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. 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	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	18	18
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7632 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tenditious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.

Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.

Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?

My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). Silverseren^C 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year

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

---

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year

• Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneously archived ANI discussion

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

---

This edit archived an ongoing discussion about a user's conduct. I've seen several other threads archived by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) without conclusion, but I'm not sure what they were. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've un-archived it below and marked this not to be archived for 2 weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

JsfasdF252 creating unhelpful pages, attempting to make subpages of articles

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JsfasdF252 is consistently creating unhelpful pages, mostly related to templates and modules. They have also repeatedly attempted to make subpages of articles by moving single-use templates or unilaterally splitting off sections. Here's a rundown of the warnings on their user talk page:

Extended content

Category:Wikipedia editcopies: Tagged for speedy deletion per C1, then unilaterally redirected to Category:Wikipedia article sandboxes by JsfasdF252. Template:Sandbox heading/Talk/doc: Useless documentation deleted by TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_25#Template:Sandbox_heading/Talk/doc) after a contested G2. Template:Fake red link: Brought to TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_24#Template:Fake_red_link), then moved to userspace by JsfasdF252 after a nomination per G4. Template:Many images: A tag warning about a large number of images possibly slowing loading the page; redirected to Template:Too many photos after a TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_27#Template:Many_images). An edit on Talk:Main Page where JsfasdF252 changed all the links to {{Direct link}}. They also made a similar change at Atom. Template:Direct link: It is unclear what this did, but it was deleted per G7 at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_18#Template:Direct_link. I think the aim of this template was to replace internal links with external links so as to prevent the existence of red links, or something along those lines. JsfasdF252 applied it very indiscriminately, see Special:Diff/994814036/994875306. User:GKFXtalk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) SP:Random: A non-standard shortcut to Special:Random; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#SP:Random. A complaint about an RfD for COVID-19 Pandemic because searches are not case-sensitive, which violated precedent. MOS:N: A shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability, which is not in the Manual of Style. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_2#MOS:N. A notification about creating pseudo-namespace redirects. Annoyingsville: Speedy deleted per G3. Warning about misuse of {{only}} in articles, such as in this edit at Greenland. Warning about inappropriate deletion tagging, though misidentifed as CSD tagging, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.127.189.75. No such action: Speedy deleted per G2. Warning about an unapproved change of font to <code> in {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, regarding this edit at Cmd.exe and this edit at CONFIG.SYS. Relation (OpenStreetMap): Origianlly a soft redirect to an external site, osmwiki:Relation; retargeted to OpenStreetMap#Data format following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#Relation_(OpenStreetMap). Baraque: An ambiguous misspelling that redirected to Baroque; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Baraque. Template:Oppo and Template:Supp: Templates intended for adding "support" and "oppose" comments in discussions, which is common in other wikis but against consensus here. Speedy deleted per G4. A warning about splitting a large section in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to an attempted subpage COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Responses. This edit was made twice, by the way. Template:/Subdivisions: An attempt to implement support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_10#Template:/Subdivisions. Americas/Subdivisions: An attempt at a subpage of Americas, which was moved from Template:Subdivisions of the Americas. It was moved back, and this page was speedy deleted per R3. COVID-19 pandemic/Epidemiology: Presumably an attempt at a subpage at COVID-19 pandemic; speedy deleted per R3. A complaint about moving Table of keyboard shortcuts to Keyboard/shortcuts. The move was reverted, and the new title was speedy deleted per R3. NCAA Cheerleading Competition/row: Yet another attempted article subpage (of NCAA Cheerleading Competition); moved from Template:NCAA ClC/row and then speedy deleted per R3 after revert. StarKid Productions/Cast: Moved from Template:StarKid Productions Cast. Template:/row: Another attempt at adding support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_16#Template:/row. Template:Uw-split: A user warning that did not comply with WP:SPLIT; retooled during a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_24#Template:Uw-split. Jews-non-Aryans: An ambiguous redirect to Final Solution with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_17#Jews-non-Aryans. Brutality-killing: An ambiguous redirect to Violence with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#Brutality-killing. New Jersey–New York relations: A misleading and inaccurate redirect to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_26#New_Jersey–New_York_relations. Australasian relations: A redirect to Australia–New Zealand relations. Kept at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_5#Australasian_relations, despite concerns about being overly broad. A warning about an ANI report for breaking things by moving templates to subpages of articles, such as Template:Infobox actinium isotopes to Isotopes of actinium/infobox. The report is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Bad_move_by_JsfasdF252, which was closed after the page in question was moved back. U.S. state (disambiguation): Speedy deleted per G14. List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics/Season-end No. 1 skaters: Attempted subpage of List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics; speedy deleted per A10. Warning about unilateral article splits, such as Special:Diff/1015135242 at List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics. Template:Hong Kong: One of six "hybrid templates" that displayed as a navbox on articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_31#Template:Hong_Kong. A warning about archiving old April Fools' nominations. Didn't find a diff about this one. Module:Delimited tag: Redundant to native Lua functions and Module:Separated entries; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_3#Module:Delimited_tag. Brilliant brown: Redirect to Orange (colour) from an implausible synonym; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Brilliant_brown. Template:IN: Sole purpose was to add "in country X" to articles, which was unnecessary beyond what was already in {{CountryPrefixThe}}. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_6#Template:IN. Category:Hybrid templates: Probably intended to hold templates that combine different functionalities in different namespaces, which is confusing and against consensus in the Hong Kong TfD. Nominated for speedy deleted per C1, then de-tagged after it became populated. Blue trucks: Speedy deleted per R3; used as an intentional red link in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Template:Software: A "hybrid template" that produced an infobox in articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_12#Template:Software. Module:Delimited tag: Speedy deleted per G4. Template:A: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Pagetype. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Template:A. Category:Bilateral relations of U.S. states: Inaccurate categories nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Bilateral_relations_of_U.S._states. Bilateral relations are only between sovereign states, and most of the items in these categories would never be considered bilateral relations. Another speedy nomination Category:Hybrid templates per C1, which was successful this time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Afar translation: A soft redirect to the incubator wiki for a dead Wikipedia in the Afar language; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Afar_translation. Template:Back: Yet another attempt to provide support for subpages of articles; nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Template:Back. A {{uw-disruptive2}} warning that warns JsfasdF252 to stop editing in the template and module namespaces. Template:Tc:: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Title case; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Tc:. Template:Filename: Misleading redirect to Template:Samp; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Filename. A warning about this ANI report.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There are other serious issues with this editor's contributions that aren't mentioned in the list above, e.g. Retargeting decade old redirects with hundreds of backlinks with no discussion or explanation ([2] [3] [4]) some completely bizarre retargeting of redirects ([5]), Hijacking templates to add weird and useless functionality ([6] [7]) mucking around in other people's pages and archives for no real reason other than to use whatever templates they've just created ([8] [9] [10] [11]) and converting dab pages into plain redirects ([12]). Most of this seems to be motivated by some kind of belief that we need to make the wikicode size of pages as small as possible through templates and splitting ([13] [14]) but their contributions are disruptive, and I think a WP:CIR block is required. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• JsfasdF252 doesn't seem keen to listen to advice or consensus; after Direct link was deleted, they recreated it (Template:Direct link) as a redirect to a template that could be used for the same purpose and created another redirect to it this week (Template:Static link). I'm tempted to say that both of those should be WP:G4 given the unanimous and firm requests for deletion shown at the original TfD. That would not be their only G4. Another of their so-called "hybrid" templates was at Template:Only (the user warning template) which they tried to make into a {{fix}}-based template displaying like ""; they self-reverted that but only after the warning mentioned above about inserting it into pages. I would agree with a blocktopic ban initially; it all just wastes time. User:GKFX^talk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've run into this user various times, as you can see above. I do think they're here in good faith, so I would support a topic ban from splitting articles, creating redirects, and editing template- and module-space (perhaps for six months?) If they're interested in contributing, there are still many ways they can, such as writing articles - and I hope they get the change and choose to do so! Elli (talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I recall there was a user exhibiting almost exactly these behaviors that we subsequently banned, though I can't recall the name. Regardless, I left a warning about the behaviors exemplified in this thread in the past few weeks, a request that has seemingly gone ignored. I honestly support an indefinite block and/or a namespace block from anything but the mainspace + interesting talk spaces. --Izno (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone? :( Izno (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I read consensus correctly, it is for topic ban for everything except for talk pages (because they have issues at the very least in the main space, template, and category namespace). Unless there are objections, I am going to implement this shortly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  After reviewing the collapsed content and my previous comment, that would be fine with me. Izno (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

