offered to do the review withdraw; not an unreasonable suggestion perhaps, since it would have been that person's first GA review, but it indicated that they were aware that the nomination may have been contentious which makes me wonder why they didn't start a thread on the talk page prior to making the nomination (given the history).
• More recently, at History of Japan, they have returned to edit warring, sometimes with less than polite edit summaries, including doing so on the talk page over a GA nomination.

So, in short, I lifted this TBan on the basis of consensus of a fairly poorly attended discussion on AN, which was based around a request that contained more than one inaccurate statement. Since the ban was lifted, the editor has returned to the same articles, and has edited in a manner that is reminiscent of the editing that led to their ban. I am asking for a review as to whether (a) my original decision to lift the ban was a mistake, and (b) whether it should be reinstated, either on the grounds of the erroneous request, or based on the pattern of editing since it was lifted. Pinging the editors who commented in the unban discussion: TParis, Jauerback, Atlantic306, The4lines, JzG GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• This looks to me like a case of WP:ROPE: good faith was extended, immediately abused, and the ban can be restored. Guy (help!) 10:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think it was the right thing to do at the time. We cannot predict how users will use/misuse a boon. I think User:TH1980 has shown that they need to be away from the articles in question till they can address their WP:OWN issues and show they have learned to collaborate with others. I propose reinstating the TBAN, reviewable in 6 months, removal of TBAN contingent on constructive interim edits and convincingly addressing what sounds like WP:OWN behavior, and an uncollaborative outlook, based on resumed problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with the unban close. I would agree with Deep about the proper remedy now but I would also add a requirement that they link to this thread in any unban request. This will make sure that the facts are accessible for the community when considering a future unban request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring - If you're going to abuse the good faith etc then you can just be re-topicbanned ... just this time around ROPE and Good faith will be much less. Never a good idea to abuse things like this as it never ends well for the recipient. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Re-ban - it could be that TH1980 simply forgot about their other sanctions (logging non-block sanctions is a bit haphazard) and was otherwise being honest, but based on the commitments they made in their appeal which were immediately contradicted by their post-appeal actions, it seems more likely that they intended to deceive the community with their appeal. Either way they immediately resumed the specific disruptive behaviour which led to the sanction, indicating again that they cannot edit collaboratively in the topic area. Write them a new ban which mirrors the appealed one, and include a reference to this discussion in the ban's wording so that this incident is not forgotten. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Propose topic ban from good article nominations - they committed in their appeal to discussing good article nominations before listing nominated articles, and twice (at least) since their appeal they have nominated an article with no discussion at all, and subsequently have attempted to own those nominations (by asking reviewers to withdraw or edit warring over the nomination template). This sanction should allow them to propose a nomination on an article's talk page, but they will be required to convince someone else to actually post the nomination (demonstrating consensus). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support reinstating indefinite TBAN of Japan-related articles, broadly construed, for bad faith in the appeal and for immediately returning to the same problematic behaviours. Edits made to Japan-related articles should be mass reverted, as TH1980's original ban involved such widespread misuse of sources and POV-pushing as to make cleanup an unreasonable chore requiring editors with specialized knowledge.

Also support Ivanvector's proposal of a TBAN on nominating GANs, as TH1980 has a years-long long documented history of using them for contentious ends, and editwarring over them, right up to the present month.

