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	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 45 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 24 requests for RD1 redaction
• 64 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 124 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 17 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7756 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith

Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again

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

This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [1]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:GS/COVID19:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on something else

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

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

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

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.

Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.

To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do. Billybostickson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billybostickson: I didn't remove anything. ToBeFree undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that ToBeFree, my mistake. I will ignore the arrogant response by Paleo I disagree with ProcrastinatingReader who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.Billybostickson (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post this, which is another wall of text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional user space copies

• User:ProcrastinatingReader has found two more examples of a very substantially similar nature to the draft at MfD mentioned above. I have bundled them with the original nomination since it's extremely unlikely the outcome would be any different if they were nominated individually; and also because they are substantially similar. If anybody here feels that the bundling is incorrect, feel free to undo that and start individual nominations. In any case, I don't think we'll want to be playing whack-a-mole with this kind of nonsense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't find them. Did you mean PaleoNeonate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

<humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

DRN thread

• FYI, User:Billybostickon has now filed a thread at DRN, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. This should also be seen in light of continued discussion/disruption on the Covid-19 misinformation talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The DRN thread has been closed, as the filer has been topic-banned and also blocked for 2 weeks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• We need several topic bans and/or WP:NOTHERE blocks in the area, rather than wasting more time, thanks for the progress, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment about DRN

Editors sometimes open threads at DRN about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are wikilawyering. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So: Please be aware that forum shopping is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Off Wiki Recruitment

There has been discussion of related Wikipedia articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see [2] for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See Special:Diff/1006867793/1006871631. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: It was ScrupulousScribe, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of WP:ABF - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to Special:Diff/1006869407/1006871631? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

note: an RfC has been started at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This (posted this afternoon) is egregious and well beyond the pale, particularly as it seems to target specific editors (myself included). I'd have removed the offending comment here (since it's strictly not related to the discussion) but obviously I'm better not doing that, especially since the original poster is stubborn about it. @Barkeep49: (or ArbCom in general, you happened to be first on the list) Is there anything that can be done about this kind of off-wiki behaviour, or are we stuck here waiting for these NOTHERE nuisances to show themselves? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This thread is rather long and my attention occupied in other ways. However, my quickread of this situation is that it's not in ArbCom's remit at the moment as there isn't offwiki evidence that needs to be considered about specific editors. It seems like there might be bog standard administrative actions available here (i.e. doing some extended confirmed protection to thwart newly registered accounts) and since you're already at AN - which some administrators might see it - hopefully you'll get some assistance. Feel free either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page with a concise summary if I've gotten this wrong. Just a note that I am on the lookout for someone to get elected to ArbCom next year who will appear before me alphabetically because I seem to be first on the list for many people. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Normally it's fine to delete WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA style posts (WP:TPG), except sometimes if other editors answered, remains to determine if it's really in the "Removing harmful posts" category (I don't really care if it remains, it at the same time exposes them)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban or NOTHERE block for Dinglelingy

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

Their activity on Wikipedia has only been to promote specific sources and views on COVID-19. Behavior has also been suboptimal including accusations and WP:WIKILAWYERING, this despite previous warnings. They've been warned about WP:PA/WP:FOC and WP:SPA/WP:HERE by myself here (it wasn't the first behavioral issue but it was after I noticed this uncalled-for comment). Warned again by Doug Weller here after accusing editors at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. They've already received the GS alert for COVID-19 in January from El C here. Despite these they are keeping up, now at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation like: 1, 2. It may be time for the unevitable... —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems there is something unsavoury happening here. So Dinglethingy (a likely sock and/or WP:SCRUTINY-avoiding returning user of some kind, judging by their edit history) writes[3] a diatribes prominently naming several editors. This then gets screenshotted and posted on twitter by a "lab leak" proponent[4] and subsequently there is a call to arms suggesting the proponents create "the GameStop of lab leak".[5] It would be good if an admin could untangle what's going on. And it would be good if Wikipedia does not become the attempted venue for the "GameStop of Lab leak". Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• The user known here as BillyBostickson is also back at it (after having earlier made their account private). And yes the call to arms is very worrying. Although we can't directly link any user here to a twitter handle (except the previous); I'd say that overall, this constitutes a sign of clear complicity in an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. I support both options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate & Random Canadian Kapo" bahahahaha clearly he is very mad, at least ScrupulousScribe was civil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate"??! When "PaleoNeoNazi" is just right there?! (No shade to PaleoNeonate, of course). JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Anybody with a Twitter account should ideally report the offender for abusive behaviour (I've reported the matter to ArbCom here); though I don't know if our definition of "abusive behaviour" is more stringent than that of social media platforms (probably). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: BillyBostickson has been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee, likely thanks to your complaints. Well deserved, in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

In case anybody was following here but not on the subpage, there's a thread at AN/I; just here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You though it was over?

There's still some activity on the talk page of the (former POV fork, now redirect); Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis; mostly additions of "sources" to an impressive looking table (hint: MEDRS are very scarce...). The talk page shouldn't be used as an indefinite incubator/LINKFARM for a page for which there is no consensus for existence as anything but a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also note the suspicious creation of a user sub-page by an IP (seemingly logged-out, probably block evading user, since IPs can't send emails to users) here who also asks the editor in question about emails (given what we know about canvassing...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User: Foodprofessor

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

Relevant diffs to Sylvain Charlebois: [6], [7] and [8]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFSPAM and MEAT for Ian Urbina, likely PAID

Background Info

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamCardigan
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blake Shawl
• Ian Urbina

Involved editors

• LiamCardigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khloe Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gary Oakman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoeyMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emmatucker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Holla9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nicole Hartman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I plan to block the above-mentioned accounts for WP:REFSPAM and, based on the preponderance of evidence, undisclosed WP:PAID. I originally filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamCardigan based on an AIV report from Pepperbeast. LiamCardigan, Khloe Bear, and Emmatucker67 all were adding references to Ian Urbina's work without any other substantial contributions. Pepperbeast pointed out Blake Shawl and the socks associated there as well as JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman, Holla9211, and Nicole Hartman after the initial SPI I filed.

Unfortunately, Oshwah found no CU evidence connecting the accounts, so I strongly suspect MEAT with PAID given that 10 other accounts were doing the same thing.

I recall this happening with another journalist (I don't recall the name off the top of my head), so this seems it may be a wider problem. But for now I wanted to report here and have others please review my forthcoming blocks to make sure I'm not making an error.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notifications in a few minutes., EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Notifications completed. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Question: What is the connection of the Ian Urbina article's two primary editors, User:Eli779632 and User:Gravitymonkey -- both of whom have only edited that article, and nothing else on Wikipedia -- to the editors you blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Those two users notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• User:Gravitymonkey here -- not sure if this is where to respond (I'm not familiar enough with editing here to be useful, which is why i haven't contributed much since working on the Ian Urbina page). Should I respond here, Beyond My Ken? Gravitymonkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Gravitymonkey You could start by answering whether you have a conflict of interest in regard to Urbina, and whether you have any relationship with User:Eli779632. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken I do know Urbina, we've met via email back in 2005 when I served as a source on some of his work at The New York Times (won't go into more detail), and occasionally communicated via email since. I did start a bunch of work on his page a few years back, as you noted. I don't know who Eli is -- I've never met/communicated with him. Are you requesting that I add COI tags or similar to his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitymonkey (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Gravitymonkey It's just my opinion (I'm not an admin), but I think you're OK as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• @EvergreenFir: Thanks! Could you also have a look at Giantwombat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? The user has added lots of links to news articles by Ian Urbina (but also some other journalists). Maybe PAID not just by Urbina? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Spotted another one... user:Onaroadcalledoppenheimer PepperBeast (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on Mike Lindell and My Pillow

Apparently, Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow, made a speech at CPAC where he called Wikipedia "very corrupt" for having "taken over my Wikipedia", by which I assume he means "his" Wikipedia page. [9] (Once again, a public figure misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, taking it to be a promotional medium, and believing that they can control "their" Wikipedia article.)