@Ymblanter: Did you mean "now be enforcing"? -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for noticing. Already enforced.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: talked with this user off-Wiki - would you mind unblocking them from the User namespace? I don't think they've been disruptive there, and they wanted the ability to work in their user sandbox. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, will do this. I do not think they have problems there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Systematic deletion flags, flag templates and additional information (blocking edits)

Flag icons in articles are still being removed by someone. In the several articles about the Crusades (Fifth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, Seventh Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Lord Edward's crusade, Alexandrian Crusade, Smyrniote crusades etc.), flag icons are systematically removed by RandomCanadian, including the information (participants, commanders, etc.) that I added there. There is no permission nor a consensus to do this. It is against flag icons and country data flag templates, which are therefore unused, but it is also against Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, because removing additional information means keeping only basic data which are not very useful. I also can't edit articles when my edits are reverted and everything I've added there. I used this information here after reading it in other articles. They have been deleted here, including flag icons, which I consider to be vandalism. My edits are historically correct and there is no reason to be systematically deleted and blocked. Dragovit (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Coats of arms in infoboxes which was closed inconclusively, however this was followed by a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole which aside from Dragovit appears to be essentially unanimously for such removals. Dragovit, can you explain why you do not consider the MOS:FLAG discussion to have reached consensus for the icon removals? (This situation has previously been discussed on AN at /Archive332#Bludgeoning and refusal to listen on a WP:DSTOPICS subject and /Archive331#Infoboxes, flags, et cetera.) CMD (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If I hadn't supported the near-unanimous decision at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole, I would have blocked Dragovit for obvious disruptive editing. The consensus is very obviously against coats of arms icons in infoboxes, and any attempt to restore or add them after being told multiple times not to do so should be considered disruptive. If the opening party does not undo the addition of coats of arms as a demonstration of good faith, then I support a block. DrKay (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I often revealed contradictions in these discussions and efforts to delay the issue from being resolved. If you have read these discussions, you have certainly noticed that most of the comments on my arguments are off topic. The arguments were ignored. Only in the Second Crusade talkpage revealed that the heraldic flags/banners and coats of arms are probably anachronistic for this historical period as well as earlier times, so I'm not changing anything here, but RandomCanadian took it that way, that he can automatically erase them all in the articles of the whole category, even if the articles relate centuries later. Other arguments about the disruptive effect of these elements cannot be taken seriously, they are doubtful, because are based on feelings and assumptions. If they were disruptive and unsuitable for use, they would never be created. There is no permission or consensus on the systematic deletion of all flag icons, flag icon templates and icon-images, it can be vandalism. There is also no reason to delete additional information and keep only basic data. The removal of icons was seen as an opportunity to remove entire lists of belligerents and commanders, for which there is no reason and it is unacceptable. Dragovit (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is very clearly in favour of removal. We understand that you don't agree with the consensus, as most editors disagree with consensus sometimes, but that is the way things are decided here, and editing against it is disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about consensus, I did not notice. I don't think it happened. In addition, the consensus was to cover only one article which is the Second Crusade, not all the articles about Crusades. So if there is a consensus, it is obviously a violation of it, because other articles have not been discussed. This is illogical because other articles about the Middle Ages normally use icons and flag icon templates which were therefore created. These interventions against them are simply arbitrary interventions and have no justification. I will not discuss these things now, because there are obvious attempts at delays and offtopic comments and until an administrator sees and judges. Dragovit (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion leading to the consensus, posting at great length there, so don't claim that you didn't notice it or that it was about only the Second Crusade, when it was clearly about all articles, as all are subject to the Manual of Style. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can claim it, of course no consensus was reached, because the issue was not discussed and most of the posts are off-topic, the main arguments were ignored, so nothing was resolved there. Only the appropriateness of some phrases was discussed, nothing more, how absurd to say that there was a consensus when the topic was repeatedly changed and attention was diverted elsewhere. Do not claim that any one consensus can determine the nature and appearance of the entire Wikipedia, because the rules and manuals have not changed. In addition no consensus can decide to ban someone's editing and delete the content he/she wrote. No one in the consensus can forbid me from creating flag icon Country data templates and adding them such as other images to articles. It's all absurd, but especially it's arbitrary restrictions against me. Dragovit (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it very strange that lots of people are referring to heraldic crests as flags! Technically, they are not flags, so why are people treating them the same as flags! :/ I personally don't support the removal, they provide information. And really, they are not doing any damage to an article. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that a lot of users commonly use flag icons and other icons (coats of arms, seals, emblems etc.) for infoboxes although they did not participate in any discussions about suitability of their use, so unfortunately almost no one supported me in the discussion here either. Obviously, those who took part in the discussions were definitely not the majority and everything was done to only opponents would participate, I can't explain it. Therefore, it's necessary for any administrator to decide on this matter. Dragovit (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block Dragovit. The responses here are inadequate and this is the third time this issue has been raised on this noticeboard. He is obviously editing against consensus, has shown no indication that he will edit within consensus and has admitted that he going to ignore consensus. DrKay (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• @DrKay: Has there been an established consensus? I see supports for one, but that conversation isn't yet closed, so are we technically going to block someone from editing an article for a consensus which hasn't yet been established? The same is versa, removing the heraldic's before the consensus has been enacted. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• See the link above, which I will relink here for you: [15]. In a discussion which was active for 2 weeks, 16 out of 17 people decided that there was consensus to remove these uses of coats-of-arms. Sorry you missed it. Even considering your feelings here, that would now bring us to 16 out of 18 people. That's still a really strong consensus to remove them. --Jayron32 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I just posted there, I didn't know about it before, I've put my oppose down! Can't see it making much difference at the moment, but it isn't closed there is no {{abot}} so... :/ Govvy (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Formal closes are not needed for RfCs, further, could you please explain your assertion that the discussion in question was forum shopped? CMD (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Posted here, posted there! Basically because Dragovit posted here, and it caught my eye, I call that forum-shopping. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, just because you call it that, doesn't make it so. You're wrong. --Jayron32 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support block for both IDHT and CIR (the C standing for both "collaboration" and the other meaning here...). The only forum-shopping I see is by Dragovit trying to overturn a consensus which they don't like (and coming on my talk page to repeat me once more how they disagree with it). I've put in a request at AN/RFC for closure. Edit: and now the comments below... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  They are now refusing to back down from their personal attack below... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have a problem with a more limited sanction such as a topic ban, per Buidhe and others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And is there a some reason to block me? I can't be blocked just because I want to solve this issue. You can never succeed with this. Have you dealt with my arguments? Of course not. You should be blocked because you are vandalized several articles directed against me. It is absurd to suggest a block for a user (me) who has created order in so many articles because it is your wish and because I write comments that do not fit. Dragovit (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block RandomCanadian. This user has committed vandalism in several articles and continues to do so, although he has been warned several times that no consensus has been reached. There's no reason to block me, but there's a few reasons to block RandomCanadian. He turned several articles with pictures into vague plain text, can you call it a benefit? I would say no. He ruined my work that lasted for hours! Not just my work, because the icons were in the articles before I started editing for the first time! If a lesser consensus has been reached somewhere, it certainly didn't apply to all Wikipedia articles as he claims. Removing images of icons I have entered (and not only me) including additional information not only harms me, but permanently harms Wikipedia. He arbitrarily doing what he wants and should I be blocked for opposing it? I've been editing Wikipedia for many years and I've never encountered this and I'm surprised that I'm presented here as the culprit by some users with whom I have never cooperated or discussed. Dragovit (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:NOTVAND, read the linked discussion where there is clear consensus (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole), and then also First law of holes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  "I'm surprised that I'm presented here as the culprit by some users with whom I have never cooperated or discussed" is what you can expect from a report at ANI (see WP:BOOMERANG. As to "never discussed", you've clearly had past interactions with me and other users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Coats of arms in infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole. This is a collaborative project, and you are failing to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  In this you are "successful" in pointing out someone's mistakes, but you are still writing only off-topic comments and it is clear that you are not interested in a solution. Your interventions against flag icons are based only on your concept of aesthetics and nothing more. They have nothing to do with factual arguments which you didn't present in any of those discussions, these your comments are of course available there and everyone can read them and see that they are nonsensical and off-topic. Of course, you did not forget to make all the flag removal edits, even if this issue has not been solved yet. Dragovit (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that by now Dragovit's editing here has shown an inability to cooperate with others to the extent compatible with editing Wikipedia, so it looks like a block is needed. All comments that do not agree precisely with Dragovit's opinion are repeatedly characterised as off-topic, which they are very obviously not. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Dragovit from flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, to be enforced in the usual way (with escalating blocks). The disruption has gotten out of hand and this editor just doesn't know when to stop. I'm not against indef block either at this point. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: So when I write that someone repeatedly blocks my edits and deletes the common features so what is not true about that? That's why I have to deal with it and ask for support of the community again. Should I be blocked for requesting this case? Dragovit (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you get blocked or otherwise sanctioned, it will be for disruptively rejecting the consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole. CMD (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You're wrong, there is no real consensus here. It's just a vote of random users who took part in it, even though they had no interest in its outcome. They only expressed their opinion there, although it is against the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rules, which say how to use flag icons. These voters probably didn't read the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG neither discussion WikiProject Military history nor my arguments there, so this was certainly not a consensus, also the MOS rules have not changed. In general a consensus is the result of some debate, which this is definitely not, this is just an anonymous vote and therefore I cannot be blocked for something that does not exist. Dragovit (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I expect that there will be consensus here that there was consensus there, and this reply is a decent example of the sanction reason I mentioned. CMD (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I don't care any pitiful threats and seriously no idea why you're participating here. I think it's concise to say that you're just another person who writes off-topic comments and have nothing to say about the issue. Do you want social justice? I think you're just looking for conflicts. Dragovit (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban of Dragovit from flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, to be enforced in the usual way (with escalating blocks), per Buidhe. - Donald Albury 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban of Dragovit from the areas listed; they clearly are not interested in discussion nor collaboration.