TH1980 is an extremely persistent problematic editor that the community should watch with great vigilance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit: perhaps you should add to the links in your opening remarks TH1980's previous rejected appeal, which was unanimously opposed? Those taking part in this discussion should have access to as much background as is reasonable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I linked every edit I made to the exact page number of each academic source on those two articles, so that the endless controversy over sources and who said what where, which invested those pages, like a plague, would disappear. All the links seem to have disappeared, and once more we now only have to trust the reigning editor's word that this is what the content states. That in itself means this can have no GA aspirations, given the long history of confusion and misrepresentation of sources. What happened? Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize for not mentioning my one IBAN. I thought of it more as a two-way editing restriction than a block, but I suppose I was wrong. I will withdraw the good article nomination if the admins want me to. However, I was never told that I needed consensus to make a nomination. Curly Turkey reverted the nomination without specifically stating what his problem with the article was. He just said I needed consensus, which is an odd thing to say when no one else ever objected to the nomination. I did revert Curly Turkey's edits to the article, but only because they were bad edits. One of them deleted the refend tag for no reason with an incorrect edit summary[36] and the other one added a ton of citation links that led to nowhere.[37] I only reverted once, so I wasn't exactly edit warring, and I don't think anyone would call those good edits. Still, I absolutely won't revert again.TH1980 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, JzG, Deepfriedokra, Davey2010, Ivanvector - I didn't realize that just one revert would cause so much controversy. If I asked for other sanctions, can I avoid getting my topic ban reinstated? I would definitely agree to a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations without consensus. I really want to be able to make constructive contributions in this field. It should be noted that after my topic ban was lifted, I successfully brought the article Korean influence on Japanese culture to good article status. I also substantially improved the History of Japan article. I believe that my contributions should be taken into account here. What do you think about a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations instead? TH1980 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I would still support the reinstatement of the TBan on Japanese subjects, and the introduction of a TBan on GA nominations, as suggested by Ivanvector. Neglecting to mention your IBan in your unban request; going back to those exact same articles that the drama in the past revolved around and basically just picking up where you left off; promising to seek consensus in your unban request, then failing to do that within just a few weeks - it's just too much for me, I don't think a 1RR restriction would be sufficient to give me confidence that there wouldn't be further disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth SummitI don't really like to mention my IBAN in talk page space at all. An undisclosed part of the reason why I asked the original good article reviewer on Korean influence on Japanese culture to withdraw was because he mentioned events/people directly connected to my IBAN. I didn't want to violate it by referring to it. I was wrong to not see it as being like a block, but it was a two-way restriction, so you can understand where I made the error. Anyway, I would never complete any good article nomination until all complaints/corrections are dealt with, but no one ever mentioned a specific problem with the article in need of correction. I always fix all errors that are pointed out to me. I just reverted the deletion of the nomination one time, because I wanted to know what was actually wrong with the article. I will not revert this nomination or any other nomination again, but I also don't think it's fair to interpret a single revert of the incorrect deletion of a crucial formatting tag[38] as edit warring. Do you really think I shouldn't have reverted that? I can certainly pledge to not revert more than once though.TH1980 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TH1980, in two successive edits, you reverted the removal of that tag with a snarky edit summary, and then removed over 5,000 characters of text that another editor had recently reinstated, explaining in their edit summary that the material had been arrived at through talk page discussion. I would find that troubling from any editor at any article; that you did it shortly after your TBan was lifted, at the very article that your editing led to the TBan years ago, is a big red flag. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In the name of good faith, I have removed the GA nomination from History of Japan, and I apologize for my remarks about CurlyTurkey's edits.TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why exactly should the topic ban be restored? As far as I can tell, TH1980 only reverted each edit a single time, and with very good reason. Like TH1980 said, reverting a horrible edit a single time is NOT edit warring. And if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY? He made no attempt at talk page discussion at all, though a nomination should never be reverted without giving a reason. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment this is a revert of this, and you call Curly Turkey's restoration of the material a 'horrible edit'.

In one fell swoop, TH1980 expunged 32 references to over a dozen sources, wiping them out with the edit summary justification:’some of this could be incorporated, but certainly not now with all the broken citations and other errors that were inserted here.’ (Note the magisterial WP:OWN/WP:IAR tone).

People who edit like that, devastating slow collegial work by massive elisions vaguely motivated. have should not be on wikipedia. They certainly shouldn’t be anywhere near Japan/Korea articles. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY?"—Curly Turkey left an edit summary as to "WHY", and the links and commentary GirthSummit gave above give background to why TH1980's noms have been problematic and require consensus. Note that there is a proposed TBAN on TH1980's submitting GANs at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Per JzG, this is a textbook example of ROPE. The implementing admin actioned the AN consensus correctly ("no quorum" not being an option). t's no-one's fault (except the editor in question) if it is taken advantage of. Seems a simple case of Rope was given > Rope was abused > Rope was withdrawn. Restoring the ban seems unavoidable. ——Serial 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at both articles, though I have an ingrained desire never to edit this area after the utter time-wastage of my experience there in 2015. That area is marked by the disturbance of incompetence. All that TH1980 appears to have done on his return, has been to reorganize the page to present a uniform citational form, while ridding it of links, so that the text that remains can't easily meet the straightforward criteria of WP:V. He never contributed much of significance to either text. It's unbelievable that one can get a GA passed on just a superficial appearance of neat presentation (Potemkin village) effect. I won't go into the details of all of the defects in both, suffice it to go back, if one likes revisiting nightmares, to the archives for the period 2015 or thereabouts. As soon as one touches the mess, reverts are automatic, unknown editors march in to tagteam, and it becomes impossible to work, because they just revert, smear and don't argue their case on the talk page. This area is deeply problematic, so the safest bet is to ask those associated with its travesties to stay away (I include myself there). That's the negative solution. We do need someone with a fair familiarity with the field to begin to bring those articles up to snuff, without the disturbance of idle editwarriors.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:UEFAlinks