Both articles are semi'd but additional eyes on them would still be a good idea, in case anyone gets the idea that settling the score would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RE: "taken over my Wikipedia" (emphasis added) — unforgivable lowercase. It's My Wikipedia, to you, philistines! You'll sleep soundly knowing the project is in good hands. I know I will. El_C 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Just in the interest of good recordkeeping, noting that I am the one who indef semi'd My Pillow (logged AP2 action). And, unrelated-relatedly, I've also indef semi'd the Jewish space lasers redirect, of which I am the creator (diff). An unlogged and INVOLVED AE action — the corruption on my part is almost unbelievable! Erm, I mean, firing lasers: pew-pew! El_C 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "my Wikipedia" vs. "My Wikipedia" - this was from a spoken speech so we can't tell if he capitalized it or not. In his mind I'm sure he capitalized it (possibly ALLCAPS). The philistine Philistine philistine is the transcript recorder. You can't get good help these days. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am the philistine here. According to Wikipedias articles, Philistines are an ancient people and are capitalized; philistines are people too lazy or ignorant to know the difference. Self-description acknowledged. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Boomerang TBAN from American politics. Collapse as courtesy — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a problem with @Fram:, who is determined to prevent the creation of an article called "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" and called it "Right-wing propaganda article" in an edit summary. What happened in order: -I created the article with 3 RS (NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal) + Fox News article which isn't considered RS. -I add it to Portal:Current Events since it was gaining mention on a lot more RS (will mention later). -I add more information which included an ABC article (Considered RS) -Fram moves it to draft state with the edit summary "Extreme POV / slanted article (and title)". -I move it back to article space as the article being moved had no discussion and was messing up the format on the Portal:Current events. -I started a discussion on Fram's talk page to talk and ask why he thought it was slanted with RS from both political sides. See User talk:Fram#Question to why you move article to draft. -Fram reverts my edit on the Portal:Current events with no edit summary. -I revert his edit back on the Portal due to no edit summary. -Fram moves it to a draft with the edit summary of "Right-wing propaganda article". Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing". -I move it back to article space. -Fram reverts my edit on the portal with the edit summary of "Article is in draft space as a NPOV violation" -I add a vandalism warning to his talk page (level 2). -Fram removes the vandalism warning from his talk page with the edit summary of "Removing Fake Warning". -Fram warns me on my talk page (see User talk:Elijahandskip#WP:NPOV]]). -I message him that it isn't "right wing propaganda" as multiple RS are reporting on it. -The article is back in draft state & removed from the Current event portal. -I start the admin board. With all the moving and stuff, I can't link every single change, so here is a list of the places for it. [10] , [11], [12], [13], [14]. Need an admin to solve this problem ASAP. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I honestly really don't care too much about the article now, but I am concerned with the edit summary "Right wing propaganda" as it made headlines in tons of RS. A google search of "Dr. Seuss Cancelled" brings dozens of news articles from the RS (Both political parties and AP News, which is basically neutral). That is a big red-flag for me. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Just a brief word from an uninvolved onlooker--while this has certainly received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, framing it as "cancellation of Dr. Seuss" strikes me as not the most neutral choice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Dumuzid Yeah, in hindsight, I see that. The adminboard isn't for the article problems. I am more concerned that an editor is calling all RS "right-wing propaganda". Depending on this noticeboard (Basically if the topic isn't perm blocked) I will work on creating a 100% NPOV draft article to move to article space. Still thinking about the title, but in the current state, I am honestly worried about any new draft just being speedy deleted by Fram due to the crazy edit summaries he is doing. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) It probably belongs in the main Seuss article, with "cancelled" attributed as someone's opinion (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:YESPOV), —PaleoNeonate – 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC) When you create an article with a title making a claim only used in Fox News + an opinion piece in the WSJ, and with the first line a BLP violation against Joe Biden sourced only to Fox News, then you shouldn't complain that your article gets moved to draft space or is considered right wing propaganda. Claiming here that "Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing"." is rather disingenious: you used Fox News to attack Biden, you don't deny that Fox News is (very) right wing, you just deny that it is a RS. Fine, but then why use it? If you agree that Fox News isn't a RS, then you shouldn't have started this AN discussion (or tried repeatedly to get the page in the mainspace and in the Portal Current Events), but should have replied with an indication that you would drop the unreliable POV source and edit the draft article accordingly. Fram (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Note that the same editor just a few days ago had to delete their article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Biden Agenda. There seems to be some common theme here. Fram (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Fram:, so you are saying that because of a Fox News article and opinion piece, you called the other RS "right wing propaganda"? Also the other article is irrelevant in this discussion. This is about you and me fighting in this article and you calling AP News "right wing propaganda". This topic is notable and is slanted just due to the nature of it. I will rework the draft article excluding those 2 sources as I have 5 RS still. If we have a problem again, I will go higher... Elijahandskip (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Where did I say that all sources in that article were right wing? What I said was that the article you wrote was a right-wing propaganda piece, mixing some neutral sources about one event (the publishers decision to stop printing some of Seuss' books) with severely biased ones, deciding to present the POV of those latter sources as the basis for your title and for the rather inflammatory start of the article (a start which wasn't supported in any of the RS). So yes, I stand by my opinion that you created a right-wing propaganda piece where you added some RS to give your BLP violation / attack piece an air of legitimacy. Fram (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (ec)And looking at their created articles, I note the following deleted ones; Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, Bidenism, Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer, Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. Perhaps it's time to think of a post-1992 US politics ban? Fram (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) They seem to like the "sensationalist" article titles, they created Assassination of Luca Attanasio ignoring an ongoing discussion of the use Assassination too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Agreed. And there's quite a bit of rhetoric in their editing history about Wikipedia being biased against the truth, which is not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Fram: & @Joseph2302:, I withdraw my adminboard notice about Fram. There is no reason to go to a ban on post 1992 topics. All I do on Wikipedia is help improve current event topics. Back in April 2020, I helped revive the WikiProject of Current Events from years of hibernation. I understand that I caused problems in the past with those topics and I got warned for those topics along with other editors. I only want to help improve Wikipedia and I really enjoy understanding Current events. So please, let us forget this happened, move on, and continue improving Wikipedia for the better. I promise to not try and create any drafts or articles about the Dr. Seuss issue, but instead, will use RS to help improve articles. I really am sorry for problems I cause on Wikipedia. I just think differently than most people, but I still want to help improve Wikipedia for the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I'd agree with a TBAN from post-1992 politics. This is the same user who has a history of naming Wikipedia editors on his personal blog (which he only stopped after two discussions and significant admin pressure), maintained links to sketchy sites on his userpage (taking down the one to Breitbart again only after admin pressure), and has set up his own alternative Wikipedia where his deleted articles have gone to live. I don't have the sense that there's much potential here for NPOV editing of American political issues. For a relatively new user, he's already generated quite a bit of timesink. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Please no. I really am sorry. I will take a break from editing Wikipedia and will come back and I promise that I will edit with NPOV. Current events is why I edit Wikipedia. Please, give me another chance and I promise I will not disappoint. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I've been concerned about Elijahandskip's judgement in US politics related topics since I first came across a bizarrely formatted RfC at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, in the course of which Elijahandskip criticised editors by name in their off-wiki blog. Elijahandskip then added to me to a list of editors on their user page who "who show a strong biased on a talk page or edit summary have a potential to have edit wars with Elijahandskip", presumably based on the fact that I (along with others) advised them to remove the blog post. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden I voiced my concern, also later expressed by another editor, that adding the article (which was eventually deleted as being factually incorrect/misleading) to the current affairs portal, driving up views to the page, was a serious misjudgement that might border on advocacy. Elijahandskip dismissed my "accusation" as invalid because "we have had problems in the past" and demanded an apology. I can't speak about their contributions outside of political topics, but within US politics I don't believe Elijahandskip has the required competence to edit constructively, and they've repeatedly demonstrated an adversarial attitude of viewing collegial criticism as evidence of a liberal conspiracy among editors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Conspiracy? What conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Is there any way I can prove I am competent to edit US politic topics? I want to try to show that I can. I am afraid that if I do get banned, I will never have a chance to show that I have matured. My last problem was back in January and since then, I have been working hard on constructive editing which included 4 ITN nominations. Today was miscommunication between me and Fram and I foolishly involved others when I needed to talk to him. Just let me show that I have changed is all I am asking. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Preventing the creation of an article about cancellation. Somehow, there's a common theme in that action. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Please don't ban me from editing Post 1992 Politic articles. I promise you that I have matured from where I was back in November to January which is where most of my problems occurred. I can't prove that I have matured other than talking about my contributions in February. 4 successful ITN nominations with one of those being an article I created. As I stated earlier, miscommunication lead to this and I don't want a stupid mistake to ruin what I have been trying to improve on over the last month. Please. Just give me another chance to help prove to you guys that I have matured. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Well, if you annoy enough editors, enough times on this general topic (post-1992 US politics), the end result will be a topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Elijahandskip You ask how you can prove that you are competent to edit in this topic area. I think that a good way to start would be for your to read through the comments that Fram and other editors have made, take a bit of time to digest them, and then explain why that draft is unfit for publication as an article. As things stand, I'm not sure that you understand why it's unpublishable, which would indeed mean that you aren't competent to edit in that topic area. GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) The draft in question is Draft:Cancellation of Dr. Seuss/2 which is a really shoddy piece of work in its current form that begins with a cheap shot against Joe Biden for not mentioning Dr. Seuss in a proclamation about children's reading programs, as if he is somehow obligated to mention that author. Consider this editor's insistence that this matter is widely discussed in reliable sources, mentioning the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. The fact of the matter is that ABC and NBC simply reprinted the Associated Press story. That's one source not three. Selection of the politically charged term "Cancellation" for the title indicates a complete failure of the neutral point of view. Wikipedia needs conservative editors who are competent, careful, collaborative and mature. This editor is none of those things, as their user page shows. Support topic ban from post 1992 U.S. politics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (Edit conflict before Cullen328)Girth Summit (Pinging due to edit conflict) I have read through all the comments (Starting with the draft in question) and I would like to explain why it is unpublishable as an article. So the whole problem appears to be the title & lead sentence which was "The cancellation of Dr. Seuss began on March 1, 2021, when President of the United States, Joe Biden, erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day which is a day to honor Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2.". As far as I can tell, the rest of the information has no problems with Fram (Saying him as the others joined after I started this discussion). The title "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" 100% violated NPOV as it directly isn't a cancellation of Dr. Seuss, just the removal of publication of some books. Early on in this discussion (before Fran's first reply), I acknowledged that it was a poor choice of words to use. Now let me talk about the lead. It was a horrible lead that was mixed with opinion and facts. The opinion part was "erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day". Joe Biden never removed all (All being the key word) Dr. Seuss books from the "Read Across America Day". The lead was also sourced to two non-RS sources. That was a major problem. The lead should always be sourced with RS and all information on the article should be sourced with RS for that matter. I do see how Fran's and other editors thought I was attacking Joe Biden as I made a false statement in the lead about him cancelling Dr. Seuss books, which he never did. I also made a mistake on the WSJ article as I forgot to check if it was "news" vs "opinion". The Fox News article shouldn't have been added since the WSJ was an opinion piece. I know Wikipedia has no consensus on Fox News (Per the discussion here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303), but I don't see a problem adding it when (when being a keyword) an RS backs up what it said. Because I didn't check the WSL article out, I foolishly added 2 non-rs together and called it RS. That was a mistake I made and in the future, I will make sure to check the articles out more closely before adding them. Hopefully you (the editors involved in this discussion) can see that I understand the mistakes I made and that I am sorry for making them. I caused massive problems on Wikipedia from October to January (totally about 112 pages worth of discussions from comments I made). But, I have been really working to improve on my bad reputation and do constructive editing on Wikipedia. Hopefully you guys don't decide to ban me on Post-1992 US political articles and can see that I am truly sorry for this. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Adding since I had a new comment from Cullen328. Cullen328 exactly stated what I said was my mistakes. I do understand the mistakes I made, but I really don't want a stupid mistake of miscommunication to cause me to lose all that I have tried to build back during February. So from the bottom of my heart, please, let me have another chance on Wikipedia and I promise I will not let you (editors in this discussion) down. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) support TBan. This answer touches on some of the things that are wrong with that draft, but it's really only scratching the surface. Add to that the fact that just a few hours ago, the user was so convinced that the article was legitimate that they were willing to edit war it back into article space, accuse Fram of vandalism, and start a thread here. I think that 6 months working in less contentious areas would be in the user's own interest - seriously, this isn't intended to punish you, this will help you hone your skills and become better at this. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Just as an FYI, the date was chosen because it was Dr. Seuss' birthday and Presidents make note of that in the proclamation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) This should be closed also. Original reason was withdrawn 8 hours ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I'm not going to IAR here; the top-level thread can be closed by someone who is actually uninvolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Although a TBAN was imposed, I am concerned, based on many of the frantic responses above and below this, that Elijahandskip lacks the emotional maturity required to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. The off-wiki score-settling is certainly not a good look. If any further disruption occurs outside of this subject matter, we ought to consider the need for additional sanctions. For now, perhaps a warning would suffice.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) A double "punishment" would be too much. The section below was about me. This section should be closed as it was withdrawn almost a day ago. This has just turned into a mess. A tBan is a major wakeup call to me. Honestly, I am considering this staying open an entire day more than it should have been like bullying. Basically no matter how much I would change, people will use this large discussion with tons of ban supports after the discussion should have been closed against me. This is just sad...Elijahandskip (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) AN/ANI discussions (really, this was better off at WP:ANI to begin with) of issues regarding editor conduct are not closed just because of withdrawal of the original complaint. All parties should expect to have their conduct examined. See WP:BOOMERANG.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah, but a TBan for 6 months is a huge thing. If I get a 2nd warning on top of a TBan for the same thing, that is pure bullying definition... Elijahandskip (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Elijahandskip Drive-by suggestion from an uninvolved editor. You have made your point. Now would be an excellent time for you to drop the stick, walk away, and beginning editing constructively in other topic areas. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) AP2 topic ban imposed (AE) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that I have imposed a 6-month WP:AP2 WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN on Elijahandskip (logged AE action). As I note in the log, if this discussion reaches consensus for a different outcome, will amend accordingly. El_C 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support 6-month ban, which will allow Elijahandskip time to demonstrate by editing other articles that they've taken in the comments here and used that feedback to adjust their editing behavior. This seems necessary as Elijahandskip's responses to Fram's critique of the article were unreservedly combative until a ban was mentioned at which point they did a complete turn-around of attitude. It shouldn't take the possibility of ban to make Elijahandskip listen to other editors or to discuss disagreements or to respond to criticisms. Schazjmd (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support Elijahandskip has stated they want to work on current events; there are plenty of those that don't involve American politics. Editing in other areas for six months will give them a chance to demonstrate their growth and competence. Grandpallama (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support AP2 topic ban for 6 months, an appropriate response to the editor's behavior. Also, has there already been a discussion about their username "Elijah *and* skip" indicating an account used by more than one person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC) They confirm on their user page that they are one person.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Support the imposed AP2 break is needed, though 6 months feels long to me; I'd be fine with 3 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) At first I wondered the same, but this, this, this, and this changed my mind; I now worry, conversely, that 6 months may be too short a time to build and demonstrate the necessary maturity and competence to edit in this area. Grandpallama (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) @Grandpallama: I don't want to cause trouble, but you linked a message I asked to an admin to help me avoid future problems and you call that a problem. That is just sad... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I've noticed that some users have a strong emotional aversion to the idea of a topic ban or other sanction being imposed. They are more likely to stick around and edit other topics if it's a voluntary decision rather than a ban. Based on their comments above, I wonder if this might be the case here. So what about an alternative: would you be willing to voluntarily stop editing articles related to American politics for a while (say, six months), working on other topics in the meantime? The effect is indeed largely the same, but no sanction would be logged, and there would be no more or less automatic block if you fail to stay away (but, realistically, you'd be bank here in the same position). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Ah. Based on the supports I misunderstood the purpose of this section to be a proposal rather than notification. My mistake. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Why is this still open? I withdrew the original reason for the noticeboard. This just seems to have turned into a lot of editors who want me banned. I have alreayd been banned and accepted it. Can and admin just close this before more editors make me feel worse than I had to be. (6 support votes after the ban was 100% uncalled for as the discussion should have just been closed after I withdrew and the ban notice was put out. I mean come on now that is ridiculous. (Not the support votes, the fact it was left open for the support votes). Elijahandskip (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Well, I was saying that the ban was more harsh than it needed to be, but if you don't want an "appeal"/discussion of the ban and want this closed it should probably be closed by someone uninvolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, an appeal is 100% useless and I do deserve the ban. In a few months I might try to appeal, but I have to prove that I can change before appealing. (Also I did appeal but withdrew it. The appeal was for technicality since my 3000+ byte message was posted 1 minute before the ban, so I tried to get it removed so that new very long thing could be taken into consideration. It was denied by the banning admin so I withdrew before it became official.) I just want this discussion to be close as it is now at 8 hours after it should have been closed... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban removal request of Bus stop

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Falun Gong: 0RR without explanation or expiration date

A little background before I get to my request: As some of you know, among other topics, I'm a regular over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, particularly topics related to folklore studies. Late 2019, I encountered a huge amount of advertisements from Shen Yun while visiting the US. This featured lots of colorful costumes, featured heavy emphasis on 'tradition', and was heavily marketed as a 'cultural experience'. I soon found that behind this dance company is a new religious movement called Falun Gong, which had not only been aggressively supporting extreme right-wing groups here in Germany by way of its various news outlets (like the The Epoch Times) but also soon started making headlines in the United States in their tremendous support for fringe stuff.

When I encountered it, somehow English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article made no mention of important topics like Falun Gong and Shen Yun's compound and de facto headquarters, Dragon Springs (as you can see, we now have an entire article on this). The article even somehow managed to avoid referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement despite a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed academic sources describing the group as exactly that at every turn. These are just a few of the issues from which the article suffered.

Compiling numerous peer-reviewed sources and media reports, I quickly experienced why scholar James R. Lewis wrote that English Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong and its propaganda and media outlets (like Shen Yun and The Epoch Times) appeared to be "little more than mouthpieces for the FLG [Falun Gong] point of view" (2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 81. Cambridge University Press.). The reason why was pretty obvious: These articles have been (and are) absolutely crawling with single-purpose accounts whose core goal is clearly to make pro-FG edits whenever and wherever possible. Some of them have been camped out on these articles for around a decade. They're all too happy to brigade and lawyer away anyone who might want to introduce a source or claim that would not meet the approval of self-created narratives. I've witnessed exactly the sort of behavior Lewis describes in his assessment and the attempts at character assassination and similar I've seen also check out with the various accounts out there by scholars of being harassed and/or threatened when researching the topic.

Absolutely nothing has been pleasant about any of this. On the up side, these articles have seen major improvements over the course of 2020 and many great editors have since gotten involved, making this sort of brigading and lawyering much more difficult to manage. So, while the SPAs are still now and then making attempts at reverting these articles to their previous states, the old norm appears to have been smashed and the SPAs seem to have lost the field to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

So imagine my surprise a couple days ago when, after signing on as I normally have since 2005, I checked my watchlist, and made a straightforward revert ([15]) only for me to receive a message that I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours by @Guerillero:. As admin Guerillero—whose name I did not recognize—informed me, Guerillero had added me to a special list back in July of 2020. Anyone on Guerillero's list was apparently forbidden from performing any reverts on this page (yes, that's right, 0RR), it is indefinite, and, no, according to Guerillero, he certainly did not need to discuss or explain it. Guerillero did, however, notify me that he had dropped a template on my talk page back in July 2020, during which time I was no doubt being bombarded with the usual harassment from SPAs and missed it or I would have immediately appealed to avoid absurd situations like this one. As I had apparently not reverted anything on that article since July 2020 (or you'd have heard all about it from me at that time), it sure seems like there was never any reason for me to be on this strange list to begin with. I still have no clue why I would be included on this list—the article already has a very visible 1RR policy. Guerillero's block was soon lifted by @Bishonen: and various other admins lended support for the removal ([16]).

I fail to see how this in any way assists Wikipedia. In fact, stuff like this actively discourages the editors who we really need on these articles. Could someone please remove my name from this ridiculous and arbitrary list so I don't have to deal with this nonsense again? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment as-to whether your block was justified, but Falun Gong is an extremely controversial topic visited by many SPAs and an admin-imposed 0RR is justified. 0RR for all editors, not just editors on some list you claim exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"List [I] claim exists"? The list is right here, which I linked to above. The article is set to 1RR. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I was mistaken. I thought 0RR applied to all editors at Falun Gong, it does not. I think you need to appeal at WP:AE, though I will not stop you if you want to appeal here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: You are going about this the wrong way. Discretionary sanctions exist for very good reasons. I have no idea why you were caught up in a 0RR restriction but the fact is that you were. Rather than starting a general discussion regarding your misfortune, you should ask somewhere quiet about how to appeal. The first step of any successful appeal is to work out what happened at the time. Perhaps, to an uninvolved administrator, it did appear there was excessive reverting, and they reasonably concluded that handing out half-a-dozen restrictions was desirable. Try to see it from their point of view (AGF: they are not mad, they are not trying to get you, they would have had a reason). After that, have low-key and polite discussion with the admin about what you would need to do for them to lift the restriction. Point out some of what you said above (fringe, SPAs). Then wait for their reply and politely engage with what they say. I, or others, can say how to proceed if dissatisfied after that but those two steps are very important. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The admin who made the list, Guerillero, told me to come here or go to AE. I figured I'd come by here first. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The unblock request seems a bit worrying? The request asked for an appeal to be copied to AN/AE and was denied and told to wait until the block was over? Yes, it’d probably have taken longer than 24 hours to reach a consensus to unblock anyway, but this seems effectively like unappealable blocks (minus the IAR unblock). As for the 0RR, is there a good reason for keeping it up? Why was it imposed originally? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only have time to skim but edits around time of 0RR ban seem fine. So support lifting that restriction. Also ArbCom should maybe create a reasonable quick process to undo short AE blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The 0RR restriction should be lifted, I don't think it should have been set in the first place. I have edited that article from time to time but hadn't realized it had been imposed, if I had I would have objected. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's time to lift the 0RR restriction. Background: Guerillero discusses his 0RR sanction of six editors in this ANI thread from July 2020. Guerillero's post is here, stating that he has placed "most everyone involved in the [Falun Gong] article under a 0RR sanction" in an attempt "to keep the article from becoming a mud fight". Perhaps unfortunately, nobody there took him up on his offer to answer questions about these sanctions. The six people are, I think, three from each side, per BF's description above of the sides. So, on Guerillero's part, it looks like an "0RR 'em all indefinitely and let God sort 'em out" approach in what seemed a desperate situation.