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Donald Albury:, @Mr.choppers: No, if I am not interested in discussion and cooperation, then I am not writing here. Everyone can read my comments and find out that what you write about me isn't true. This issue was originally about history (the articles concerned are about Middle Ages, I mentioned them in the first comment 09:35, 7 May 2021) and I was expecting historical facts and arguments, but this didn't happen even though I asked for it and it's quite unrighteous that I should be blocked for that. If the conclusions of the discussion were satisfactory, I would have no problem accepting them. I think this is a misunderstanding. Ban isn't necessary, because I decided not to continue with this matter, even though I am convinced of the correctness of my view. If I caused complications, I apologize to everyone for that. Everything I did was not done with the intention of doing harm to anyone or doing damage to the articles. If you want to see for yourself, you can look at my whole history of edits and probably won't find anything suspicious or bad. I have nothing to hide. If you look at the history of my editing or history of edits of those articles, you will notice that I was the propably essential author of extensive lists in the infoboxes created by me years ago. You can verify it. When I wanted to add something again, including some add-ons like flag icons or minor fixes, it was deleted (- thousands of added points) by the user RandomCanadian without explanation and only the basic data were left, nor was it explained in the discussions mentioned here. It's therefore illogical that it is I who is to be sanctioned when my edits have always been positive and beneficial. I'm very sorry it came this so far. Dragovit (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  "If the conclusions of the discussion were satisfactory, I would have no problem accepting them." The only person to whom they are not satisfactory is you. Your repeated additions after the discussion at the MOS page was closed show either that you are not willing to abide by the discussion's result, or else that you do not comprehend how disputes are resolved here. In either case, you should stop arguing about that since everybody except you has moved on to something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not satisfactory, because from the beginning it was supposed to be about history, the whole thing was about historical articles. However, this didn't happen. There are a lot of history questions I would like to ask, but there was no opportunity, for example why coats of arms were left in the 7th Crusade, when in others they had to be removed, or why important personalities (rulers, leaders) had to be removed from the list of commanders such as Albert IV of Habsburg (Barons' Crusade), both seem illogical to me, but it's clear to me that I will not get any answer about that. The "consensus" that I call voting of random people was done by users who obviously never saw these articles and didn't check what changes were made there. I see this whole matter has gone awry in an attempt to silence me, it has nothing to do with righteous punishment, now it's just about hostility, demonstrating power, hatred and discrimination, no discussion about history, facts and arguments, it's a big disappointment for me because this is about the global internet encyclopedia and this is too primitive. You deal with what I said, but not why I said it, you just take my words out of context, and present yourself as the one who is right. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and I've done ten thousand edits and I've never been blocked. no dispute has ever escalated like this. Anyone can verify that I am an exemplary user who has given a lot of free time to Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban on Dragovit and oppose sanctions on RandomCanadian. It seems like things have only recently become heated, and it might be best to let the situation cool off. I'm generally hesitant to recommend an indefinite (topic) ban on someone except when they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I don't think that is the case absolutely here, though the editor is clearly engaged in repeated editing against consensus. Perhaps a 3 month topic ban on flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols would be appropriate for now and would allow for time to cool off on the matter. An indef ban would certainly be justified if the user engages in ban evasion or if the user's behavior continues on this trajectory after the topic ban elapses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Unfortunately, you present this matter simplified as it's presented to you, but originally, the issue was about historical coats of arms and banners (flag icons and flag icon templates) of medieval states in several articles about the Crusades. It was also about the additional content I added. So I don't understand what exactly the ban on flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols should solve? What damage I did has not yet been described. First, let someone tell what damage I have done to have such punishment. It was my content that was deleted without explanation. You've probably read that I do editing in spite of consensus, but the "consensus" was made by random users who were not familiar with the content of these articles and it took place in a separate discussion. They decided on something in general without dealing with the articles and despite what the rules MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rules say how the flag icons are to be used, the added content was not discussed. Propably no one has verified from the edit history in those articles what who added/deleted and that I was the primary author of the content of infoboxes (belligerents, commanders) who spent a lot of time by editing. If the discussion took place regularly about history as it should and if my words were not taken out of context, this discussion would never escalate and we would not be here now. Very sad and pitiable that several users supported my blocking without finding out what this matter was about. Dragovit (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Dragovit: Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I understand that, but what should I do if someone keeps me from editing? This obstructions must end immediately. The consensus (which is often referred to) is related to flag icons, but it can't stop me from editing in general. The edits in which there is something else cannot be reversed due to the consensus on flag icons. Dragovit (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dragovit: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Anyway what do you mean by "someone keeps me from editing"? If someone breaks into your house to stop you from editing, you need to call the police.