Is this actually a UEFA employee? I wasn't sure what to make of it, I don't see any incident, just thought I should let you admins know, know. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, that's a dubious username. I'll have a word. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Community sanctions alert updates

• All GS templates now automatically log notifications in 602, and are displayed with {{Ds/log}}, just like with ArbCom sanctions, so requirements to manually log notifications (eg this) should no longer be required.
• I've started a discussion proposing further changes, these ones being visible, to {{Gs/alert}}, to bring it in line with changes since in {{Ds/alert}}. The discussion is at WT:GS, here. Thoughts appreciated.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:

• Keegan (talk · contribs)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)

The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL (talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.

The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.

Katie^talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#changes to functionary team

• What...these are some quality people. Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, SQL, thank you for loaning us your expertise and your judgment, and for keeping the community safe by employing a set of powerful and necessary tools. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There is admin backlog...

At Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. DeltaQuadBot has not performed any revdels on files since June, which allowed the category size to grow to 2,000. What has happened to the robot? Aasim 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Did you ask the bot operator? --Izno (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to. One sec... Aasim 18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Izno Ok done. Now we wait. I did this a while ago, just forgot to reply. Aasim 05:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: It's back now. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I just blocked 86.22.66.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism. Within a minute or two I had a notification saying 'multiple failed login attempts'. Whether or not the incidents are linked or not I do not know (though I suspect they are). Luckily I have a secure password and 2FA. Is there anything further I should to? GiantSnowman 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. That's the whole point of (a) secure passwords and (b) 2FA. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, grand, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, you do not need to do anything. However, if wanted, there is a new preference: "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." That means an IP who does not know your email address cannot troll you in this way. The only downside is that if you have a million emails, you might forget which of them to enter if ever needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute on an RFC

I have started an RFC on the issue of the default composition of group 3 on WP's periodic table templates at Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?

Sandbh has raised objections at Talk:Periodic table#Unacceptable behaviour objecting to the way I initiated this RFC. He writes at the end:

“ The way ahead, as I see it, is (1) cancel the RFC until my article appears on line; and (2) Double sharp and I to agree on a balanced introduction to a new RFC, should Double sharp wish to proceed with another RFC. Failing this I will take up the matter on WP:AN. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC) ”

Therefore, I bring it here myself. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As the other party to this dispute, I await the next step. I pity the poor Admin who will have to waste time on this one. I've posted a last request for sanity and internal resolution, here. Double sharp seems hell-bent on ignoring all requirements for reasonable behaviour. Sandbh (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to Sandbh's request by withdrawing the RFC, so I think this will not be necessary now. Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct

I've been threatened with a block here (and on ANI) because I challenged a close in which the closing administrator didn't even read the comments I made, did not apply sanctions against an editor for blatant violations of WP:NPA, nor apply sanctions or investigate violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW by multiple editors and one administrator, and shut down active discussion regarding an issue. I honestly don't know what to say other than if this is how editors are treated for attempting to point out rule violations, no wonder some people are considered "untouchable" - they're protected by threats of administrator action for attempting to ask for rules to be enforced. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The IP is gaslighting both in this statement and in the original thread. The close in question is here.I read their arguments, but I chose not to mention them because they were so over the top that I don't think anyone would have seriously thought they had a chance to be sanctioned. You might disagree with some of the things editors from either side said in that thread, but none of the editors the IP mentioned did anything approaching sanctionable conduct, and any proposal to implement them would have been met with a snow close.
  If people want to review my comment where they claimed I threatened to block them for questioning my close it is here. I in fact did not threaten to block them for challenging my close: since they'd raised an issue with it, I don't think that would be appropriate. I will admit that I did point out the range to block if the reviewing administrator felt it worth blocking. I considered blocking the IP as a part of the close since their behaviour in it was, ironically, classic WP:RGW/WP:TE type behaviour (see: [39], [40], [41], [42]), but decided against it since they claimed to be dynamic. I should have looked closer at both the IP and range (Special:Contributions/52.119.101.2/20), its apparently relatively static and the range doesn't have that much collateral/it appears to be one main editor in project space (see WP space contribs and all contribs for the relevant range).
  Anyway, as I previously said I have no opposition to any uninvolved administrator undoing my close. I also think that the person behind this IP is just stiring the pot and causing drama at boards, so it makes sense to prevent that, especially since there wouldn't be much collateral, but realize that since they're challenging my close it'd be inappropriate to do so after the fact. I trust the community to deal with this appropriately, either by reopening the issue or by closing it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I’ll ask you directly, you think it’s not sanctionable to suggest someone has a “reading disability”, nor sanctionable to call editors white supremacists and racists? 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe Ian, Swarm, and Drmies pointed out that certain things were racist and white supremacist talking points. That's perfectly normal to point out at an ANI thread. Your mischaracterizing their statements as personal attacks rather than legitimate commentary on actual content being posted is part of the reason that your conduct in the thread (and now this one) was sub-par.

I do think BMK's comment on the reading disorder wasn't the best, but it also wasn't the subject of the thread, and there was no active proposal to address it by anyone other than yourself. The overall discussion on Jorm's removals had lasted two days, and wasn't going to close with anything being done, so there wasn't a reason to keep the thread open so you could keep arguing with people. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can accept and understand how my interpretation of the use of white supremacist and racist is different from yours. However, I take issue that “because I’m the only one who complained about it, the personal attack of ‘reading disorder’ can slide”. I also still haven’t gotten a response on the intense battleground behavior in that thread in general. There is no reason that it’s necessary to call something a “white supremacist talking point” because no WP policy says anything about that being relevant to content. The responses by Ian and Swarm served only to bully others and stifle the discussion, because nobody wants to be affiliated with racism or white supremacy in any way, and that was permitted to go on for, as you say, two days without anyone calling them out on their battleground behavior. Swarm also later on admits that they will never apologize for attempting to use Wikipedia to RGW they think is happening in the world. I understand I didn’t call it out with the best manners, but ignoring the complaints I made altogether seemed very... odd. Administrators who openly admit they are editing on a topic to advance their personal viewpoint shouldn’t be allowed to edit in that topic area anymore. That happened in this thread and it was ignored. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your complaints were not ignored all together. There was just no support for your position anywhere near consensus to take action. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. When it is obvious that consensus is not going to emerge for a position, and a thread has switched into arguing between people rather than solving problems, the thread is closed. In terms of my mentioning a block, like you said, the way you expressed it was far from "the best manners", and if a logged in editor had acted in the same way, they also likely would have been either temporarily or indefinitely blocked depending on if they were brand new or if it was just a one-off. I didn't because I thought you were on a dynamic range based on how I interpreted your comments. If you deescalate how you are dealing with others, you're much more likely to be listened to, and there wouldn't be any need for a block. If you keep escalating the rhetoric, then you're much less likely to be heard, and much more likely to be blocked-- logged in or not. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Review of Rfp closure by Tobefree

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

---

Hey all. Regarding ToBeFree's recent closure of my request on Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback, as he recommended, I will request input from other admins here.
I requested rollback on the grounds that I was heavily combatting vandalism and cleaning up after LTA attacks against multiple wikis. During the time that I requested, there was a large backlog, and most requests did not receive a reply until around ten days later, including mine. At which point, Tobefree closes it as unsuccessful citing some various things as follows:

• On 17 July, a concern about an alleged "urge to revert repeatedly" has been voiced by Acroterion on your talk page. It was raised. In error due to the target being an LTA. It was then replaed with the statement that I should report to administrators (which I do frequently).
• On 3 July, in a friendly and otherwise commendable way, you wrote "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" in response to an apology on your talk page. Not even sure what the problem is supposed to be here. A user apologized to me, I reassured him it was not his fault, that is all, right?
• On 24 June, there has been a complaint about your usage of the "minor edit" checkbox. This, granted, is actually a valid point. However, as far as reverting vandalism and such goes, marking it as minor is considered acceptable (rollback requires it as well), nor would I agree it would be enough to decline on its own.
• On 16 March, you have been blocked for what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion that turned out to be incorrect. I was blocked for removing the sandbox header, then unblocked once I explained that I was removing the new user landing screen. Nowhere did the blocking admin even mention sockpuppetry.