Speaking now only to the sanction of Bloodofox, Guerillero's 0RR sanction notice on BF's page on 27 July 2020 is rather short on information, the only explanation being "edit warring".[17] BF had made one revert at Falun Gong on 27 July, one revert on 7 july, and one on 5 July, all with explanatory edit summaries. So, clearly the sanction was not for edit warring in the classic sense. Was BF supposed to have got consensus on talk before reverting to Binksternet on 27 July? If so (and if not so, how?), it seems quite draconian to give him an indefinite 0RR restriction for violating the somewhat notorious "consensus required" condition (a condition I myself would never set), especially without any warning or recommendation to self-revert. The "mud fight" issue and Guerillero's post in the ANI thread makes it more understandable; still, seen from BF's point of view, not really understandable at all. Apparently he either rode right over it, or subsequently forgot about it, because he violated it by a revert on 28 February and was promptly blocked for 24 hours by Guerillero, again without any previous request to self-revert. I lifted this block, although it came with the pomp of a "reminder to administrators" that I might "at the discretion of ArbCom" be desysopped if I did, since it's an AE block. (Guerillero has however made it clear he has no interest in taking that road.) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

• Firstly, the user is entitled to appeal any AE sanction here, and personaly, were I ever hit, that's exactly where I would do so as well. I also get irked by claims that individuals receiving short-sanctions should either be obliged to appeal while the block is on-running, or wait until until it's over - both are, to me, unacceptable limitations. Given the circumstances (that is, long after the restriction was imposed) and non-problematic nature, I feel an immediate 24hr block was unnecessary. I also don't feel this sanction (as vs the base 1RR in place on the article) is beneficial and also advise it being lifted. A good case could be made for the removal of all the 0RR on the page, but I don't know enough about the status of the other editors to make an evidenced call on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• For over a month, what would happen on Falun Gong is some form of Alice would make a controversial change, Bob would revert it, Clara would revert Bob back to Alice's version, Daniel would revert Clara, 24 hours will have passed so Alice reverts Daniel back to her version and the article would be full protected my myself or El_C. After a few go rounds of this and having to indef full protect the article, I placed the most common parties of this under a 0RR to break the back of this behavior. I was able to unprotect the article and it worked until 28 February 2021 when the pattern started up again. My feeling was that a 0RR would be better than a topic ban, because it would allow people to edit the article but stop the edit war. This may have been an over step on my part, but I did it to try to keep a contentious topic stable. As for my block, I have no intention of dragging Bishonen to arbcom over it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would have no strong objections to lifting the 0RR on the non-SPAs on my list. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I also think this would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me Nosebagbear (talk)

Since I was pinged, a couple of notes. I don't think I noticed at the time that Guerillero converted my one-week full protection to an indefinite full protection, then downgraded that to ECP, accompanied by the aforementioned 0RR sanctions to select users. But I don't think it matters (my knowledge of any of that). I trust Guerillero's judgment, overall, in any case. Also noting that WP:AFLG is probably one the AE topic areas I'm least familiar with (to the best of my knowledge, have never logged anything on that front, which says a lot). Finally, to Bish's point about CR — I tend to view it as the nuclear option (same with EBRD, except it having more radiation fallout, IMO). I think I've maybe added CR to pages once or twice (or three times max) during the past year, which, again, says a lot. El_C 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update: has been gracefully lifted by Guerillero (Special:Diff/1010887537), —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

On abuse of administrators

Just to note here, that in the last 12 hours I got a few replies from two unrelated blocked users, all addressed to me personally, with both users suggesting whom I should have sex with (one repeatedly suggested my mother, and another one some gentleman whom I have never heard about). All these edits have been revision-deleted, so there is nothing more to do here, but when we are going to have the next discussion on admins who are doing whatever they want and get unlimited power and are only interested in this power, and that everybody wants to become admin but is deterred by RFA, please remember that what the most active admins experience is daily verbal abuse. And I still consider myself lucky that this was confined onwiki, and none of the users (yet) tried to contact me off-wiki with these suggestions. This happened to me in the past as well. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I come to think of the hostility that is every day shown towards teachers, policemen, guards, and other people entrusted with keeping some kind of order. Somehow, teaching as a profession helps me put it into perspective. I will always be appreciated by many but hated and despised by a few both as a teacher and as an admin.--Berig (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Some administrators who work in highly controversial areas of the encyclopedia are subjected to constant harassment and abuse. I try to stay away from the most controversial topics, but have still had my fair share of abuse and harassment. "Self hating Jew" comes up about as often as "Christians" declaring that I will burn in hell. The only thing that really bothers me are credible threats to murder my granddaughter, accompanied by photos of her scraped off of Facebook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this on-wiki stuff is not really serious (I have got more serious threats by e-mail, and had to report them to the police, but not in the last few days), however, this certainly does not motivate me in any way. Again, there is nothing to really do about this. I am not going to resign my tools because of this kind of abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a proverb that I find some consolation in: "it is never too late to give up". We do this voluntarily, and as long as it feels worthwile we stay.--Berig (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I spend a lot of my time trying to keep two sides apart, and retain neutrality, regarding Northern Ireland topics. I get called everything by both sides constantly. Water off a ducks back at this point. Unfortunate though that people think it's acceptable to do that sort of thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally, on Slate yesterday: The Tensions Behind Wikipedia’s New Code of Conduct Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• We have multiple filters for blocking inappropriate edits; can we not block emails to other editors that also contain offensive words or phrases? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In your preferences on the User Profile tab, there's a check-box for "Allow emails from brand-new users". Filtering on offensive words could lead to the Scunthorpe problem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've chatted to GorillaWarfare about off-wiki harassment in the past, and they have advised me in a couple of cases where I have had abuse that the WMF are looking into it. Unfortunately, if somebody scrapes pictures of you off social media and dumps them on an attack site, there isn't really much they can do if it's not illegal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry you had to deal with this, Ymblanter. I've thankfully only had rare "mid-level" issues, normally it's just the casual angst and insults for me. Beyond the Scunthorpe problem, people also use emails to me to raise other individuals' problematic edits, including duplicating some language used. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you all should receive some sort of stipend or other compensation for all the abuse and harassment you are subjected to on a regular basis. Given that this is a volunteer project and that adminship carries even greater responsibilities than simply editing, I cannot imagine how anyone would willingly put themselves through such hardship in addition to their existing career without seeing some form of recognition -- positive recognition -- beyond just a "keep up the good work chaps" from the folks who actually draw a salary.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got an "angry" message earlier today from an experienced user about how I needed to wait for consensus before acting on a normal ANI report. Only if it falls within DS would I be allowed to act singlehandedly, I was told in no uncertain terms. Attached with that message was an "overt threat" to either take me to ArbCom or —and this is new— they'd run their own WP:RfA, somehow (?). I just gotta quote the comment in full: Fuck your collapsing. Without discretionary sanctions, you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic (diff). Anyway, yeah, I've been threatened with an RfAR enough times, but never an RfA! Don't think it would serve as a good mission statement for one's sought adminship, though. El_C 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a truly entertaining RFA, to be honest with you.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I can't think that making lurid statements and threatening vexatious Arbitration requests is going to go over well at RfA.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, my point got lost in my shouting. I was trying to say that admins should generally wait for consensus in controversial cases, though counter-intuitively that isn't the case for the most contentious areas (DS), because the cost of inaction is higher there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's another editor that will always get an oppose from me at an RfA. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Gaining second-mover advantage over El_C. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• UTRS seem to cater to a slightly different clientele who have an unhealthy fixation on racial identity and female genitalia - UTRS appeal #38724, UTRS appeal #40091 - I fear they may lack skills in crafting a persuasive unblock argument. Cabayi (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Some top quality rebuttal there - it must have been a tough call to decline their requests with rhetorical skill at that level.... Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hey, no fair posting juicy stuff that we non-admins can't read! Don't you know we're only here for the smut? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish I had some advice or something more productive to say, but I don't. All I can say is that I know how you feel, and it's absolutely unacceptable what many editors have to go through for choosing to spend their limited free time providing a free source of knowledge. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Block of User:Geo Swan

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

---

Geo Swan (talk · contribs) created Dan Trotta (now deleted), apparently as a result of an off-wiki dispute they had with the subject of that article. HJ Mitchell deleted that and gave an only warning, with the note that he'd probably had blocked indefinitely if he'd been able to explain himself during the fall-out. Geo Swan continued editing today, without even acknowledging what had happened. You may see some of the background at User talk:Imissdisco. I don't necessarily want an indefinite block on Geo Swan, but I do want them to account for themselves for what HJ Mitchell called "outrageous". Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Assessment' and rehash Geo Swan is a well liked editor who has done a lot of work in BLP's. Sometimes, unfortunately, he does things he should not. I'll try to link to last years debacle where he kept sealioning and bludgeoning and forum shopping Geo Swan insisted on the inclusion over of content that had been removed about a non notable person who wished to not be endangered by having her name broadcast all over the internet. (Part's in my talk archives.) I would recommend a WP:TBAN on BLP's indefinitely. If this were Geo Swan's first misstep, we would need to extend greater leeway. Unfortunately, Geo Swan has shown again a shocking lack of restraint or good judgment where BLP's are concerned, especially in a user for GS's tenure. (afkb) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• It appears the article was started in the middle of a commons deletion request, where there was a disagreement between these two parties. –xeno^talk 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • User:xeno, yes, thank you--I forgot to mention the business on Commons, in my rush to get to class. I appreciate it. I don't know if they took action over there, but I did post a note on their admin board last night. And let me take the opportunity to add that I asked Harry via email about why he blocked in the first place (cause I didn't see it initally), and we discussed the matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Re. Commons, well, as far as defending the project's reputation goes, they clearly considered blocking the BLP complainant the best way forward. Although that probably says more about Commons' priorities than anything else. ——Serial 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As I write this, the article has been copied onto a site called wikialpha (What is that site? Does it host attack pages?). I can find a few sources about Dan Trotta here, but I don't think it would survive an AfD. So I don't think it meets WP:G10, but I think HJ Mitchell can legitimately invoke WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:IAR and delete it. If the subject of a BLP does not want an article about them, and there is not extensive coverage to write about them sensibly, do not create one.

As for Geo Swan, I think they should come here and explain themselves, then we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

They can't, they're blocked... GiantSnowman 16:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's nothing obviously negative in the deleted version of Dan Trotta, but the Commons discussion does put it in a troubling light: creating a Wikipedia article about a non-public figure who clearly doesn't want one, to make a point about who "owns" our coverage of living people, would be a bright-line violation of WP:BLP and the Harassment policy. This is a good block, that should stay in place at least until Geo Swan has explained himself. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close thread. There is nothing to discuss here at this point. We cannot review the indef block of Geo Swan until they appeal it. And as long as they are blocked, there is no need for any further action against Geo Swan. Any review of the deletion belongs at WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe Drmies is just following the advice at WP:WHYBLOCK, After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the thread was started by the blocking admin. Still, I decline to review a block as long as we don't know whether the blocked user desires such a review. Sandstein 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• GS indicated on Commons that they knew it would be a dick move on their part if they created it, and yet they did, days later. I'd say this is a good block. Full quote from GS If this image was in use, say in a brand new wikipedia article on Dan Trotta, we would almost certainly decline your request for a courtesy deletion, because it was in use. For about 30 seconds I considered starting a nice fair article on Dan Trotta, but I didn't do so because it might seem like a dickish move on my part. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)CUPIDICAE💕 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would be happy to change to a partial block for article space so they can discuss the matter here.16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leave thread open. I don't think Wikipedia should be used by its editors to harass people. That's just wrong on so many levels. There is much yet to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock on the basis that they reply here only - Editing anywhere else would result in indef. If after a week no response then I guess reblock for x amount of weeks/months. Certainly agree with the above his actions have been unacceptable and he needs to do some talking. Sweeping it under the rug helps no one . –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse as per SN - At the time of writing the above I felt they should be given a chance to explain why they did what they did but I guess no amount of talking / sorries will ever help fix the damage and hurt they've caused. We're all here to write articles - Not use the website as a way to weponise people. It's unacceptable and shouldn't ever be tolerated period. –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one should even be thinking of unblocking GeoSwan for any reason. They have literally done the worst thing a Wikipedian can do—weaponize the project against a non-Wikipedian, who in another theatre would be termed a civilian. This is one of the worst offences on the books (second, I guess, to off-wiki harassment). This represents a fundamental loss of trust on GS's part, and our response needs to be proportionate to that. Support indef block; also support standard offer, which should be the minimum on the table. As noted above, they knew perfectly well they shouldn't create the article—but they did. The project, to put it politely, needs to protect itself from that kind of dearth of judgment.
  It's bizarre people are talking about partial blocks, for behaviour with such obvious real-life and potentially legal implications. If GS wants to say anything here, he can do what every other blocked user who still has their talk page access: write there to be transposed here—as Drmies original block instructs. ——Serial 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Oh, I'm fully cognizant of the legal ramifications. GS and I have gone a few rounds on BLP before. IMHO, they'll be fortunate if this does not wind up at Trust and Safety. My partial block suggestion was to allow them to respond here. Due to my past interaction, I cannot credibly advocate a CBAN, but your points are well taken. And I prefer to think of myself as "unique" rather than "bizarre". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent block done here. This honestly is quite possibly the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia to someone else. There's no call for it, none what so ever. I'm in the camp of giving people second chances, but this one...I don't know. There are so many ramifications that could come from something like this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block That argument on Commons was ugly and unseemly. And then to retaliate by writing an article about someone who made it clear they didn't want the attention? That's way, way over the line. Repulsive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block. This is bad on so many levels. If you're looking for policy violations to cite, WP:BLP, WP:POINT, WP:INVOLVED, WP:HARRASS all come to mind. My only question here is what the off-wiki aspect was. Are we talking about the spat on commons about deleting the image (which would be bad enough), or was there some additional IRL interaction (which would be far worse). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it started on Commons, then slopped over to en.wikipedia without IRL interaction. HJ Mitchell warned Geo Swan: "Do not write Wikipedia articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere (...)" which, I assume, Drmies interpreted or paraphrased as 'off-wiki' here. I might be wrong, and I don't think it will change the outcome of this thread either way. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Sluzzelin, I actually don't know if the online dispute was the one on Commons--Imissdisco's comment (on their talk page), "GeoSwan created this page after an argument we had online", doesn't specify, but worse, Geo Swan didn't take that opportunity to explain. In fact, they didn't take any opportunity to explain, at all, and went and filed that huge report that would draw anyone's attention at AIV, which is where I found it. So, in addition to Harry's comment, "do not use your superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute", I would say that Geo Swan also abused his superior knowledge of the processes on Wikipedia, and the temperament and likely responses of the editors and admins who, like me, are inclined to look at a set of edits like Imissdisco's as just vandalism, essentially. Note Geo Swan didn't even post on Imissdisco's talk page: they just let the Recent changes patrollers and others handle the matter via templated warnings. And I fell for it too, with my block--but I made it a partial block to just stop the disruption of the article which wasn't obvious to me as an attack page or a negative bio. So that's even more incriminating: it's an abuse of writing skills and of process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block It's a willful violation of COI used to rebuke another individual. If they do in a reasonably neutral fashion, then they've not burnt their bridges irrevocably, but it does warrant the block. I have no complaints if someone wants to unblock under the sole condition of commenting here. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• If they are unblocked a BLP topic ban needs to be considered in the light of this incident and last year's refusal to drop the stick over getting the name of an individual connected to Derek Chauvin into Wikipedia, contrary to WP:BLPNAME.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just thinking, this block seems to be connected to an isolated incident. A siteblock seems punitive, what's preventative about this action? It seems the user has moved on and isn't going to repeat this kind of behavior again. Heymid (contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. Not an isolated incident. This linked ANI thread is but one. It references a thread on my talk. It is quite comprehensive in addressing the matter at hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• A professional entertainer is not a private individual, and I see nothing in the deleted article so scandalous as to constitute an attack page that would justify deletion at the subject's request except going through a BLP discussion. (I see Drmies is of the same opinion). As for the deletion, and protection. HJ Mitchell, you did the deletion and protection. Do you truly consider it an attack page? Or as unsourced negative information? I'm not commenting on any other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A screenwriter nor director is really not a "public" figure even if they may be a well-documented name as these are behind-the-scenes roles. Some are, people like JJ Abrams or Vince Gilligan who frequently appear in front of fans and the camera, but there's no indication the person Geo Swan wrote up had similar public presence. We should present they are not a public figure unless that can be readily documented, and as such, BLP protections should be held to their utmost --Masem (t) 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The issue here is not whether the article should have been deleted or not. We were dealing with a member of the general public here who knew nothing of our internal processes or policies, had a legitimate concern about their privacy, and was obviously not happy. Whether you're an admin or not, when you're interacting with somebody like that, you're acting as a representative of the project. Sometimes that takes the thick skin of a rhinoceros and the patience of an ox. If you don't possess those qualities, you shouldn't be in that role. It seems like Geo Swan did everything they could to deliberately make a delicate situation worse. They correctly identified an action which would be inadvisable, then they went ahead and performed that action. That's the core problem here, and that's what Geo needs to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • To me this looks pretty obviously like a bad faith article creation (dubiously notable as well) in order to justify keeping the image. The situation seems to have been inflamed by Geo Swan's assertion that the user was an imposter of Trotta, (though I suppose that is highly unlikely, but possible) raising some similar requests on Commons from photos uploaded from the same photo group, 1 2. Strange hill to pick to die on. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block, mainly beause this is the second time there's been an issue with this. In the George Floyd - related issue, GeoSwan's additions of a BLPNAME were revdeleted and they were advised not to take the issue to AN or ANI because it was a high-traffic page [18]. What did they do? Took it to ANI. Here, they created a page for a barely-notable person (non-notable IMO) just because they'd had a disagreement with them on the Commons page. There, GeoSwan said themselves that it would be a dickish move to create the article [19]. Then, guess what? They created it. If GeoSwan is to be unblocked, I would expect it to be with a complete BLP topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The only interaction I have had with Geo Swan is at Talk:Hani Ramadan where he chastised me for removing Jihad Watch as a source in a BLP article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but how is that relevant? Drmies (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This thread has had other comments surrounding BLP editing by Geo Swan, so I thought this interaction was relevant to bring up here. Jihad Watch is an islamophobic conspiracy website and a totally unreliable source for a BLP article, and nobody should be criticised for removing claims sourced to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • That is correct. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yeesh. Another example, though somewhat less problematic on its own: It looks like after this other deletion discussion was started by a subject of a photo (not Trotta), Geo Swan responded by immediately putting the image in-use on Wikidata (where there's less of a notability threshold) thus removing the possibility of a courtesy deletion.
  I get that it can be frustrating for article subjects to say "please don't use that properly licensed photo of me, taken in a public place where I knew my photo was being taken, in a country where consent isn't required ... because I don't like it", and that in many cases there's often nothing really to be done other than suggest they release a better one (preferably with more guidance to help them to do so than in the threads I've been reading). But in those cases where it's not in use, or when a better image can be used, let's remember to err on the side of decency? Creating an article (or even a Wikidata item) in response to a request for courtesy deletion is a weird kind of antagonism (intended or not). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, if one of y'all knows anything about Commons or has power there, I'm not happy with that's happening there. Taivo blocked Imissdisco and is unwilling to reconsider, and I'm wondering if the Commons move on Geo Swan's part, which started this all, isn't a good reason for them over there to do something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Standard Operating Procedure for Commons, unfortunately. There are some good people there, but a significant number simply don't live in the real world when it comes to things like concern for BLP subjects. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block per those above. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Geo Swan, whose comments prior to creating the attack page indicate they know what is wrong with the way they acted. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose a valuable contributor because they were unwilling to admit wrongdoing or make some changes in behaviour. I recommend in future writing your comment without posting it, and coming back to it when in a different mood whenever things begin to get heated—we always know deep down that what we are doing is not good before we press "Publish changes", but sometimes our emotions get the better of us. — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