  Otherwise I don't understand what you mean by "keeps me from editing". This discussion was about blocking you. If the community or an admin decides your behaviour in relation to the flag dispute was enough to justify a block, then the only thing you can do is to appeal it if you feel it is unjustified. Speaking generally, it's definitely possible for an editor's behaviour in relation to a dispute to be bad enough to justify a block or community site ban. While we try to limit restrictions if we feel that would deal with the problem, sometimes behaviour is bad enough that we feel it won't help. I make no comment on whether your behaviour crossed over that line but if the community or an admin decides that you either have to successfully appeal or accept you're currently unwelcome.

  If someone disagrees with your edits and reverts you, then as always, you need to discuss on the page talk page and come to WP:Consensus about your changes. If you can't come to consensus, then use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. While it's complicated, per WP:BRD and other stuff, it's often not unreasonable for an editor to revert a change of yours if they feel it's not an improvement, so an editor reverting you often isn't doing anything wrong, they're not "keeps me from editing", they're just disagreeing with a change your trying to make which they're probably entitled to do. Note if consensus for your changes is persistently against you, and you keep pursuing this trying to get a different result, or keep trying to make changes or starting discussions when it should be clear consensus will be against your changes then it's likely your editing that is the problem. And this might be why editors were discussing a full block.

  If an editor persistently reverts you but then refuses to discuss, by which I mean you start a discussion and they don't join it, then you can potentially bring a complaint. To be abundantly clear, this needs to have happened often enough, and it needs to be clear the editor is refusing to discuss. You yelling at the other editor they need to discuss, while not having actually opened a page talk page discussion yourself, is not something you should bring a complaint about since you yourself have also failed to discuss. And mostly edit summaries, and often even editor talk page discussions, won't be taken as sufficient. Likewise there's generally no reason to complain if it happened once or twice. Also consider my earlier point. It may not be unreasonable for an editor to not really bother to discuss if you keep trying to make changes which clearly lack consensus.

  If you feel someone is persistently reverting your edits simply because they dislike you or are pursuing you, you can open a complaint about WP:Wikistalking, but I'd urge strong caution before doing so. You're likely to encounter some editors a lot because of shares interests, and likewise editors may often disagree with you because of a different view on how things should work here. Persistently meeting the same editor in a disagreement doesn't mean the editor is singling you out.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I just want to say about the introduction that "someone keeps me from editing" meant that as part of the reverting of flag icons, other changes were also returned that had nothing to do with them, also some of my comments or messages have been deleted on various talkpages due to duplication/Bludgeoning or else, then I couldn't discuss the topic with more users, so I have reason to think so, so the comparison with breaking into a house seems out of place to me. Then you say that I wanted to make some "own changes and trying to get a different result", but no, you're completely wrong and therefore your comment is not helpful, the situation was exactly the opposite. Flag icons and flagicon templates have been in articles for many years always and my edits have been in their defense, to keep them, because the removing them is a new change and a different result. I don't think I deserve to be blocked when I was defending something that worked for a long time and suddenly it is denied by someone. You are wrong about my interventions and also about the consensus, the truth is, that several users unfortunately in their one consensus have decided that all Wikipedia articles should become plain text without flag icons, because they consider icons as mere decorations that are disruptive. I thought that one vote could not change the whole of Wikipedia and therefore this discussion, but you and other users are probably saying that it works. Or do I misunderstand it? So I understand that only thing not considered decorations are the rectangular modern/western national flags propably from the 17th century to the present, so all the other older symbols (heraldic, dynastic, other cultures, ancient civilizations etc) were rejected and now are automatically removed although they were created for that purpose on Wikimedia Commons. So unfortunately, I wanted to prevent it, but I failed, I couldn't explain it clearly and defend the flag icons, or I misunderstood it and inserted the icons into the infoboxes unnecessarily, but I wasn't alone in doing it. They've been there before. Flag icons are used everywhere on Wikipedia in all languages, but only English has decided by consensus to go its own way? I do not get it. In any case obviously no one understands what it was all about. Neither do you, sorry, but your comment doesn't correctly describe my intentions and this situation. I don't want to discuss it with anyone anymore, because I see that no one is interested in these icons, it's useless or it doesn't work. Now we will have to get used to the lists in infoboxes being plaintext, with the exception of modern national flags, perhaps it is unfair that other forms of symbolism belonging to different cultures are not accepted, perhaps it could even be considered racist, when in colonial times only European/western symbols can be used, but this is probably definitive result of that alleged consensus of users who did not view the articles and read the entire discussion. Such a "consensus" does not deserve recognition, in my view, but and I will not comment further, this is how it ends and I have to adapt. Dragovit (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic to the above: (Technical?) Issues with timestamps