From the above, it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading. Per both this and by ToBeFree's own offer, I would like to request re-review from the RfP -- if any other admin has different opinions or comments, that would be welcome. I have made enough undos between then and now that the original request isn't even on my contributions page anymore. Naleksuh (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of seeking input at AN came from me. The full reasoning can be found at Special:PermanentLink/968742860. Both the replies on that page and the request above have been edited after publication, in at least one case after replying. The initial reaction to a conduct concern raised by another user, and the incorrect summary of what I wrote contributed to my negative impression afterwards. Too much, too early, too fast. And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. The declining administrator, not the lack of experience. I see a lot of drama incoming if it starts like this before the permission is even used the first time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. - I told Incagnito that an error from a tool he was using was not his fault. I did not blame my own edits on a tool, which is what it seems you are trying to imply.

not the lack of experience. I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects.

Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else (which was supposed to be the original purpose to begin with). Naleksuh (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The following wall of text is for accountability; I'd also value a third opinion, but I'm practically required to explain mine in detail as well.

Regarding "what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion", that was indeed probably a misinterpretation. I had seen the comment Special:Diff/945792771 in the unblock discussion and over-interpreted Drmies' concerns. The actual concern seems to have been gaming the autoconfirmation system, which can be an acceptable use of WP:IAR. I did this on arwiki when blocked by an edit filter, so I can understand the motivation behind it. However, regardless of the block details, my point is: Having been blocked for these first edits did contribute to the "too much, too early, too fast" image, while not being concerning on its own.

Semi-automated tools can indeed have bugs, like phab:T207701, which can lead to edits that the account owner never intended to make. However, big orange warning messages at WP:TW and WP:HG generally advise against blaming the tool for edits made using them. The warnings have probably been added as the result of bad experiences, not theoretical concerns. Reading "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" on a rollback requester's talk page is alarming and may well have been one of the reasons for the request remaining unanswered.

Having been asked to use the "minor edits" checkbox less often isn't by itself concerning when someone requests rollback, as, as you have correctly noted, rollbacks are legitimately marked as minor edits anyway. However, it contributed to the image of someone requesting rollback too early, less than a month after having received a complaint about the usage of a basic Wikipedia function.

Having received a warning to "Please resist the urge to revert repeatedly" by Acroterion, on 17 July, while waiting for a rollback request to be answered, is concerning. Describing it as "in error" is concerning as well. The discussion at Special:Permalink/968744453 ended with "Report it to administrators, don't just keep reverting." This valid advice is meant to prevent disruption by unnecessary edit wars, since you actually seem to have chosen to revert 6 times instead of making a single report at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:ANEW or WP:ANI about the issue. [43]
This was not purely a warning "in error"; it was about concerning, recent reverting behavior. Referring to it as "in error" today adds to the negative image.

Regarding Special:Diff/968507887, I never said that my review was arbitrary; I mentioned this as a possibility. My reasoning was not "mainly to clear the backlog", my reasoning was "This request has been effectively declined because of a bad gut feeling." Messages like "it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading" and "Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else" directly contribute to that bad gut feeling: When there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects. - I'm not sure how this statistic has any relevance to experience here on enwiki. Different Wiki's, different communities, different consensus, etcetera, etcetera. Past using undo, you haven't had much experience with rollback-like reverting here. (involved, so don't want to comment too much here) Ed6767 talk! 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, carrying on from this, your rollbacks on simplewiki that if carried over to enwiki would be problematic. I'm not completely familiar with the policy there, but your overall consistent and, otherwise, well-rounded experience of reverting of vandalism, is tainted by very few edits or no edits in which you leave UWs, request page protection, report to VIP (simplewiki's version of AIV) and many more issues that can be boiled down to a lack of experience. In fact, you have been asked here to leave user warnings, however, I couldn't see an increase in you warning users following this.