GS block review epilogue

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

---

- Hi sorry I know I'm not supposed to wade in but I just wanted to say thank you to those who helped me with this. I'm definitely not happy with some of the language I used, but I was desperate and felt completely powerless. I made some mistakes, but all I wanted was to garner a bit of control over what I felt was a retaliatory action. Sorry to have made more work for you all, I can't believe this started because of a stupid photo. This is supremely embarrassing. I appreciate everyone's kindness and patience with this.

Am I being paranoid by asking about possible retaliation by Geo towards me for my part in this? Probably an impossible question to answer. It's just this has me a bit spooked. I know he's posted about me on wikialpha, so it just has me wondering. Anyway. Should be great fodder for my next pilot ;) Imissdisco (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be included in the record here that a user named Geo Swan recreated the article at wiki alpha, which I won’t link to. This is to make it clear in any attempt at an unblock request that (presumably, could be a false flag) GS has continued this behavior off wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave Imissdisco some I'm-not-a-lawyer info. Hopefully that will get worked out. Just in case it was GS, (Don't think it's their style. Could be a Joe Job.) I called upon them to get it taken down. Hoping for the best. To my knowledge, GS has not yet returned. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

It will be interesting to see if GeoSwan abused his position at Wikialpha by uploading that article. But seeing as how he is—ooh, get this!—admin, CU and 'crat there, I think that's unlikely. I also think, needless to say, that since GS crossed the Rubicon, as it were, by weaponizing an external website in pursuit of an on-wiki feud, a C-ban discussion would be wholly appropriate. ——Serial 16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, Interesting. I found that, and blindly assumed wikialpha was a site like Deletionpedia that scraped articles before they got deleted, or just a straight Wikipedia mirror that happened to grab a snapshot at the right time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(long, protracted sigh. followed by an obscenity) ( another sigh) (clears throat) It was my impression in our dispute last year that GS has a poor understanding of the potential legal ramifications of their "boldness" regarding BLP. I wish them well in their editing away from this project. But there comes a time when "boldness" becomes recklessness. I hope they do not find this out the hard way. And I feel for anyone harmed by their recklessness. Gad! Here's a thought. Were they trying to uncover the name of Chauvin's wife for a page at Wikialpha? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WA actively encourages their users to browse the articles listed for deletion here on Wikipedia, and even have a Save Article feature to preserve and publish them there. I'd also note that on GS' discussion page on WA, he was asked to delete an article in December 2020 on WA, at the request of the subject, and on that very same day, edited the WP article that mentions that subject, ensuring the links still worked, and added archive links as well. It doesn't appear he originally added the content here on WP, but is it a coincidence that he suddenly took an interest here, making sure the links worked, and adding archive links. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that it is the same editor in both places. From the time stamps, he actually created the article at WA, and then copied it here to WP. I agree that this kind of harassment on and off wiki merits a C-ban discussion. Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If you check the wikialpha history, it lists Geo Swan as the creator and editor of the page. It's him/her. They edited it just yesterday morning, in fact. I guess this could be an imposter but that seems strange Imissdisco (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This has gone far afield of what I originally intended-- a post hoc update. The original thread was to confirm the block. It is now moving in the unintended direction of a CBAN. Please start a new thread at ANI, referencing this discussion and extension If a CBAN is really something you want. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Ian Fleming infobox feud

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

---

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

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

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

Automatic (Blind) reversion of sockpuppet edits

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

---

I noticed several edits on my watchlist that were within minutes and reversions of a user who it turned out is a sockpuppet. When I queried, I was told that the edits can be reverted on sight, even if it reintroduces bad edits. I was pointed to the banning policy which says it can be reverted on sight. However, the "exceptions" state, "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons." Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits So which is it, revert on sight no matter what, or be smart about it? Here's the huge list of reversions, [20] See this one where it reintroduces a BLP violation: [21] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor involved User:Watchlonly is a sockpuppet of the prolific puppetmaster User:יניב הורון, whose SPI archive can be found here, with its extensive list of socks. Per WP:3X, this editor is de facto banned from Wikipedia, which means that every single edit they made should never have been made. On the theory that it's more likely that puppetmasters might stop socking if we didn't continually reward them by allowing their edits to stand, I frequently revert as many edits made by prolific sockmasters as I can. If asked about it, my standard response is that any editor in good standing can restore anything I've reverted if they think the edit is worthwhile, and by doing so taking personal responsibility for the edit, without the least objection from me. This is allowed per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF:

"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5.".

I explained this to Sir Joseph on my talk page, but they decided to come here anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If one of the edits I reverted restored a BLP violation, and Sir Joseph noticed it, the proper response on their part would have been to notify me in one of the three messages they posted to my talk page, [22] and I would have corrected the problem immediately. Instead, their battlegroundy response was to file an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to not reintroduce a BLP, which is why you shouldn't blindly mass revert hundreds of edits. I don't have a battleground response, I'm just asking if the exception policy doesn't apply and we should, as you say, be allowed to revert on sight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the puppetmaster not to edit here in the first place. The onus on you is if you see I've made a bad edit, to either inform me of it so I can correct it, or correct it yourself and them inform me of it. What it does not call for is blowing up a trivial situation iinto an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but posting a "query" on AN instead of working with me to correct errors is indeed a battlegroundy response. You posted two comments on my talk page, got two responses, never mentioned any specific problems which needed to be corrected, and then your third comment was that you had posted here. That's hardly working to fi a problem before coming to the noticeboards, that's trying to get someone into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not according to Wiki policy, see the "exceptions" section of the policy you quote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipolicy says you shouldn't try to fix a problem with another editor before coming to the noticeboards? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. That's why I came to AN to ask the question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a "pissing match" if you had simply come to my page and said "Hey, I see where your reverting the edits of a sock, but did you know that in these edit X, Y and Z, you restored a BLP, or restored a typo or whatever." But you didn't do that, did you? You never gave me the chance to fix any problems you saw, you just wanted to make trouble for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Final comment to you, hopefully. That's exactly the point. The onus, as per policy, is not for someone to go through your mass reversions to see if all are OK. The onus is on you to see if they're OK before reverting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

But when you did find problems, you didn't tell me what they were so I could fix them, which would have been the collegial thing to do. Instead, you saved them up for your AN report in order to bolster your attempt to get me in trouble. This entire report is a sizzling piece of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, for which Sir Joseph should be trouted, at least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I pasted the "exceptions" part in my post.

You quote the sentence but don't quote the exceptions part.

Here it is again:

This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.

Your reversions reintroduced typos, vandals, and BLP and other false statements. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, it's just a difference in priorities. Revert it if that's your thing. Take edits as they are if that's your thing. If someone reverts a sock and the revert introduces an error, fix it. A lot of time being wasted on a sock here it seems. WP:RBI and all that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally in favor of mass reversion of edits by banned users, but should also try to look for BLP vios being restored. If you miss some say sorry and correct it and move on. And yes, tell the person they missed it on such and such edit. nableezy - 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Best revert every edit....don't give the editor a sense that a portion of their edits will stand because of sheer volume. Make it clear to them that there is no point editing here because of the community sanctions and that every edit will not stand so don't try.Moxy- 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If their version stands eventually, even if it's reverted and subsequently restored, they get the sense that they did something successful. We must decide which is more important: correctly identifying Sara Netanyahu as Bibi's wife and not his cow, or discouraging sockpuppetry. 147.161.13.172 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The views of the sockpuppet are not important, that's part of the "I" from WP:RBI. What's important is the time and efforts of productive editors. Dealing with sockpuppets can be tiresome and long work (Beyond My Ken was dealing with over 100 affected articles), and we do not want policies and practices that add to this burden. Agree with nableezy, if something is missed correct it and move on. CMD (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If a sockpuppet is making good edits, the best thing to do for the project is to talk to them and try to convince them to come in from the cold. The endless game of Whac-A-Mole is a waste of time for everyone. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from ordinary vandalism and incompetence and the occasional PoV SPA, I would say that the vast majority of editors who get blocked or banned make quality edits to Wikipedia. The sanctions that are placed on them are due to behavioral problems, not -- for the most part -- because of bad edits. Any editor who has been indef blocked or banned can ask for clemency and a return to the fold, and they will (usually) be given a fair hearing by the community -- indeed we have the WP:Standard offer as part of our normal processes -- but the impetus to do so must come from them. We cannot be in the position of begging people to return after misbehaving badly enough to be chucked out, doing so would make a total mockery of the idea that sanctions act to protect the encyclopedia from damage. Let a puppet master have a real change of heart, and decide that it's more important to them to contribute to the project legitimately then it is to continue to play at sockpuppetry -- and I suspect that it's like an online game to many of them -- and make their case to the community. Until they do, and the community decides to give them another chance, they remain beyond the pale and are not deserving of our leniency, especially when, like יניב הורון, they come back again and again and again and again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And if Sara's article says that she is Bibi's wife, that's a win at יניב הורון's game. It encourages him to continue next time, and he may succeed at getting more edits ultimately being kept. 147.161.8.176 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, will you please explain why you did not discuss the problem with Sara Netanyahu with Beyond My Ken before bringing the matter to this noticeboard? Wouldn't that have been the collaborative thing to do? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I brought the matter to ask the question, not necessarily about one edit, of which there were a few that were false. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit in-transit right now, so writing somewhat in haste, but what is up with this IP vandal above (diff) commenting on this conversation (twice)? Am I the only one who picked up on that? El_C 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• When a sock has made a large number of edits it seems to me unpractical to check every edit on a case-by-case basis, as well as having the effect of punishing the victims of long-term abuse. I think BMK's mass reversion is acceptable, though less optimal than checking for BLP violations if they have the time. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• When someone cares so little about the project that they have used at least 55 different socks, we don't want them "in from the cold". We want them to bugger off and stay gone. I would still look quickly at their edits before reverting them, but with little empathy. The best way to deal with edits that are actually good is to take responsibility for them by reverting twice. Zero^talk 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another fire-and-forget comment. I'm not saying Sir Joseph is easy to get along with, just using my last interaction with him as an example (here), but this is a totally legitimate matter to query admins about on the admin board. They did not mention BMK in their OP. It's just a general query. So, I don't understand the vehemence against with which they are told to resolve it with BMK, somehow. What is there to resolve between the two of them right now? They had a conversation on BMK's talk page (direct link), but Sir Joseph wanted further input on how to correctly approach this sock and socks, in general. End of story. Also, Levivich, this notorious sock —which in this particular iteration was fuckin' EC'd— is probably too far gone to save, certainly in the usual way. But who knows. Maybe one day...? Seems unlikely, though. El_C 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK wasn't mentioned by name, but Sir Joseph directly linked to BMK's contributions as the edits in question. Those are essentially the same thing. Grandpallama (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "this notorious sock" now part of Levivich's full title? "Dangit Levivich, This Notorious Sock, 5th Baron Sockington" ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Still here, so I'll follow up quickly. So what? Sir Joseph isn't asking for action or even an admonishment against BMK. They can query a general question that pertains to their dispute. There isn't some sort of invisible DR forcefield preventing it from being a legit query. Again, this is a non-issue. El_C 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah. If you just want to ask about policy, you post here without Sir Joseph's final two sentences. When you include those final two sentences, it's not just an innocent query anymore. (C'mon, El C, asking admins to look at a huge list of reversions is more than just seeking a policy clarification.) Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Grandpallama, that is not a connection I draw. I, for one, don't see how that automatically translates into a request to warn or act against BMK. Whose approach here was right, as far as I can tell. Certainly, edits from such notorious socks are to be reverted on-sight. If there are occasional casualties (even serious BLP ones, like here), that's just the cost of this business. Yes, it's good to maybe peek to see that all is well, with this or that page subject to such mass reversion, but depending on the volume, that may not be practical. I really don't know if there's much more to this than that. //Out the door. El_C 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not bringing this because of a person, I'm bringing this query because of a policy and the exception to that policy to see what the best way to deal with it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C You know I have great respect for you, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Sir Joseph came to my talk page about this issue, but never mentioned any specific problem, instead saving that for his "policy query" here. The link he posted here changed the entire nature of the report from an inquiry about policy into a report about another editor's behavior, and the fact that he didn't mention me by name in the test of the report is not relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK thanks, and it's fine that we agree to disagree, but as an uninvolved admin, I don't consider this to be a lapse on Sir Joseph's part (and, again, noting that whenever such lapses are exhibited on his part, I'm not one to shy away from pointing these out). El_C 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I too revert all (known) sock edits on sight, and I work on the General Ripper principle when it comes to reverting these edits - "if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions afterward. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness" And per Zero0000 - sometimes revert the revert if it's actually a good edit, but these are few and far between. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