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

---

Can anybody figure whether stuff like this (posted at 15:03 UTC, but a time-stamp of 17:00 - see also the user's other recent edits) is A) a technical error or B) some form of user-chosen configuration or C) deception? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably a different time zone, I guess? That 17:00 is real time in my country (now 17:34 p.m.). To say that it can be "deception" can be considered as accusation or personal attack, I really don't need to cheat by changing the time, it's absurd really and another off-topic comment from you as always. Dragovit (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dragovit: your wikitext timestamps do not match the revision time stamps, so either there is a bug going on that we should look in to - or you have made some alterations to make something different get published. Can you confirm if you have done the later so we don't need to look in to this on the software side? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but you're right, that wikitext timestamps do not match the revision time stamp. One of the last comments inserted in 15:45 isn't the right time, the real time is 17:45 which I am inserting here. Dragovit (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you manually inputting your time stamps? All time stamps should be UTC. CMD (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dragovit: Are you signing your posts by using 4 tildes, or otherwise inserting the time using 5 tildes? Or are you in any other way inserting the time information such as by typing it in or by using some personal tool? All timestamps in discussion wikitext should match revision data, which is in the UTC timezone; such signature texts should not be "localized" in the stored text. To view converted times for your own convenience, there is a gadget available in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time) that you could use. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That is it, I manually inputting time stamps with the time that is displayed there, this is the right time for us here. I do it manually because I don't know how to do it differently. Of course, if it's wrong, I'll adjust. Dragovit (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2021

OK @Dragovit: thank you for confirming, so this isn't a "technical" problem - please review Wikipedia:Signatures, and do not manually enter times and dates; notably that you are entering a time - but also declaring a timezone that doesn't match the time also makes it inaccurate. Just use automatic timestamping as it will otherwise confuse other editors - but feel free to activate that gadget I mentioned which can help make everyone's timestamps look local for you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I thank you and I'm sorry, that didn't realize it, I'll fix it now. Dragovit (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021

@Dragovit: to be 100% clear the only appropriate fix here is to use timestamps that match the system time (very very very strongly suggest you use automatic timestamps) - not to omit or insert a TZ identifier. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand now. I got it right that I would use it "~~~~" which seems simple to me or do you mean something else? Dragovit (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

To be even clearer, you should simply put four tildes - "~~~~" without the double quotes - to provide your signature and a timestamp after each post. Nothing else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I intend to use this next time (and right now), thank you. I don't find it difficult. Dragovit (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That looks perfect. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It works easily without effort and complications. For a long time I inserted it awkwardly each time with obviously wrong time, now I know it. Dragovit (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you for listening and adjusting your actions Dragovit this sub-section is resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

CAT:UNBLOCK

There's a lot of names there. I blocked someone earlier today, and told them an uninvolved admin would be along to review the unblock request, but it was only for 36 hours, and... I'm kind of doubting anyone is going to get down to the letter "S" by then. I realize 36 hours isn't the end of the world, but it seems like our mechanism is broken. I'll try to clear a half dozen of them later tonight (as a sort of penance for not looking at that page for a long time), and try to remember to review an unblock request every time I log on, but if a few others want to pick some names out of the list, that would be swell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I really wish it were possible for non-admins to help out. I totally would. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel you (some requests could probably obviously be denied, especially the ones that are of the WP:NOTTHEM kind). Maybe a better option would be considering running for RfA? The current RfA drought is approaching 3 months... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried that. My heart stopped and I ended up spending the rest of my RfA in a medically induced coma. ^{(just kidding. The one had nothing to do with the other. It was an electrical problem in my heart and now I have a pacemaker.)} --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should add "get a pacemaker" to WP:Advice for RfA candidates? Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I feel bad. I nominated you Guy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've heard of ANI-flu (or was it ARBCOM-flu), but... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Proof positive that while being dragged to ANI is bad, being dragged to RFA is even worse. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You realize you're just begging someone to drag you to RfA? —valereee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken your feedback on board and struck my comment. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On the rare instances I get dragged to ANI or AN, I often end up throwing boomerangs, but nevermind... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I would love to be an admin one day but I absolutely don't have a chance. There's a drought because the requirements are so high. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: - When I returned, before I got my bits back I was helping out at RFU. I'm not 100% sure if non-admins can technically decline these requests - and they sure as heck can't grant them, but there are often guidance, and questions that are helpful such as 'what do you intend to edit if unblocked?', and 'User:SomeCompany999, what is your relationship with SomeCompany99?'. SQL^{Query me!} 15:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add two personal caveats to this. In general, I agree with SQL that non-admins can help out, in the way they describe, BUT (1) I am fairly sure I've seen a discussion or two - sorry, cannot imagine where, you'll have to either trust me or start a new one - that only admins should "officially" decline unblock requests, and (2) Please, please, only experienced non-admins. Please. New, inexperienced, but enthusiastic editors can cause lot of disruption giving bad advice, making bad decisions, coming into a stressful situation to unintentionally bait the blocked user, etc. I have seen this happen, personally, maybe half a dozen times on blocks I've made. This is NOT addressed to any of the people who have already commented in this thread; all of you have at least 5x the experience I'm talking about. It's addressed to the newbie reading this in the future, who's heart starts racing a little when they hear that they can help review unblock requests. Please be confident you know what you're doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion was one of them? Folly Mox (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll pay more attention to the oldest of them; I usually try to cherry pick the most recent ones. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I learned something new today. If you add |idletimestamp=20210511224703 to an unblock request (and don't preview it before publishing?), it adds it to Category:Requests for unblock awaiting response from the blocked user - and removes it from CAT:RFU. It's automagically removed from that category, and re-added to CAT:RFU once someone edits the user's talkpage. Neat. Thank you again. ToBeFree!!! SQL^{Query me!} 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Mind. blown.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  For people as dumb literal, or more literal, than me, that's actually |idletimestamp={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}. you don't have to put the time in yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Oh crap, I didn't think about the nowiki. LOL! Thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I unblocked a few and declined a couple. I am going to try to get into the habit of patrolling a few of these almost every day. Call me out if I fall down on the job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The idletimestamp parameter is the result of about one month of frustrated looking at a list that was "technically completely processed" but still not noticeably decreased in size. I think the record is bringing the category size down to a single digit of transclusions, which is when the number of sub-categories suddenly matters for determining if {{backlog}} should be displayed. When I woke up the next morning, the category size was at over 20 again, and I walked away thinking of Sisyphos. I might try to help with the backlog again this evening, but clearing it together with at least one other administrator who re-declines hopeless cases is a task for a month, not a day. After-discussion maintenance (re-blocks after broken promises, or complex questions about declines) also practically never ends. I recently had to remind someone who violated their unblock condition after one year of adhering to it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in there almost every day, looking at new-to-me requests. It is indeed sisyphean, and you'll occasionally get called a nazi or worse. I try to occasionally close off the really old requests with {{subst:decline stale}}, but not everyone likes that approach. The process is made harder by people occasionally missing the point and making similar requests, obviously doomed to failure, over and over again. I also patrol UTRS, though we generally keep that backlog under control. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Without Yamla, CAT:RFU would be an unmanageable mess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been a concern of mine for a while. This isn't the only area where a few admins -- or even just one -- are doing all the work. We all appreciate these dedicated individuals, but there is a real possibility of burnout. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be quite candid. When I filed an RfA, I answered Q1 saying I would review unblock requests. A short while later, I disagreed with another admin who didn't see eye to eye with my unblocking (to put it politely) and subsequently I have given them a wide berth. In particular, I haven't the faintest idea how to deal with a checkuser-blocked editor saying "I am not a sockpuppet of 'x', I've never heard of that person". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Since you couldn't grant the request no matter how well-justified, surely the only equitable thing to do is to refer the user to a (different) checkuser? After all, that's the primary justification WP:Blocking policy#Unblock requests gives for forbidding nonadmins from declining unblock reqs. —Cryptic 16:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible new tool/technique/procedure