My advice: you should probably just use Twinkle or any other rollback-like tool for now, just to gain actual experience on enwiki and so you actually can warn people without the tedious task of going through the table of UWs, or using the same uw-vandalism1 template over and over again. After you have this experience and have engaged with the enwiki community more, you should request again at WP:RFP/R - maybe even enrolling in our WP:CVUA may be beneficial? Ed6767 talk! 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Small reword Ed6767 talk! 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @Naleksuh: if maybe blunt: you've been here a few months, and already you have an indefinite block on your record, you have a talk page which is littered with advice and warnings from experienced editors and administrators—which you don't seem to take without an argument!—and now you're arguing at not being given a permission at a noticeboard? Realistically, any chance you had of being granted any advanced permission or tool in the near future is quickly vanishing into thin air for as long as this stays open. I don't see what it is going to achieve, apart from garner you a reputation for uncollegiate behavior. And that's the last thing you want, frankly, in a project based on the fundamental premise of consensual community. ——Serial 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, to be fair regarding this thread, the closing admin, ToBeFree (talk · contribs), did suggest that a discussion could be opened here at AN Ed6767 talk! 12:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know; did you think I commented here without having aquainted myself with the background? My point is not the opening of the thread, but the continued and continual arguing. It is that that may harm their reputation, not the mere fact of filing here. Thanks, ——Serial 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the closure - too much, too early, too fast. The reversion I mentioned involved a WMF-banned LTA with which I am extremely familiar. The appropriate response to such an occurrence is not to sit and hammer the revert button, but to contact administrators who have the tools to deal with the problem. My observation was intended as mild advice in the face of good intentions. Arguing about the request fir permissions isn't a good look. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I had thought to initially stop after the first post , but decided that was a bit too WP:GRENADE for my liking, and continued defending. As mentioned by Ed, requesting input at WP:AN was Tobefree's suggestion to begin with. While I should certainly be allowed to defend my own post, I think it is about time to wrap this up now.

While I disagree that two posts is "littered" - the overall point from most seems to be the quote "too much, too early, too fast". While my response to the idea to re-request in some months - as nobody had voiced any problems with my reverts - which is what barrs most people from getting the tool - there is little opposition from re-requesting in a few months. I should also say that I am not trying to start drama - while the noticeboards (especially its /Incidents subpage, but at least we aren't there) are known for holding lots of drama, I was simply trying to get opinions from other administrators whilst voicing disagreement with ToBeFree's closure, as some of his assessments at my contributions were false. However, this does not change the same aforementioned purpose ("too much, too early, too fast"). I had initially planned to request expiry time, however the goal is to make it easier on myself to revert vandalism, not to attack other editors. Unless anyone has any furthur comments, I would recommend closing at this point, as the initial idea to open it has since served its purpose. Naleksuh (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki sockpuppets

Hello,

I'm a sysop on frwiki and I found that Donald1972 was blocked indefinitely on enwiki because of multiple accounts. He's also busy on frwiki with the same accounts. I'm not really familiar with meta pages on enwiki, could you please help me find the RCU which identified the socks? Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 08:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bédévore: There doesn't appear to be a public request for CU (here called "WP:SPI"); you can find the rest of the confirmed or suspected related accounts here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Donald1972. –xeno^talk 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: all right. Thanks for your answer. Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bédévore, if these accounts are causing trouble on frwiki, then you might want to consider requesting global locks on all of them. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability I'm working on it actually, that's why I gather reports. :) The SPI results would have helped. Hopefully the cross-wiki abuse is obvious enough. FYI on fr fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2020/Semaine 30#Dialog im Kamptal, Matthias Laurenz Gräff et l'armée des faux-nez, we're heading towards ban. Best regards, -- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetpool50 needs a good talking about their behaviour, manners and motivations

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

---

You really need to give this individual a good talking too. They assume no WP:GF. All they do is revert edits back to how they were, even if what was there before was not really any good anyway. They are are the sort of editor who consistently drive new users away. Furthermore their actions are being enabled by this admin User:Berean Hunter who clearly has bias in favor of this editor. Like a good ol' boy sheriff in the old Deep South, the admin steps and does a block after this usual interaction pattern.