When I happen on this kind of blanket reversion of socks, and see that some of the reversions actually made the article worse, I undo them with edit summaries such as "restoring last version by X" (where X is not the sock, this is only possible, when the sock reverted a bad edit done immediately before their edit) or I write a descriptive edit summary such as "fixing typo", "restoring referenced content" or whatever, but I try to neither mention the sock (whose edit I'm actually reinstating) nor the blanket-reverter (whose edit I'm actually undoing). I just did this with five of the ca. 130 sock-reversions talked about here. It's takes a bit more time (and I didn't check every single edit), but it's the only proper way I can think of performing this trade-off between doing what's right for the article in particular and doing what's right for the encyclopedia in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

^^This is what I do, or would do, the few times I've run into it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• We see this discussion a few times a year and it's always the same arguments. Yes, policy says that you can blind revert everything if you so choose, but a skilled editor *should* look at each edit individually and if reverting the edit makes the encyclopedia worse (ie: introduces factual inaccuracies or BLP violations), then really it should just be left alone. We aren't slaves to the revert tool nor are we more virtuous if we cut our noses off to spite our faces, all in the name of fighting sock puppets. We can and should use our judgement. If you revert an edit an it introduces a BLP violation or other issue, you own that mistake because you choose to introduce it into the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, that is what I am saying, but even more so because policy actually doesn't say you can blind revert. The exceptions make it clear that you need to make sure those exceptions don't apply. If they don't, then go ahead and revert, but you shouldn't just pull up the contributions page and revert all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  And that's why you saw a specific error I made, but never brought it to my attention, despite having initiated a discussion on my talk page, but instead put it in your pocket in order to use it against me in a AN report disguised as a policy query. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  And, BTW, these two edits [23] and [24] make it quite clear that I was not "blind reverting". I saw a problem that I had made and I fixed it. You apparently want me pilloried for being human and missing some other mistakes I made, but instead of helping me, you decided instead to throw stones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Template:U:DennisBrown Yes, I "own" the error, but when another editor sees the error and doessn't tell me, I have no opportunity to correct it. Or, if they fix it and don't tell me about it, I can't thank them for it -- which I would have done. The question in this instance is not whether I made an error or not -- I did -- but exactly how that error was dealt with by another editor. In this case, it was used as a cudgel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would agree that taking here seems a bit unnecessary, and that any problem with an editor (particularly an established editor) should be taken to their talk page first. ie: Use the path of least drama first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple separate questions that need to be asked here, and I will do so with a brief explanation:

• Question 1) Should a person, in the act of reverting a sock puppet, make at least a cursory check to see if their reverting of that sock puppet would actually create more problems then leaving the edit?

• Answer 1) Yes, that would be best and ideal.

• Question 2) If someone comes across a place where the editor in question #1 didn't check closely enough, and ended up reverting where they shouldn't have, what should they do?

• Answer 2) Fix it themselves. If you see something that needs fixing, the lowest effort and least disruptive way to handle it is just fix it.

• Question 3) What should be done with the editor that reverted where they should have?

• Answer 3) Absolutely nothing. If you already fixed the problem yourself, then there's nothing left to do. If you'd like, maybe a pleasantly worded note would be optional, but that should be the end of it; even if they don't respond to your note in a way you would like, the most important thing is there's nothing else to do except fix the error.

If we focused more on improving Wikipedia text and fixing problems when we encounter them, and less on playing the "punishment game", Wikipedia only gets better. --Jayron32 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That ideal solution gives sockpuppets enormous room to jam Wikipedia by eating up serious editors' time. If, rather than mass revert, one were obliged to scrupulously examine the merits of each particular edit (dozens), committed wikipedians who have other things to do would be sucked into a timesink, with the sockpuppet chuckling. Fuck'em. Revert everything, and whatever is left over to be fixed, will eventually be fixed. Zero tolerance.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to make Wikipedia better, no one is forcing you to do so. You aren't being paid, no one really needs you here. If you aren't here to improve things, at the very least, just stay out of the way of people that are trying to do so. --Jayron32 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no way one can get from what I wrote to what you inferred, I suggest you take a course in elementary logic or do some remedial reading. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting sock puppets of banned/blocked editors is making Wikipedia better. If it's not, the person shouldn't be blocked/banned. That said, I more or less agree with what you (Jayron) wrote above. I don't see that you are calling for people to be "obliged to scrupulously examine..." but just saying that it would be ideal to make sure you're not harming an article by reverting, but that there's no penalty if you don't. That sounds right to me, but caught between doing nothing and mass reverting, I'd prefer to see erring on the side of the latter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't read what Nishidani wrote as not wanting to make Wikipedia better, just different priorities. On the one hand, many editors and policy see not allowing sockpuppets to edit here, and discouraging them from doing so, as very important in order to make Wikipedia better, on the other hand, it's fair to think about how one's editing time, effort and energy are best allocated in order make Wikipedia better. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would wish that there were no implied criticism by Administrator's or others towards those following agreed process in directly reverting sockpuppets. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(in case I'm meant among 'others') I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just fuzzier on the issue, particularly when it comes to things like the BLP violation mentioned in the original post. My first reaction to this thread was to go and fix some of the stuff. I really didn't mean to imply criticism toward those following proceess. The process just isn't as clear to me as it obviously is to others. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Policy itself is a little fuzzy because policy is designed to mirror actual practice, and there isn't a single mindset when it comes to reverting socks. What I spoke of earlier is a compromise position: If you're going to revert all the edits, you need to make sure you aren't doing damage in the process, because many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits, so not all of them will need to be reverted, and in some cases, you might accidentally violate policy by reverting if you introduce BLP violations that the sock was fixing. There is no "good" answer, so again, it's all about judgement and avoiding being focused purely on punishing the sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's good to be reminded that Wikipedia's policy and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive, and what follows from that is that they should be updated with some frequency to match what editors actually do. Too often there's a lot of resistance to adjusting them to new conditions, and guidelines especially are often approached as Holy Writ.

BTW, Dennis, it's nice to see you around again, you've been missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

From Dennis Brown above "many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits". And that is the point of some banned editors. Make good edits that get reverted so they can boast about it on other sites and laugh at the "twisted knickers" we all get into, me as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Response to all above: I don't believe I ever said we shouldn't be reverting the edits of sock puppets. We should. What I said was, and let me make this abundantly clear, that if someone messes up and reverts an edit that re-introduces a problem into an article, the proper response is to just fix it and then to do nothing else. In other words, don't report people to ANI for reverting sockpuppets. As in, this thread should never have been started. Like, you're all LITERALLY lambasting me for pre-agreeing with you 100%. Like, I already clearly stated the things your arguing against me for. I'm not sure why you are doing it. Please find someone who says something you disagree with before starting an argument. --Jayron32 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ken is correct. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• The policy is clear on this. Anyone is authorized to revert ban evasion. No one is required to do so. Try not to re-insert policy violations. Really simple. If someone accidentally reinstates a policy violation, you can just re-revert. Maybe let them know so they can keep an eye out. You don't run straight to the dramaboards pretending like the policy is ambiguous or contradictory. You don't post diffs of an editor making a mistake, and imply they're not "being smart", and then when they defend themselves imply they're trying to have a "pissing match" and claim that you're simply asking a question. Holy crap, what a toxic thread. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  The policy is also clear that it has an "exceptions" section which people seem to ignore. And the fact that several people here, admins included, disagree with you, it's not correct to say the policy isn't ambiguous.

  I also never implied anyone wasn't being smart.

  I asked if people can blindly revert without checking, or be smart (as in the adverb) about the reversions. Perhaps you should read El_c comments because if someone is making this toxic, it's not me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The policy does not have an "exceptions" section, you're lying.

The policy says to use "care" when reverting, which you've equated to "being smart".

You're highlighting a good faith mistake, implying that the editor did not "take care", and thus was not "being smart". I will correct myself, because the allegations were unfair. This thread isn't toxic, your OP was, and your subsequent responses were. Shame on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar, which is a PA.

"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5."

Click on "exceptions" for exceptions.

I could write 1+1=2 and you'd complain so feel free to have the last word. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I also posted on AN and not ANI because I wasn't bringing any person or drama. I was querying about the policy. You need to make drama, but that's on you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Drama is caused by people doing the opposite of WP:DENY. Encouraging socks only encourages them and they never stop. That is corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I only skim-read the above discussion, but my basic philosophy is to look at the edits in question and only revert (or delete in the case of G5 pages) if they do not improve the encyclopedia. In my view, reverting an edit that improves the encyclopedia does not conform to the philosophy in WP:DENY, as they can then complain, with justification, that "evil abuez admins are stopping me from improving wiki" and get people on their side. By ignoring the edit, but blocking them for sockpuppetry anyway, they get less ammunition to fire back at us. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And I endorse what Jayron32 and Swarm have said - if somebody's revert makes the encyclopedia worse, revert it back using an edit summary that explains why in the context of the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those supporting Ken - revert socks per DENY, even if the edits are good. Anything else encourages them to continue socking. If they want to edit constructively then they need to so from their original named account, having sought an unblock. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

2020 China-India skirmishes

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

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

Controversial moves and parallel drafts

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

---

Not that I like having to come back here again, but I have no choice, I have warned @Starzoner: many times but he doesn't seem to mind. I don't understand why he insists on creating parallel drafts instead of just extending existing ones. I will cite some examples below. He also didn't care for Administrator Liz's warning. The worst part is that he recognizes that the merger of the history has already been rejected twice (I applied for it the first time) and still insists on continuing to work on his draft. I will cite some examples of parallel drafts that the user creates:

• He created Draft:The Wolf-Man (upcoming film) knowing that Draft:Wolfman (film) already exists, a draft created months ago by @Rusted AutoParts:.
• Also created Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2 knowing that Draft:Untitled Bong Joon-ho film already exists, a draft that I created months ago.
• Created Draft:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (upcoming film) knowing that Draft:Wonderful Wizard of Oz (upcoming film) was created first for @Some Dude From North Carolina: (Here anyone can see how Some Dude created the article at 19:15, 9 February 2021 but then he was redirected to a draft that Starzoner did not created but moved from another existing empty draft created at 19:05, 17 December 2020.)

I find it very unfair that I continue to do this kind of thing despite thousands of warnings from me and other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redux of previous threads and attempting to run me off from this project. Anyone who sees this thread should see his talk page where people expressed frustration, including mine. Also, regarding the Pet Sematary, he should have realized he broke the terms of use and attribution policy when he redirected my draft and copy pasted all the content there. I've been the victim of multiple insane threads where he's trying to get me blocked for no reason other what?

simple: competition to his articles. Now that he found the need to come here again, I'll stop editing filmography topic.

Ping Black Kite, BD2412 as who had responded to other threads.

Also, I wonder if the recently adopted Code of Conduct could result in sanctions against Bruno.Starzoner (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I will leave this and this link that I archived, where you can see how Starzoner immediately after my claim and sent to delete these two articles.Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to move on and stop fighting here on Wikipedia, and even move on from editing here on Wikipedia, if and only if means bringing peace here to the site. Frankly, I'm tired of being dragged here for the purpose of wanting to be "first", despite being the reportee in 2 prior drafts.

I am really tired of being stalked daily in my edits.

I am tired of being watched every day/

I am tired of being threatened every time.

I am tired of being reported here every day.

I am tired of being the victim of unnecessary threads everyday.

I have done is slightly change my approach everytime, but this is not helping the case.

I may just move on from Wikipedia because of the acts above. Starzoner (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blaming other people isn't a good idea here. You were warned about this previously, and I deleted something like 3,000 empty drafts that you had in your user space for no reason whatsoever except to "pre-date" other people's drafts. So here it is

• Do not create any more draft pages that duplicate others.
• Do not create speculative drafts with no content (or useless content, such as "Upcoming film"). Only create a draft when there is encyclopedic, sourced content to put in it.
• Do not redirect other people's draft pages to your own.
• Do not do anything that attempts to take credit for creating a page when you were not the original creator.

• I hope this is clear. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to comment firstly that Starzoner is generally a net benefit to the project, and I hope they stay, and secondly that it is permissible and often even laudable to get a jump on preparing content that will ultimately end up constituting needed articles. Of course, it is pointless to create blank or no-content pages for the purpose of being the "creator" of what eventually becomes an article, but this is an uncommonly silly dispute to be concerned about. BD2412 T 21:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this thing seriously brought to ANI? I've had issues with Bruno about their draft creations being particularly lazy and in general just find them a bit greedy about boxing others out in creating drafts as well but it's not an issue that requires ANI unless you and Starzoner started having massive edit wars or got particularly nasty towards one another. Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It seriously was, and it's not the first time. I think there's some merit to the OP's concern, but they unfortunately have BLUDGEONed every conversation and not let anyone else actually get a word in edgewise to discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

SethRuebens unblocked

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

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

Orland Park Place

Could someone please un-salt the title Orland Park Place? Pokemonprime (talk · contribs) has created a draft in his sandbox and would like to move it into article space. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, done. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup

Some pretty nasty comments in the history there, maybe they should be striked out? Govvy (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they just were. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Brewers in Nottinghamshire

I've just spent the whole day on a project to help round out the information on brewing in North Nottinghamshire. Someone came along and deleted two profiles already and then marked another for speedy deletion. They say it's promotional. It is not. It was written neutrally. I am not the brewer or in any way associated with the brewer. There was a request to add more information about local brewers - the list page has a huge number of brewers on it without profiles. I feel like I've completely wasted my time. I also feel that the criteria is completely inconsistent because how can you write about any company if it is deemed promotional. And you will note that I followed the stame structure as other brewers who have not been deleted. My understanding was that if there was a problem - eg promotional content - that this would be flagged up on the talk page and discussed. I have no idea how to recover the content that has been deleted. I have no idea how to ask for help. It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here. The profiles are Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery that have been already deleted. SandrinaHatman (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

SandrinaHatman, Hi, I'm sorry to hear about this. I have a keen interest in brewery and pubs and have written or improved several articles on the subject including the bulk of Curious Brewing and Fremlin's Brewery. I had a quick look for sources for the Welbeck Abbey Brewery and see coverage in the Daily Telegraph, Nottingham Post and Worksop Guardian, which should be enough to write a small encyclopedic stub. If the breweries are covered in Amberley-published books, that will help. I'm a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what I can do about recreating these articles and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: aren't you rather crossing the line of your interaction ban with Praxidicae by getting involved with this ? Nick (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So what do we do? We just put up with people deleting things willy nilly Nick? Can you please tell me how you're going to help? I spent hours going through press to find the information and properly cited it all. Thank you to Ritchie for the suggestion but I wanted to contribute profiles of small to mid sized brewers because there are 2000 of them and only a handful have profiles. I'm effectively being prevented from doing that. And the Fremlins article was fab Ritchie and very interesting. I just improved Goachers a bit and will be uploading another photo that my friend took of The Rifle today.SandrinaHatman (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandrinaHatman: What has this to do with Ritchie333's interaction ban, which I was asking Ritchie about ? Nick (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: Prax is the person who nominated the three articles for deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa and SandrinaHatman: I think the point is if there's a problem with Praxidicae's editing or admining, then anyone without an iban is free to discuss these problems, including I assume SandrinaHatman, and try to help in any way allowed by our policies and guideliens. Anyone with an iban with Praxidicae isn't free to do so, and should stay out of it not least because it leads to these asides which risk distracting from the potential actual issues. That particular comment of Nick was meant to solely focus on the appropriateness of Ritchie333 participating in this discussion and getting involved with articles that were deleted by Praxidicae. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced those were G11 speedies, to be honest. The prose was written pretty neutrally and lists of beers that a brewery sells are not unusual in a brewery article. Whether they're notable or not is quite another matter, but that's not what they were deleted for. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, was wondering about that - we've got I think pretty much every Scottish whisky distillery and would have lists of their bottlings, so are breweries really that much different. Nick (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a lot of ambiguity to what counts as "unambiguous promotion" in practice. As soon as there's a hint of promotion, many patrollers will tag for speedy deletion and many admins will oblige, even if it could have been saved by toning it down and providing better sources. The defence is to use unimpeachable sources, avoid puffery, and not write anything that could be perceived as soliciting sales. Fences&Windows 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Article to deletion