I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

...instructions.

I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Here are some examples:

[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.

They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.

There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.

The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some examples on other pages:[27][28][29][30][31] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A few more eyes needed at WP:RFPP

Maybe the page protection requests have been coming in faster than usual - but for whatever reason, the backlog at RFPP has been over 30 for the past several days. Lots of people have worked on it, doing whatever they can, but can't seem to get the backlog below 30 requests or 24 hours. If anyone has a little time to spare, that's an area that could use some help. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I actioned a few but have to run unexpectedly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We are ok-ish now, but indeed this is a recurrent situation as MelanieN, as one of the admins regularly working there, knows very well. It might be a good idea for admins to add this page to the watchlist. The bot edits, several times per day, on this page indicate in the edit summary how many unactioned requests there are on the page. This number can be a bit off for some technical reasons, but definitely if you see a number more than 40 in such an edit on you watchlist, this is an indication that we are badly backlogged, and might need your help even with just one or two requests. Over 60 means a catastrophe.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Moved to ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review RFC close

Talk:Nikki Amuka-Bird#Request for comment - Infobox was closed by User:Wugapodes as "Rough consensus against including an infobox at this time." However it had five voices in favor of an infobox and three against one. On User_talk:Wugapodes#Talk:Nikki_Amuka-Bird_RFC_Infobox?, Wugapodes says that he discounted the five voices, even though they included some experienced editors. Could we have a review of whether this was an accurate judgment of consensus or a supervote? --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• No issue with the close. Given the arguments for an infobox consisted of "It standardizes presentation of information" - not a particularly strong argument for why an infobox should be on any article. Its an argument for infoboxs in general. "Other actor articles have them" - yeah we have a bluelink for that type of argument. "It makes it easier to find information" - This particular article contains most of the infobox info in the lead. The only way it would be quicker to get that information was if they didnt read the article at all and only looked at the infobox. All in all, absolutely terrible arguments for including an infobox at a specific article, the last one is actively encouraging people not to read the article. On the other hand we have "Delete the infobox and have a bigger picture as its more useful given the lack of info in the infobox" - a good and article specific reason for not having one. And the remaining votes point out that the infobox is just duplicating the limited infomation available on this subject on the left. Again, specific to this article. Given the yes votes are particularly weak, even by infobox standards of arguments, at best this is a no-consensus to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - it seems that five editors commented supporting the addition of an infobox to the short biography Nikki Amuka-Bird, while three editors opposed adding an infobox. Wugapodes closed the RfC siding with the three editors who said the infobox is unnecessary. Ordinarily I agree with Wugapodes on all things Wikipedia, but in this case, I agree that the bio would look much better if it had a small infobox. I don't think it really matters if the infobox repeats information from a short bio: in my view all bios should have an infobox. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Wugapodes closed it correctly. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't valid. Articles are required to comply with broad community consensus. Counter-examples linking to another article doing it the same way are not valid. Given that Category:Wikipedia article cleanup (and its subcats) contains over a million articles, there probably exists an article somewhere doing any given bad thing; if counter-examples were good arguments I'm sure I'd also be able to justify why BLP violations are good (because that article does it too!). Here we had a tiny infobox on basically a stub article duplicating information that was in the single sentence lead, hurting the reader experience. MOS:INFOBOXUSE says infoboxes have to be useful for a given article, not that all articles of actors must have one. The arguments saying all actors should have one directly contradict community consensus, and thus should be disregarded. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't participate in this discussion but I'm usually on the pro-infobox side of the Infobox Wars, having !voted with valor at the Battle of Ian Fleming and the Battle of Mary Shelley Pocket pocket. While I'm not sure about the Skirmish of Nikki Amuka-Bird resulting in a consensus against including an infobox at this time, I think it was no consensus, and definitely not consensus in favor.
  Numerically, 5-3 is a "50%+1 result", meaning it's the minimum margin greater than even (which would be 4-4), the slimmest possible majority for that number of participants. So, not much significance should be given to the numerical majority, as it's very close to an even split (as close as possible without being an exactly even split).
  On the merits, there were arguments made against having an infobox on that particular article at that particular time: first, the subject is an actor, so a larger-than-infobox-size headshot may be helpful to the reader; second, the article is extremely short at this time, and the lead in particular is one short sentence, which contains all of the information that would normally be in the infobox. An infobox can help distill a multi-paragraph lead down to some key facts presented in a standard format, but the benefit of doing so is reduced when the lead is one sentence containing those same key facts. As such, the oppose !votes deserved at least as much weight as the support !votes. Now, I'm not sure that the oppose !votes are so strong that they should outweigh all the support !votes, resulting in consensus against including an infobox, but the global consensus of WP:ONUS means we need affirmative consensus in favor to include an infobox in this situation, and there definitely wasn't that consensus in favor in this skirmish discussion.