1. editor makes a reasonable edit (none which is vandalism or malicious)
2. Sweetpool50 reverts it with a pithy comment "doesn't make sense", "too long", "not needed", "not required" etc
3. editor (and they are mostly IPs) reverts
4. words are exchanged
5. Sweetpool50 goes running to Berean Hunter who then blocks the editor because they have been uncivil.

Now take the Deep South analogy, local cop takes the side of the White person who starts a confrontation. This user Sweetpool50 is constantly making antagonistic deletions all the time, but they are never called out for it. But when someone does take affront they get their buddy admin to block the user who is making the fuss, instead of said admin taking issue with the action that provoked the situation. Thus you've got a bully going around lording it over others with no fear of redress because they know they have an admin has got their back. In fact the pair of them should both be sanctioned. They are using WP:CIVIL in the same way black people have the term "uppity" used against them.

Vandalism should be tackled but based on the deletions that Sweetpool50 makes, they are not doing them to stop wilful mischief. They are just removing WP:GF edits because they don't like them. BAck in April, the got a warning about their behaviour in April but unless they are sanctioned and told to pack it in, inaction is just empowering them and giving them the environment where their high-handedness and, let's be fair, awful attitude can manifest without censure. The last time I had a run in with this person I had to quit for months. Is that the sort of person you want here? What value is there in their contributions? Are their edits as positive and useful as mine? I generally work like a WP:GNOME because I care more about content and information that I do about getting one over on someone else! But more importantly I know I am part of the 1 percent. In that respect, as a One Percenter, I raise my concerns about this one because as an IP (ie to know the prejudice a black person faces in the Deep South), I sadly know there are countless of others editors who fit the profile of this Sweetpool50. They continually ride the backs of IPs reverting people left right and centre regardless of the quality of the edits. If you want to stop the long-term decline of Wikipedia, you need to start putting your house in order and start putting good faith back on the agenda. So start with those who don't show any! 81.141.32.129 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a single diff, but comparing an editor in good standing to a racist in an "innocent" analogy? I sense boomerangs incoming. Grandpallama (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Block reason: y'all's taillight is busted." GeneralNotability (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Without diffs, it's hard to see what you are talking about. Diffs please. -- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, this IP is from the UK, not the "Deep South", as both the geolocate tool and their telling spellings of "behaviour" and "centre" indicate, and they are obviously the same editor as the IP who left this message on Sweetpool50's talkpage. Can an admin sweep up their IPs in a rangeblock? Grandpallama (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, ah Cheshire, the good ol' deep south! Why is this racially motivated now? Seems like a rather weak argument backed with no diffs, and the whole "well I was born X so I know better!" with all due respects just seems awfully pathetic to me in this situation. I don't think a range block is appropriate and will carry far too much collateral damage. This IP range is a large dynamic block used by many BT customers in Chester from what I can tell. WP:BOOMERANG. Ed6767 talk! 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably LTA User:Iniced who edits from that part of the world and has a similar approach to making friends. ——Serial 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Is there a login log?

Again I've had attempts to login to my account. Someone mentioned a login log - is there such a thing? I was going to ask at irc but MIRC keeps disconnecting. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no login log currently on en.wiki. That is something that will hopefully be rolled out to larger projects in the future, but right now we only log password resets. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was dubious since I couldn't fine one after searching. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm sure you're aware of this, but you have the ability to enable two-factor authentication in Special:Preferences for additional security, should you so desire. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: thanks but I did that long ago. I feel secure, just wondering if I could figure out who it was - so many possibilities! Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller TonyBallioni The WMF staff might have access to a login log but I do not think its available to the public or even to the Administrators or Oversighters/CheckUsers 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They do, but the only time I’ve ever seen them use it was in the Ciphers case when they pulled the data from the server logs rather than run a check on ar.wiki, since Ciphers was a CU there. There’s very good reasons that data is highly restricted and almost never used, even by WMF staff. We’re also moving towards logging logins on local wikis, but it’s something that will be deployed on smaller projects first to make sure it doesn’t overwhelm the database. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Block Review

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

---

Hi, can a check user please review the block appeal at User talk:ShappeAli lodged on 4 July, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Hasteur

It is my sad duty to report the passing of User:Hasteur, earlier this month. [44] [45]

Hasteur ran User:HasteurBot and User:DRN clerk bot, and possibly others I don't know about. Those projects should be transitioned to new stewardship.