• Draft:Frank McKnight - hoax article to deletion. 78.133.206.183 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article deleted as both of the refs were leading to 404 pages that did not exist. Also I find a bit of irony of a hoax page being created by someone with the name "FakerGuy" RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and brazen incivility at WandaVision

I am reporting two editors, User:Scenarioschrijver20 and User:Anubhab030119. The former for disruption and the latter for abusive behaviour. A discussion was had back in January in regards to the main cast of the show. This discussion was closed after Scenario started filibustering the discussion after many other editors disagreed with them. The discussion was revisited today and Scenario returned to the discussion and proceeded to resume this behaviour. I archived the discussion as it was clear the same road was about to be walked but Scenario reverted it twice [25] [26] a clear act of defiance to continue their filibuster and indicates they will resort to edit warring. I asked they restore the archive but so far it’s been ignored. Anubhab decide to invite themselves to the discussion simply to attack the site and myself and @Favre1fan93:. “nonsensical Wikipedia”, “So let favre and rusted and other dumb people continue following their "rules" like a dog behind their master.”, “Haha, this rusted guy must think he is so "powerful" because he can revert other people to inflict his own nonsense. Carry on with your childish insecurities mate.”. While I was filing this report they proceeded to go after @Facu-el Millo: “Here comes another "expert".”. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anubhab has added another And no, I haven't bothered to read some pointless article on a pointless website. Those rules are for you guys to bark about, doggy. Go fetch.”. They also edited my above comments. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As was said by users such as @Favre1fan93: also back in January. It was decided to wait off any cast discussions until after the final episode aired which was last friday. Rusted also did not give other users the opportunity to respond in the new patiently waited to start discussion, which is why I reverted. Reporting me for disruptive behavior seems childish in this case. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When a discussion is archived it is closed. It does not get reverted because you wish to keep talking. If you feel so strongly you open a new thread even though it would be inappropriate. You do not edit war it back open. Rusted AutoParts 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion should include more people. You decided to archive it without giving other people the chance to answer. Seems undemocratic. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You were making the same arguments and doing the same frustrating practices as the prior discussion. You kept pointing to arguments that myself and other editors already addressed in the prior discussion. It’s clear where it was going so I closed it. It’s not undemocratic. The point remains you don’t undo an archival. It’s disruptive. Rusted AutoParts 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No dude, I was making different arguments. Archiving something you don't give other people the chance to respond to seems disruptive as well. Also it was decided to wait off the final episode. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Diffeeent arguments for the same point. Each argument you made was disproven or debunked, so it came back to the same as before, where you’re refusing to get the point. Another editor even said you were beating a dead horse so it’s clearly a sentiment held by others. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No that's just plain wrong. It's a fact that noteable actors get main billing even if they are not main characters. And also it was decided to wait till last friday for the final episode so that we would have all the information. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re now carrying the discussion over here, more evidence of filibustering and bludgeoning. The issue at hand is the disruptive editing and your removal of the archival, not whether actors in a show are main or not. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No I'm just telling you why I reverted it. You love throwing those out. And my removal of the archival was due to you not giving other people to respond because you think you are right and can just go around and archive everything. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion. Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted....r kto chudir bhai giri krbi sala kutta choda? Khankir cheler mto garpeyaji kore jachhis tkhn theke....fot banchod fot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhab030119 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) ”Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted .... how many chudi bhai giri karbi sala kutta choda? Ever since he was mediocre like a prostitute's son ....” the translate came out a bit rough but they’re evidently calling me mediocre and my mother a whore. Rusted AutoParts 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC) ==Rusted Autoparts== This guy is being disruptive and thinks only that he is right and report people who are against him. Nicky Fury (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Johned 40 minutes ago and the only edit is to come here and criticize me, this is clearly someone’s sock puppet. Rusted AutoParts 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC) ==Rusted Autoparts== Did you know it's okay to have a thought, but not speak it out loud? I'm thinking things about you right now that I'm much too polite to say. Also, I joined Wikipedia because of WandaVision and came across this discussion. Surprised to see that some people are so small-minded. I have blocked Anubhab030119 for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Nicky Fury, you are hereby warned to refrain from personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC) This was my honest opinion. We do still live in a free country with rights is it not? To clarify this: "Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint." This is a ground rule of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Fury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Nicky Fury, no, you are wrong. This is not a public venue for free speech. It is a private website for the purpose of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. You can exercise your free speech rights elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked, obvious sock of someone who somehow thinks there is free speech on Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC) The amusing thing is they originally got the quote correct, then specifically edited it to remove "by the government" from the end of the quote. Thereby proving the point. Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Scenarioschrijver20 for 2 weeks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scenarioschrijver20. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently I created a page about a Belarusian businessman, it was subsequently nominated for deletion.

I want to make a point of mentioning that one of the criticisms was that corruption of said businessman was not covered in the article and therefore it was WP:COI. See [27], and the points made there by that same user. In other words, some editors found that the content was too neutral and did not include coverage about alleged corruption.

At 14:10, 6 March 2021 I inserted a comment on the deletion discussion page, which I can not reproduce accurately because Nick deleted it, wherein I referred to the subject, as a "wallet" linking an opinion article written by leading Belarusian authority Andrei Sannikov. The origin of my use of the word "wallets" comes from a Google Translation of that article as I do not speak Russian. In it Andrei calls for increased sanctions on powerful business people in Belarus.

After Nick removes that reference, which is quite surprising to me, I respond to Nick at 15:18 by suggesting that there has not been a violation of BLP. Nick does not respond and I continue a debate with another user who initiates a minor edit war about whether or not the Belarusian businessman should be mentioned in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.

At 17:02, almost two hours after I responded to Nick's actions, Nick asks on my talk page that I explain my use of the term wallet. I continue the debate in the minor editing war. But at 17:47, exactly 45 minutes after having asked the question, Nick simply declares:

I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page.

In other words, Nick can not articulate how BLP has been broken, but wants me to clarify my use of terms and not only is he not prepared to wait an hour for my answer (despite having taken almost two hours to follow up to me), he sees the appropriate response to be a ban on editing BLPs for a whole year.

I have raised the issue with Nick on his talk page and he has asked me to note that another admin emphasized to me the importance of not making accusations of corruption but I have not done so which makes the point moot. [[

I have explained to Nick that I have used the terms "politically exposed person" and incidentally "wallet", simply because I read that opinion piece earlier today, in discussions. This does not break BLP.

A politically exposed person is defined by the World Bank as "individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs" and since Zaytsev is a verified associate of Viktor Lukashenko it is reasonable to refer to him as a politically exposed person. Just to further the argument, Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to [his affiliation] with the Lukashenko regime." [28].

Even if it was found that I have violated BLP, then I would argue that everything I have done is with good intent and I have argued by case going by due process. Nick on the other hand has shown little regard for process, given no explanations and meted out a disproportionate punishment. --Jabbi (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't disproportionate. You ignored warnings, edit warred, created numerous BLP vios that had to be revision deleted and then continued with WP:TE. This has been explained to you on your talk page, both article talk pages and the AFd in question. I'd recommend a boomerang here. CUPIDICAE💕 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, funny to see you here. Again, what warnings? The edit war you refer to was initiated by you and concluded with you saying you don't care anymore, the content you tried to remove still stands. Can you point to any BLP vio? Is there anything contentious other than the discussion about peps/wallets? Please put forward arguments, and if you can be bothered, include diffs. Otherwise, your contribution is rather like hot air. And, not disproportionate? I have a good record apart from this, is a year a short time? What's the big concern? Finally, the edit war is unrelated to the BLP issue under discussion here. You raised the issue there about content unrelated to Nick's ambiguous charge of BLP and were found to be in the wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really disruptive now. You literally acknowledged these warnings. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now (and have been for some time) and I'd suggest at this point someone offer an involuntary break until Jabbi can thoroughly read policy, their talk page and reflect on it.

Warning 1 by Nick at 14:49 following Jabbi's BLP violating comments which were subsequently revdelled after my comments to them at the AFD.

Acknowledgement of warning 1 by Jabbi at 15:18

my concern and warning about BLP at 15:50 about a comment made by Jabbi at 15:47 and after a lengthy discussion about BLP, which they also acknowledged being aware of, my comment was a result of concern about them introducing the BLP violating material to a different BLP but about the same subject at AFD.

After their comment about merging said material into Viktor Lukashenko I grew concerned and noticed an existing BLP violation there (one of many which I haven't addressed yet) and adequately explained my removal in my first, second and third edit summaries, as well as on the talk page. To which Jabbi claims I provided no explanation. I even provided the specific text of the BLP policy, despite their earlier acknowledgement of understanding it and highlighted the applicable part twice.

And finally, their final comment on the mainspace BLP indicates their agenda and inability to adhere to WP:NPOV by trying to connect a non-notable businessman to a dictator. How is documenting the son of the dictators involvement with a notable business figure undue weight? --Jabbi (talk) 12:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). This wasn't an innocent addition of a name to an article, as evidenced by their revdelled comments, comments here and elsewhere, itw as an attempt to again connect the dots to corruption despite lacking any reliable sourcing to do so.

So how many warnings do you need, exactly? This doesn't even delve into your persistent edit warring and POV problems nor your repeated personal attacks. If you really think you weren't adequately warned or this wasn't clearly explained to you by at least two different people, perhaps we should be discussing what level of competence is required to edit BLPs.

If anyone reviewing this needs me to lay out more diffs, I can but I think a review of the general discussion, edits and edit summary as well as their talk page is sufficient evidence that this ban is more than warranted and necessary. CUPIDICAE💕 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, I have conceded in a comment here below that there is one, singular BLP violation. There is one revision deletion on a talk page related to that single violation. Otherwise, a discussion about references to the above Sannikov opinion piece (that is "wallets") can not be considered a BLP violation as it does not imply anything unlawful, only being wealthy and therefore influential because of Lukashenko's patronage. The article about the original business man has now been delete, that is fine, references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet you so markedly still miss the point. references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. At least we agree on that much, and how appropriate, another BLP violation in this very thread. PS: to your comment below, I am not male and I am not required to be uninvolved to comment here or suggest an outcome. WP:INVOLVED applies to admin actions generally, not discussions regarding disruptive behavior of editors. CUPIDICAE💕 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, can I please ask if you are aware of any specific concern about BLP violations on my behalf? I ask because I suspect the only reason you asked me to confirm that I should not allege corruption is because of context of Nick's actions, rather than anything you would attribute directly to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to others, User:Praxidicae, is not an uninvolved editor and his unsupported views here should be disregarded. --Jabbi (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I would have done the same thing. Revdel followed by an WP:ARBBLP ban, due to prior BLP problems. For admins, the diff in question is here. I'm also struck by the OP's use of the phrase too neutral — I think that's a first for me. Like, what is meant by "too neutral"? Surely it can't be lacking in editorializing. Anyway, just because the owners of Belorussian businesses (in general) may need to keep decent contacts with components of a shady regime, does not necessarily follow that they are doing anything shady themselves.

So, accusing someone of being a money laundering "wallet," doing so on the basis of a machine translation from an unreliable source — that a serious problem. That could be ruinous for such a borderline-notable living person as Alexander Zaytsev. So, fine application of the BLP hammer on Nick's part. Jabbi, more broadly, about righting great wrongs. We have a standard of reliability for sources on the project. We can't pick and choose to lower it for this or that country due to its poor press freedoms performances. That's just not a thing. El_C 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

But in the article in question, there is no direct accusation of money laundering. I should clarify, the implication in the article is that in order to be successful in business in Belarus, you need patronage from Lukashenko. This is a given, therefore, wallets, just mean rich people. Not necessarily criminally so. This is a connotation you are yourself bringing into play. Can you tell me where in the article by Sannikov money laundering is mentioned? And when questioned about my intentions, I explained my understanding of the term as being equivalent as pep. Is then a year's ban not disproportionate? --Jabbi (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it was said in the deletion discussion, but, you know, reporters can click on links. Everything said on-wiki is public and subject to BLP. El_C 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, where is the link between wallet and money laundering? I don't know where you get that from. Taking circumstances into account, i.e. this is not a wilful defamation, is a year's ban normal? What I am trying to say, Sannikov's article does not suggest money laundering. What's the problem with a rich guy being called a wallet? --Jabbi (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you had clicked on the link I provided you could have seen discussion on the afd where a user accuses me of making "the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption..." What I meant by "too neutral" which is clumsily worded, is that I did not include sources on corruption. --Jabbi (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You said, and I quote (in part): in the article I have linked independent journalism covering probable money laundering by Zaytsev in neighbouring Lithuania (underline is my emphasis). El_C 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But this is unrelated to the discussion around wallets. That article is about Zaytsev's dealings in Lithuania. [29]. This has got nothing to do with the BLP vio Nick based his decision on. --Jabbi (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But a year's ban. That's a bit heavy. --Jabbi (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, would not have set the duration to expire, but I guess Nick is a nicer guy. El_C 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds strangely vindictive and counter-productive given the circumstances. That fact that you justify Nick's actions using personal characteristics rather than objective facts is disappointing. --Jabbi (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Arbitrary and unreasonable," even? Oh well, at least it's brief and forthright. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, there are several mitigating factors I contend; 1) a prior discussion in the same vein, 2) it is a talk page, 3) I have shown caution in main space edits, 4) a long history of valid work and 5) rather clear indication of good will. I understand if you disagree but to me this matters. If there is strong intent to spread misinformation here, accounts can be circumvented as I am sure you realise. I respect the consensus here as elsewhere, but again, I think this is disproportionate. --Jabbi (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, Jabbi, I feel that bringing up mitigating circumstances (of whatever nature) sidesteps the point here. Which is to always err on the side of a conservative BLP approach, especially for borderline-notable living persons (i.e. WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BURDEN). Let's not forget that there is a real human being at the other end one of this. One who, again, is not even remotely notable as, say, a head of state or high-end celebrity. Hoping this salient point resonates this time. El_C 13:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, the thing about setting a clock is that it's obviously less useful if the sanctioned individual doesn't appreciate the gravity behind the violation, which greatly increases the likelihood for the violation to repeat at some point after the sanction lapses. To me, that's sort of a fact. El_C 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse sanction. Jabbi| is making this all about them. This is about protecting BLP subjects from possible defamation, protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, and ultimately, protecting Jabbi. Clearly they do not understand what they did wrong or the consequences. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You seem not to have read my arguments about what edits and references to sources said. You endorse a year's ban for a single violation done when there is good intent? --Jabbi (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am having trouble understanding your sense of justice. I have many thousand edits on my record, mainly on my Icelandic Wikipedia. Never had a vio. And now there is a single vio, just one, where I use the word probable. There is no repeat offence as the use of the term "wallet" can not be seen as a BLP vio, or else explain how. --Jabbi (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

the fact that you think it’s over one edit and one word is indicative of the problem here. Your edits on other projects are irrelevant, policies are different and certain articles and categories of articles are authorized for discretionary sanctions here by arbcom motion and community consensus. You were repeatedly informed of this, acknowledged it, said you understood and continued anyway. This isn’t about justice, it’s about disruption and protection. This ban was necessary to stop the disruption and protect the integrity of the project and biographies of living people. CUPIDICAE💕 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, maybe badgering the respondents to your own appeal isn't the best look, or is conducive to it succeeding (even in ameliorating it somewhat)...? Just throwing it out there. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, there is no justice at Wikipedia. We aren't interested in justice. We are not a police force, or court of law. We are interested in solutions and fairness, which are very different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel unjustly treated here. I think I will cease participating completely in Wikipedia. As a parting wish I would just ask that someone finish Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alexander Lukashenko/1. Thanks for everyone who's contributed here. Goodbye and good luck --Jabbi (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel wronged to such an extent that I feel I have to defend myself. I hope everyone understands. My responses are sometimes curt, or sarcastic, this is to my detriment and I can only apoligize for that. However, like I say, I feel that some statements here are factually incorrect and others value judgements that I disagree with but respect. --Jabbi (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering the violation, coupled with the tone and tenor of many of your responses here and elsewhere (their aggressive and dismissive nature as well as their WP:BLUDGEON'ing frequency), I think you've been treated with general courtesy, overall. Being blunt, at times, is just par for the course for these sort of discussions. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a social-justicy safe space, where discussions inevitably become muted as contributors are forced to walk on eggshells. I was gonna leave your above comment unanswered, but seeing as you still continue to engage here, even after this announcement of your departure from en, I thought it'd be worthwhile to set the record straight. El_C 13:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What I've corrected is the accusation of several BLP violations. I am content you are referring to a single violation. And to be clear, I understand what it is I did that broke policy and why. I will learn from that if I decide to edit again. I do not need a safe-space, but being up against many and feel wronged in some way can be frustrating. --Jabbi (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, what I got from this thus far is that you've committed multiple and egregious BLP violations, even if these only concerned this one borderline-notable living person (by way of WP:BLPCRIME). Possibly, there are other BLP violations which concern other living persons...? I don't know. El_C 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You've not spoken of this before. Nick certainly only reverted one edit. Is there anything specific you think violates BLP? Now I don't want to argue ad nauseam but charges such as these have to be 100%. My argument is that in the removed edit there is certain context put forward that violates BLP, I accept and understand that, it was a mistake. Consecutive references to the Sannimov article, taken on their own, are however not such violations. Or do you disagree? --Jabbi (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familiar enough with your editing history to comment further on that at this time. So, I'll let those who do take it from here. But these were egregious BLPCRIME violations, which involved multiple revisions requiring revdels. For whatever that's worth. El_C 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick only removes 2 successive edits made in a short timespan by me as can be in the talk history. There's no multiple revisions. The way you use that word egregious repeatedly is a bit dramatic. remember, in my quote I say probable, emphasis mine. --Jabbi (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, only a passing familiarity, but you can now add an additional "wallet" revdel to the mix (admins only). Anyway, I'm not sure why, after everything, you think calling the response to your BLPCRIME violations "dramatic" helps your case here, but whatever. El_C 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine as long as you don't use it the third time. I'm not making light of the singular BLP violation, it's just that I work at a university library and I rarely come across that word. No one notified me of additional rev-dels. But this brings us back a full circle to my original question, Why is it a BLP to call someone a wallet with reference to Sannikov's article. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Jabbi (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine, regardless. In answer to your question: it was because of the money laundering connotations. Also noting several additional revdels, but I won't bother linking to them, this time. El_C 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What money laundering connotations? If the only mention of a BLPCRIME is in the first original revdel by Nick. What connotation is there to money laundering if I am only referring to Belarusian business people described in Sannikov's piece as wallets? Have you really thought this through C? This is the question I put forward in the beginning of this thread. I'm glad we've finally reached a place where we can discuss it. Also, how many revdels did you commit and how many are there in total if Nick did one and let me know on my talk page? --Jabbi (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Like, hinting of playing host to a shady crypto wallet for whomever...? I dunno. Doesn't matter, sounds shady, is the point. Also, why do you need me to count the revdels for you? I don't really understand what you're asking me. El_C 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading a translation of the Russian article, but from the context the reference to wallet seems to have troubling connotations. It suggests at a minimum crony capitalism, where these business people are benefiting from corruption in the country e.g. being awarded state contracts, and not because they are truly the best business but simply because they are friends with the right people. In return, these business people help out the politicians and their families financially as needed. So while the politicians may not themselves have tremendous amounts of money in their bank accounts or whatever, they have access to tremendous amounts of money via the business people i.e. their wallets. Probably this money probably isn't just used for direct personal benefit of politicians, sometimes e.g. around election time or otherwise when there's need to try and show something to the people, it may come back to the people in the form of projects supported by the state or pet projects of some politicians e.g. to act as their legacy, which the state can't afford. So instead these "generous" business people and their companies are the ones who finance these projects, ignoring the fact they are primarily rich of the backs of the state anyway, so it's really ultimately mostly state money even if the ownership is in some companies name. Again I can't be sure if this is what the author of the article meant since I don't understand Russian and it's risky to try to understand an article based on a machine translation, worse when you don't understand the social-political background behind it. It seems clear that Jabbi lacks that too though. It makes no sense to suggest there's no shady connotations. Rich business people don't act as "wallets" for politicians if they're not getting anything in return, there has to be some quid pro quo. At least it must come in the form of no persecution, but frankly that suggests a power imbalance which is unlikely i.e. the business people do have tremendous amounts of power and aren't likely satisfied with just being allowed to exist, they must be getting something more in return. It may very well be that it's impossible to be a sufficient successful business person in Belarus with getting involved in that. If it is, then it is, this can be mentioned in relation to specific individuals if supported by suitable reliable sources. Otherwise no. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The op-ed is short and general, does not refer to specific individuals or suggest criminal activity. If I may quote recent academic paper, I can with ease provide more if required: "One can witness the politicisation of SOEs, their role being a source of resources to be distributed for meeting political goals. The politicisation of SOEs à rebours is paramount, their rents originate from their privileged position set up by the state – although SOEs seem to play a passive part here (unlike, e.g. in Poland – Kozarzewski and Bałtowski, 2017), being mainly an object of the state’s economic populism actions. The latter seems to be one of the cornerstones of Belarusian economic policy, with the authorities trying to create the widest possible clientelist base." and also: "State authorities may give large private enterprises a monopolistic position on the market in exchange for profit sharing with the state (going far beyond ordinary taxation).". Make no mistake, Belarus is an authoritarian state. Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, in this specific case, I was referring to a business man who has a verified background of being an aide to Viktor Lukashenko, making him fall under the definition of a politically exposed persons, which is also the view of Vytis Jurkonis, an academic who specialises in the politics of the area [30]. --Jabbi (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, as Nil Einne rightly points out, the meaning of "wallet" in the article is highly contextualised. I have however, from the very beginning, consistently explained what meaning I attributed to it, see: here & other now references to wallets deleted. --Jabbi (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally, have you considered at all the possibility that in Russian, "wallet" is simply slang for a rich dude? --Jabbi (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A further source, from 2011: "Corruption. The country’s continuous push for liberalization of the business climate was offset by the strengthening position of the Belarusian KGB. The latter has emerged as a top patronage network in the system of power, capable of eliminating bureaucratic competitors for the distribution of rents, as well as obstructing the prosecution of those suspected of graft. Belarus’s corruption rating remains unchanged at 6.00." The most recent Freedom House report states: "Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? 1 / 4 The state controls at least 70 percent of the economy, and graft is encouraged by a lack of transparency and accountability in government. There are no independent bodies to investigate corruption cases, and graft trials are typically closed. Presidential clemency has been issued occasionally to free convicted corrupt officials, some of whom Lukashenka has returned to positions of authority." --Jabbi (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately consistently misindenting C but thanks for correcting it. Now that there is some actual contextual discussion of the BLP violation, which El_C has stated are several and serious if I understand him correctly, in light of the above basic facts about political reality in Belarus, where, the higher you go, the likelihood of serious collusion and corruption is clearly high, how can it be considered wrong to use a colloquial term from a Russian op-ed that, at best, has an ambiguous meaning, in any case, suggesting something shady rather than downright illegal when it is shown that this is the reality in Belarus? Also, which I am getting tired of repeating, (Redacted). --Jabbi (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? In a thread about potential BLP violations, you're putting unsourced BLP violations? I'm usually one to sit out conversations like this (and/or be civil), but seriously... what are you smoking? Primefac (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not on purpose, sorry. But this can be gathered anyway from the context. --Jabbi (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement: I have decided to take sound advice and stop from contributing further for a while. This discussion can be considered closed. I understand what violations I have made. Sorry. --Jabbi (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice about Tulsi Bhagat's request for global rollback

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

---

Hello, I would like to let you know that Tulsi Bhagat requested global rollback via [31]. The global rollback flag grants autopatrol on all Wikimedia sites, including English Wikipedia, with no possibility to opt-out.

The requestor previously had that flag, and it was revoked in June 2020 for repetately creating Gautam Kumawat on English Wikipedia, misusing the autopatrol bit granted as part of global rollback.

Since the previous removal involved English Wikipedia, I would like to explicitly invite English Wikipedia to the global rollback discussion, to voice your thoughts.

Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The request has now been withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering their WP:UPE, what's their status on ENWIKI? Are they not CBANned? If not, why not? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

He was not CBANned (not even locally blocked), though he was globally locked for a bit and got most advanced user rights removed. As far as I can tell, there was never an AN(I) discussion about formal community sanctions for Tulsi. Blablubbs|talk 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this the last about it? –xeno^talk 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes.

I first came across him at User_talk:Tulsi_Bhagat/Archive_1#November_2019 but I was too new and had perhaps a bit too much AGF and veneration for long-term editors of WMF projects, so I backed down as soon as a third party came to his defence. I was then especially concerned about how he received advanced permissions despite history: IRC? I hope that platform does not have an official status for onwiki business. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's more than just the hat collecting, global lock and using autoreview that was paired with GR rights. We are forgetting the dubious crosswiki spamming about Tulsi Bhagat by other users. I have a hard time assuming good faith on that end considering the nature of the content and rather dubious black hat SEO involved in getting that pushed everywhere. CUPIDICAE💕 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that’s more recent. Was there a discussion about the editor’s involvement, or are you applying the duck test? –xeno^talk 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a mix of things that I probably shouldn't discuss on-wiki but it's fairly obvious there something more going on between the accounts (I don't think one is the sock of the other) but nothing that can ever be definitively proven because of the nature of Wikipedia. I guess I'm just saying if anyone is looking at the history between the editors involved in what I linked, it becomes fairly obvious. CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Didn't see this until after it was closed, but for the record (@Martin Urbanec) following Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72 my bot automatically unpatrols new articles created by global rollbackers that are not locally autopatrolled, so while technically projects cannot opt-out of global rollbackers having autopatrol, in practice it shouldn't be much of an issue here on enwiki. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Czechia RFC instead of RM

Hi, is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look at Talk:Czech_Republic#RfC_about_the_name_of_this_country? There have been several RM requests over the years that have consistently rejected the name Czechia as the title, but now an RFC has been started on the same topic, which looks like an attempt to move the article without going through the proper WP:RM process. Several editors have commented that the RFC lacks standing and is the wrong venue for a requested move, and given that it's the wrong venue it's hard to see that a consensus for a page move could ever be formed in that way. I think the RFC should be either closed or converted into a proper RM, instead of chewing up editor time in this confusing state until its expiry date of early April, but I've been quite involved in RMs on that subject in the past so am not able to perform an early closure myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Argh! Same. El_C 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Double Czech and mate! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The response to your 2nd close is exactly why I do not mention the merits in a procedural close. Nothing good can ever come from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, those responses would likely had come in some way or another, anyway. And it's best to be straight up about everything. Through the years, these perennial Czechia proposals always attract WP:SPAs and inexperienced users. That's par for the course. They're welcome to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it here, but I doubt much will come of it. El_C 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And these proposals always end with the same outcome, because of the English language being what it is — as opposed to, say, Hebrew, where I use צ'כיה pretty much exclusively, due to Hebrew being what it is. Doesn't matter that the Name of the Czech Republic will continue to state in its lead that: most English speakers use [the] Czech Republic in all contexts, therefore reaffirming the WP:COMMONNAME. Shouldn't really be much of a Through the Looking-Glass surprise, and yet almost certainly will continue to reoccur on the English Wikipedia with some regularity. Maybe there should be a FAQ combined with a move moratorium to throttle these proposals a bit...? I'll leave that decision to others, however. El_C 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there is a FAQ, which does speak to that. Silly me. El_C 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine and good, but the reason for closing the discussion has nothing to do with any of that. It was procedural only, since you need to use RM and not RFC for changing the name of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously our reasons differ and I opt for a wider view, but I suppose it's of little moment at this juncture... El_C 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on which of these approaches is the correct one, but thanks to both for looking into the matter.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been a succession of pagename-discussion moratoria on that talkpage, which have done a good job of allowing other editorial discussions to occur. Three weeks ago (and less than two weeks before this RFCish thing was filed) I closed a separate discussion Talk:Czech Republic#Use of short-form name in article (separate issue from title) regarding in-article usage. These have been raised for years, with never a consensus to change and not even usually any strong new evidence. But substantial time-sink, AGF failures, ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, threats to IAR, etc. I propose to implement another moratorium...say for one year. Any objections (or other thoughts about timeframe)? DMacks (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not personally. However, it may be considered fair to allow a new RM before applying a new 1-year moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right about what's fair. To help understand my position, I'll first say I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on this particular naming issue before and I don't plan to anytime soon. I would oppose a moratorium. Given that the RfC was improper, I don't think we should take much from it about the current state of consensus. People may have felt it would be closed given it was improper and there was no reason to waste their time reading, researching and commenting. And so I don't see a good reason for a new 1 year moratorium. Indeed in some ways it's harmful, since we've had no RM yet but technically there's been a few months when one could be started, we risk sending the message that if you want to have an RM, start one the instant the moratorium ends just in case a new one is imposed without a RM. However I'd fully support a 2-3 year moratorium if there is another proper RM, whatever the outcome. I would discourage anyone from starting an RM unless they believe there is some good reason why consensus may change, most likely a change in what sources support. Discussions about the name short of an RM which aren't likely to achieve anything can be ignored or closed as appropriate even without a moratorium. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're not suggesting there should be an RM, but you are also against imposing a moratorium? But that just encourages threads of the sort we've seen here, where people continually discuss the title and even look for other ways than an RM to get it changed, yet involved editors like myself aren't allowed to shut those down because there's no moratorium in place. I think a "soft" moratorium would be best here - all title discussion should be banned, unless it takes the form of a formal RM. And if someone does start a formal RM is started, then it should be a requirement that it present substantive evidence that the situation has genuinely changed since the last RM in late 2019. An RM that simply rehashes the old arguments should be closed quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, think we should do what I did last year with my AE-mandated RM approach for Kyiv (then still Kiev): announce a fortcoming move moratorium in advance (though, with Kyiv, the length was provisional at that point), which ended up being one year in length, but implement it after one more RM (which, for Kyiv, was the 15th RM), an RM which would be set to run the normal length. That is to say: I'm against an early closure on content grounds, as in having the closer decide on the contemporaneous or lack thereof nature of the sources brought to the table as an early-close provision. Otherwise, RMs are brief (compared to RfCs), so one week of that, followed by a one year break between any future subsequent RMs. That sounds like a sound plan to me. El_C 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That Kyiv discussion is a good datapoint that common usage in English sources can change over time, and WP naming changes accordingly when that happens. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And all it took there was 13 years and 15 RMs! El_C 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology

Hello, I have been asked to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology after my close of the discussion based on the discussion on my talk page. Can an administrator please help with undoing the close? Thank you. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have undone your closure and relisted the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Enos733 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IPs and partial blocks

There is an IP address which, intermittedly over the last 3 years, every few months, has changed one particular BLP's middle name from "Carl" to "Calzone". Aside from that contributions from that IP address have been a mix of constructive and non-constructive edits. I believe the IP address is registered to the university where the person whose biography is being vandalized works, meaning it's likely more than one person editing from that address.

I'm tempted to block that IP address from editing either the university's article or the BLP in question. However, I'm not sure the disruption rises to the level that the blocking policy envisions. Moreover, as an alum of the university, there's an argument to be made that I shouldn't act as an admin on those articles.