--CComMack (t–c) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's terrible to hear :( His bots are still running now unmaintained, so I'm willing to look through the code and if I can manage it, I'm willing to take over operations and management of them. I will add WP:RIP now. Thanks for letting us all know Ed6767 talk! 23:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

His bots are still running now unmaintained Not true. HasteurBot hadn't edited in over a month anyway, and DRN clerk bot was globally locked by Sakretsu (an action I consider to be actively harmful; there was no reason the bot shouldn't be allowed to run, despite being unmaintained, until a replacement bot operator could be found). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I requested that; don’t blame Sakretsu. Stewards regularly lock the accounts of established users that are deceased once it’s known to prevent impersonation or someone else using them. Bots as well since a bot is just an extension of the human. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:DWG shouldn't established users' accounts (generally) not be locked unless there's evidence they're compromised? I don't know where it's hosted, but Toolforge or not I don't think the bot being compromised is any more likely now than usual. The source for some of these tasks hasn't been edited in years[46][47], so I'm not sure there's a reasonable suspicion that the bot was going to break. Should've been allowed to run until there's a replacement imo ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They’re not blocked locally as a sign of respect, but they’ve been locked globally by stewards upon confirmation for the last few years. I can go ahead and update that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding new operations of his bots are on WP:BOTN Ed6767 talk! 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that these condolences (as well as those to come) be moved to Hasteur's talk page. That way his friends and family will have a chance to see how much he meant to the community. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD; Hasteur's talkpage is now cleared except for a "Rest in peace" thread. You, I, or anyone can copy over the messages here (they should also probably be retained here as well so the community can know about his passing) and add them to that thread, bulleting them to match the format there. Let me know if you would like me to do (or begin) that. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved condolence statements to his talk page and attempted to leave any other possibly-relevant to AN discussion here. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User Gutu Bekele creating disruptive edits

• Gutu Bekele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hachalu Hundessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to request assistance with an editor who has been creating disruptive edits on the Hachalu Hundessa page. Based on the edits made by this individual, it appears he/she is of Amhara background, wishing to slander Oromo people in Ethiopia. They have consistently painted Oromo people as gangsters and killers, and victimizers of Amhara individuals. I believe that this is not only uncalled for, but specifically within the context of this article, it is unnecessary to mention the names of ethnicities. Additionally, the editor hasn't used reliable references to support their edits, which suggests they are of a personally motivated nature. werewolf (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, diffs, please :) Ed6767 talk! 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please clarify? werewolf (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, a "diff" (short for difference page) shows an edit which a user has made and the changes, such as what was added or removed. It's useful in AN threads as it can allow admins, who are usually quite busy to immediately see the edits. You can click "diff" next to any edit on a history page to go to the diff page, then paste the URL here. Ed6767 talk! 01:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, right, I knew what diff meant, just wasn't sure what you wanted. Ok, here are the edits made by Gutu Bekele:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gutu_Bekele werewolf (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not convinced that this is vandalism but it's a large number of edits in a short time with almost no communication. As User:Revirvlkodlaku (aka Werewolf) indicates above the edits could be motivated by nationalist feelings. The subject of the article, Hachalu Hundessa, was a singer and activist who was killed on 29 June and whose death has led to disturbances in Ethiopia. Our article on Hundessa was created on 30 June by User:Gobonobo who is a long-time editor. I will leave a note for them to see if they have a reaction to these edits. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This account is rather disruptive. They repeatedly reinsert the ethnicity of Hundessa's wife, change numbers in the article, and characterize Oromo people as gangsters. None of their changes are sourced. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't examined the substance of the edits, but since he is an SPA who does not collaborate or communicate, a simple topic-ban might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender I agree with you on that. What's an SPA, by the way? werewolf (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: single-purpose account. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

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

---

Can someone block User:Ozan33Ankara the sockpuppet of User:AlaskaLava? He was confirmed by a CheckUser, but not blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlaskaLava) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

TheseusHeLl, as stated later in the SPI, Salvio giuliano blocked Ozan33Ankara five hours after you posted here, due to his continued disruption. I will close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya

Can someone hist-merge Svetlana Tikhanovskaya into Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya? Govvy (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)