So I'm bringing this here for advice from other admins - would you implement a partial block in this situation? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A partial block sounds fine, to save constantly having to revert. Fences&Windows 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've done it, for two years. That should be long enough for them to forget this obsession. Fences&Windows 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Storm598

Storm598 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been here for three months, and in that short time has made 815 edits and accumulated a talk page full of warnings and disputes. They have been blocked once. Looking down their contributions page, a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, and I have found more which were in need of reverting, which I have done. There remain others in topic areas I'm not familiar with, so I'd like to suggest that other editors take a look at their contributions and make whatever corrections or reversions are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unfair. It is a completely different matter that there have been frequent disputes and that editing is wrong. If you edit the original controversial subject mainly, editorial disputes will naturally arise. However, in the future, unless I bring the source first, I will do as little dispute editing as possible.--Storm598 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 has now posted on their user page: "I have a lot of headaches, so I won't edit the English Wikipedia for a while. (at least one month)" I still believe that an informal investigation of their editing would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Headaches are a common recurring symptom of ANI flu.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Now they've posted "retired", that the account is "deprecated" and "I don't want to open a new account for a while." If they have an account in (at this moment) good standing, under what policy would they be allowed to make a new account? Something seems fishy here -- the moment some attention is given to a 3 month old account, it gives up the ghost. What are they concerned about being found out about the account? Is a  Checkuser needed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't under any sanction, but they are under discussion at a admin noticeboard so retiring this account and starting a new one would not be permitted under WP:CLEANSTART. P-K3 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Adminship term length RFC

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length to discuss adding an term length to adminship, and what to do at the end of an admin's term. Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts

After an unsuccessful attempt at discussion, I am seeking community review of two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

In the Squad case, I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate." In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a supervote). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from Squad (app) that now exists and with which I agree.

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they insist that "There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se". But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, in the United Airlines Flight 1175 case, Black Kite closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD." But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Wikipedia works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. Sandstein 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the participants in previous discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MER-C, Dial911, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Luciapop, Cunard, Mazurkevin, SmokeyJoe, S Marshall, Andrew Davidson, SportingFlyer, Hut 8.5, Stifle, Cuoxo, and Spartaz: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) and/or its deletion review. Sandstein 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite, Andy Dingley, SportingFlyer, Ansh666, Eherot, IJBall, Stormy clouds, A lad insane, Petebutt, Ahunt, Dannythewikiman, ZLEA, Mangoe, Jax 0677, Andrewgprout, Dfadden, George Ho, Dingruogu, Jetstreamer, AEMoreira042281, EnjoysButter, Champion, Davey2010, Donaldd23, DonFB, Icewhiz, and Samf4u: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175. Sandstein 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. Sandstein 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I may have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls far below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both look like super votes to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors TonyBallioni, PMC, ArnoldReinhold, HighKing, and JBL: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – Joe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like Sandstein I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. Dial911 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it could be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)) as WP:AIRCRASH ones often do. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. That being said, I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the Squad (app) DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the words used rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but WP:UDP doesn't support this claim (nor does Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. Fram (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like this practice is supported by consensus, but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have more people here in this discussion saying that it isn't OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --Jayron32 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  The 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. Black Kite (talk)

  So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. Sandstein 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is primarily about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history to turn it into a redirect is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --Jayron32 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.

  King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app). King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and the 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

  Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator MER-C (talk · contribs) redirected Squad (app) to Twitter with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, Squad (app) would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) as "delete", I could have requested at WP:REFUND that Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app). Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• King of Hearts' close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 accurately assessed the consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cunard The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_46#RFC:_delete_and_redirect was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be WP:REFUNDed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed. Squad (app) was proposed to be converted into a redirect, and the RfC consensus was that the standard practice should not be to delete article histories when a conversion happens (or is proposed with no one explaining why a redirect should not be made). The article history should be deleted only when there is a BLP violation, copyright violation, or other reason that makes retaining the history undesirable. No such reason was presented at the AfD, so the history should have been retained.

  Since you note that a WP:REFUND would have been fine, to avoid these contentious discussions, I wish I did this instead of opening the DRV:

  1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I should have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
  Would this violate any policies? Additionally, if this ANI discussion results in the history of Squad (app) being deleted, would I be violating any policies if I did this:
  1. I ask at WP:REFUND for Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. I redirect Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. (I would not do a merge since the merge is already completed.)
  3. I redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
  I think my proposed draftication approach would be compliant with WP:REFUND practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The merged material is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" I will not rewrite the merged content since it is properly attributed and meets the content policies. My comment was to ask whether a WP:REFUND is fine after an AfD is closed as "delete" so that I can do a merge. As long as I'm not violating any policies, for future AfDs, I plan to ask for WP:REFUNDs to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I supported and completed a merge at the AfD, I only wanted to improve Wikipedia. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to WP:REFUND. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE: Squad (app). I find this a little frustrating, there being a trivial root cause from which a number of non-ideal actions have resulted trying to fix the problem without addressing the root cause.

The root cause is the AfD nominator:

Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. User:MER-C 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

failing WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD-M, seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-deal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE United Airlines Flight 1175. I Endorse the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Wikipedia, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --agr (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into WP:Deletion policy, which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:ATD is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.
      In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Review and pinged the AfD participants who had already commented. Two of the AfD participants switched from "delete" to "merge". None of the participants have opposed a merge or said the article history should be deleted.

      I am hopeful that participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) would have been supportive of a merge/redirect had they been pinged and had the AfD been relisted. I am particularly hopeful because the AfD nominator had previously considered an WP:ATD-R approach by redirecting Squad (app) to Twitter. The redirect was undone because Squad was not mentioned at Twitter. If the AfD nominator had known about List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, the AfD nominator likely would have redirected Squad to there. No arguments at the AfD were made against an WP:ATD-M so it is incorrect to say that the community had applied and rejected it for this AfD.

      I agree with you and agr that this is too much drama for a very trivial issue. In the future, instead of starting a DRV, I will request a WP:REFUND of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (my full plan here). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Cunard I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). SmokeyJoe There are already enough people whose main occupation at Wikipedia is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad_(app)_(closed) is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.
  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United_Airlines_Flight_1175_(closed) did not have consensus one way or another. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Could someone please take a swipe at UAA? There are over 40 open reports (not counting bot reports), and many of them are straightforward.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated Request for Termination of IBAN

• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Editor Interaction Analyzer from 19 August 2018 on

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost three years ago and made permanent more than two-and-a-half years ago. A previous request to end the IBAN made a year ago was rejected (see here). I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist equivalent, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I have no intention whatsoever of interacting with the editor in question; the purpose of this request is to eliminate the possibility that an inadvertent crossing of paths could trigger a violation of the IBAN and another block. I request community support for termination of this one-way IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The other editor involved is Rusf10. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the Editor Interaction Analyzer report, it seems as if Alansohn was the first actor in 2 of the 3 interactions that were relatively close together (5 hours, 7 days and 16 days), and the one in which he was the second actor (7 days on Philip N. Gumbs), Alansohn's edit, restoring categories to a redirect, was not materially related to Rusf10's edit, which was to nominate the article for deletion. [43], [44]. I see no instances in which Alansohn has violated his IBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Alansohn It appears to me that the link you provided in your second sentence was not to the discussion from last year about lifting the IBAN, it was to the making of the IBAN to be permanent from 2 1/2 years ago (9 August 2018). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct. The details of the request from last year are here; This link is for the permanent extension of the IBAN. The example of Philip N. Gumbs is the exact situation that I'm hoping to avoid, in which an inadvertent interaction leads to triggering the sanctions specified by the IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The other editor is still active, and there is no such thing as an "inadvertent interaction". The last time this came up, Alansohn claimed that participating in an AfD created by Rusf10 was inadvertent. That strained credulity then and does so now. It is far better for the interaction ban to stand than for these two editors to start tangling with each other again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I know that some editors disagree with me, but I firmly disagree with the "editors are still active, better to be safe than sorry, leave the IBAN in place, it does no harm" position. In effect, it's a permanent sanction that requires at least some ongoing degree of effort to avoid not just accidental breaches (which, btw, I do believe can occur) but also cases people might view as breaches. Active sanctions also affect other editors' viewpoints towards an editor, particularly in the case of a 1-way, and making it permanent without fair consideration of whether a reoccurence would be likely to reoccur is thus unfair. Obviously this is contingent on issues not being raised, but at this point, I'm inclined to accept, per BMK's review. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe.

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

---

Please delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe. I don't like the term of Bangladeshi. It should be from West Bengal, India. 206.51.203.238 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bangladeshi" refers to someone or something from the independent country of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. "Bengali", "Bengalee", or "Bengalese" refers to someone from the Bengal region of South Asia, which includes both India and Bangladesh, or someone of the Bengali ethnic group. "Banerjee" is "a surname of Brahmins originating from the Bengal region of the Indian subcontinent", which includes Bangladesh.

In your editing of Banerjee, you are attempting to change the wording of a direct quote. Don't do that.

Banerjee has been ECP'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to restore of all revoked permission by User:Nick done by using WP:ADMINACCT

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

---

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

Yesterday most of the permissions were removed after decline at here citing myself as an untrusty user. For your reference and clarity, I am enclosing links to my all block discussion. See block1 and block2. I (was) an active new page patroller (you can verify from my contributions Special:Contributions/Amkgp) and AfC reviewer (See User:Amkgp/CSD log and AfD log also), (was) an active page mover (especially use it in draftify of undersourced new articles), an active pending changes reviewer and file mover (in fact yesterday I helped to reduce a backlog and you can see permission was granted and a brief discussion took place User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions already). Beside these I used to help at WP:DYK in making prep sets. I have also helped to promote Mahadevi Varma and Sidney Hill to GA status. I am also a WP:TEA host and help editors when ever I am able to help. I also help in copyright file tagging at commons when I get a chance. See c:Special:Contributions/Amkgp. I was really socked to see that I was stripped off most privileges that I earned after spending long time here in en-wiki through positive contributions and trust only. I tried to resolve with revoking admin Nick but it seems to go nowhere. Please see the entire conversation below. In one of the replies the revoking admin says I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly, and their track record there is not in question but marks me an unreliable user. Till date I never misused any of the tools nor have tried to harm the Wikipedia project itself. I have always taken Wikipedia editing seriously. I therefore kindly request for restoration of all the removed rights, so that I can contribute as I was doing before. Thank you.

Moved from User_talk:Nick#Why_my_rights_were_removed_?

 – — Amkgp 💬 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've followed the saga on Nick's talk page somewhat, and I would like to chip in. Let me preface this by saying that your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated – you've been doing some great work at DYK, for example, and I don't believe anyone, including Nick, would deny that.

That said, I do understand why Nick might feel that there are issues with community trust. You were recently blocked by Moneytrees for unattributed (and often raw) machine translations (some from languages you do not speak), and other copyright issues. I had brought the issue up on your talk page shortly before, and in response, you promised to add attribution templates where required. Moneytrees later blocked you after more copyright violations had come to light. You acknowledged the reason for this block and promised to do better, and got unblocked. After the block was lifted, you accused Moneytrees of tool abuse and affirmed that you had done nothing wrong by saying I am well aware of the copyright policy, donating material to Wikipedia, public domain stuff etc. It seems you caught me as the wrong person in the act that is not a violation. The pages you highlighted edited by me were indeed within limits and were merely long single sentences or citations/book name/patent names etc. (Permalink to entire discussion.) When I pointed out that I thought this accusation was unfair and mentioned some other articles that needed fixing, you summarily reverted me. The articles mentioned there were, by the way, later attributed by Moneytrees ([45][46][47]), after you had failed to do so. One of the concerns you raised when discussing your block was that it might interfere with future requests at WP:PERM.

This ties in with the second elephant in the room: Editing logged out in projectspace. While checkusers may not connect IPs to accounts, I found three such instances based on behaviour; each time, you requested admin eyes on WP:PERM, and each time you had a pending request there. I will not link to these instances to preserve your privacy; if you prefer, I can provide the diffs here. You later stated, in your discussion with Nick, that you had made a constructive request at AN, while forgetting to log in. Before the last occurence, which led to your CU-block by Tony, you had been explicitly warned to stop doing so. And while I do see some infrequent logged-out editing by what appears to be you on the ranges involved, it's rare enough that it strikes me as unlikely that you'd forget to log in when posting at AN three times. On each occasion, the posts to AN were the only edits made by the relevant IPs. All of these things seem to tie in with concerns about hat collecting that editors have raised – I am specifically thinking of this interaction with Swarm at PERM/AP.

As for the specific issue at hand, I do think that the things I have outlined here show a pattern of behaviour that may lead editors to believe that you are unfit to hold certain permissions; I am specifically concerned about copyright issues here – your statement to Moneytrees about your edits not actually constituting copyright infringements is unequivocally untrue, and you reaffirmed this understanding today, by stating that Firstly I was never warned and secondly for cases that detect 10-15% copyvio on Earwig copyvio tools. one liners and quoted text are generally allowed. This concerns me, especially considering that people who heavily work AFC and NPR should have a very solid understanding of copyright, so I do agree that it warrants discussion whether you should retain those rights at this time. The same goes for individuals applying for the autopatrolled right – given that some of your creations, such as this translation (which was initially unattributed) still contain obvious machine translation errors, I would not be comfortable granting that to you (if I was in any position to do so, which I am not).

In short: I do appreciate your work here, but I also think that Nick did the right thing by removing (at least some of) your permissions, especially NPR. I am not familiar enough with your work in file and page moving to assess the others. Advanced permissions do require community trust, and given your past actions, I can understand that people are hesitant to trust you with some of them. Certainly, accusing Nick of making false allegations was not called for.

I hope this can be resolved amicably. Best, Blablubbs|talk 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You had seen Special:Diff/1011233333, thanked me for it, wrote Special:Diff/1011235141 ("I have nothing to say anymore") and now this. I'm out of advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick made the right call. You can continue making useful contributions without page mover, file mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer permissions. You're going to need time (6 months at the barest minimum ) to build trust back up and convince the community that you understand why you were sanctioned and that you're not going to continue making those same mistakes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what possible problem there is here, apart, maybe, from the fact that you are still allowed to edit. You have shown that you are untrustworthy, so you are no longer trusted with any advanced permissions. All very simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned by problems identified by Blablubbs, particularly the copyright and the editing while logged out. It's somewhat ironic that Amkgp mentioned on Nick's talk page that they were concerned that re-requesting permissions normally would look like hat collecting, because, well... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore this thread, but equally, I don't want to make the situation worse for Amkgp. My concerns are explained in detail on my talk page - primarily logged out editing and their slightly fuzzy understanding of copyright, which I do believe makes it inappropriate for Amkgp to retain the page curation/movement and file movement tools. I do understand my outlook may be particularly risk averse, as a result, I'd just like to record that I'm happy for other administrators to restore any/all permissions if they do think I've been overly cautious/harsh, similarly, as I said to Amkgp, I have no objections to them filing for any/all permissions at WP:PERM, where there can be discussion on individual permissions. Nick (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Immediately re-requesting the permissions at individual WP:PERM subpages, now that the discussion on your user talk page happened and the discussion here at WP:AN exists, would practically be forum-shopping and perhaps simply be declined as such by me. It's a friendly offer, but I'm afraid Amkgp might take it in the moment they read it, and that doing so wouldn't be productive at all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reasoning here by both Nick and Blablubs seems good. Their prior failures on copyright etc would hold up for most rights, but I could have seen a reasonable case if they had just asked for the PCR userright. However, their approach and potential ANI logged out activity makes me reticent to provide the less sensitive userrights. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• As I have previously observed as a PERM admin, multiple times, the OP is a known hat collector, and in my opinion is the worst we have ever seen in the history of this project. They would probably already be partial-blocked from requesting permissions by me if not for my own inactivity, pursuant to my warnings to them. Nick's denial here is clearly in line with normal PERM standards and practices, and the OP's complaint is clearly in line with their desperate drive to hat collect. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion. The discussion seems to go nowhere what I requested. Therefore, I would request this thread to be closed as there is no point of wasting further time on this when the revoking admin has cleared his position and rationale behind his action and other participants too have expressed their views and concerns. — Amkgp 💬 04:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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