  So, I think the result (no infobox) is correct, and the "at this time" qualification of the close is effectively the same as a "no consensus" close: when the article and lead are expanded, the question can be revisited again. So I think at bottom any quibble I have about "consensus against at this time" vs. "no consensus" is more semantic than real. For these reasons, endorse. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close. This was a reasonable close to a close call. —valereee (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn close - the closer's comment "this article is better served by a larger picture of the subject" appears to be their own opinion, which should have been expressed as a comment in the RfC, not its close. (Besides which, with my default settings, the image is larger with the most recent version of the infobox than the article as currently without it.) There are also false claims about the infobox (as seen on 3 January, immediacy prior to the RfC being opened) in the discussion (example: "everything is directly on the left making it redundant"; "there is nothing there, it is generic" (or are all actors married to Geoffrey Streatfeild?); "The infobox gives [only] 4 facts") - that's one in each of the oppose comments - which are not accounted for in the closer's assessment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • appears to be their own opinion, which should have been expressed as a comment in the RfC Increasing the picture size was a recommendation by discussion participant scope creep (Delete it and make the image slightly bigger) which was echoed by Procrastinating Reader (Replace it with picture of subject). Given that multiple participants gave specific recommendations on how to improve the article and the job of a closer is to summarize discussion, I thought mentioning that specific recommendation would be a good idea. Also you cite a version of the article that was not live when anyone commented in the RfC. Rusted AutoParts started the RfC at 20:28 3 January but you cite the 06:11 3 January edit which was three edits before the RfC started. Leaving aside the first oppose (made by the editor who made those three changes), the other two opposition !votes came at 16:09 15 January and 12:17 18 February. There were 7 (diff) and 8 (diff) revisions between your "evidence" and the comments being made. So no, I'm not going to fact check comments based on revisions that weren't live when they commented. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course I "cite a version of the article that was not live when anyone commented in the RfC"; so does everyone else in the discussion. It is indeed necessary to do so, because the whole RfC is on whether to restore a feature that was in the article, but which has been removed. I don't dispute that scope creep said what you quote; my point is that rather than noting their opinion, you make make a similar claim in your own voice as though that opinion were fact, disregarding equally valid opinions to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

      You did realise the infobox was on the article throughout the RfC, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong:

• 11:57, 3 January 2021‎ - infobox removed
• 20:28, 3 January 2021‎ - RFC opened
• 09:58, 15 January 2021‎ - infobox added after twelve days without infobox

All but three of the comments in the RfC were made in the period without an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing, and while there might have been a case for a "no consensus as of this time" close, I don't think Wugapode's close is wrong or unacceptable here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse good close that accurately reflects the quality of the arguments offered. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Strange redirection

Hi:

Observer (disambiguation) has been redirected to Observer in 2008. I do not know the reasoning at the time but since the latter is a disambiguation pages, would not it be more logical to reverse the redirection?

Pierre cb (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not really an administrator issue. There are lots of redirections like this because, with many common words, it is likely that someone would link to XXXX (disambiguation) if they intended to link to the disambiguation page explicitly, not necessarily expecting XXXX itself to be a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is the full guideline on how to set up disambiguation pages. In most cases, if there is a primary topic, THAT primary topic would be named "XXXX" and the disambiguation page would be named "XXXX (disambiguation)". If there is no primary topic, then "XXXX" is itself a disambiguation page, and "XXXX (disambiguation)" either doesn't exist, or itself redirects to XXXX. It's not really a problem because redirects are cheap. --Jayron32 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It also allows for clearer hatnotes. "For other uses, see Observer (disambiguation)" makes it clear that you'll be going to a DAB page. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Continued sockpuppeting

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

---

The indefinitely blocked editor behind User:Bionoetics and User:Celtictales seems to have created a third account User:Celticsisters to insert the same problematic content into the same 3 articles. Apologies if I haven't followed the right procedure on flagging a sockpuppet - never have to do this before! Smirkybec (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sock if I do say so myself. Indef'd as a sock, and in the future you can file a report at SPI for suspected sockpuppet cases. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I will :) Smirkybec (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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

CSD Abuse

Moved to WP:ANI

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, see Ahl-i Hadith history! - Owais ^Talk 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If any of the edits there can be classified as vandalism these are your edits. Do not you know that removing large pieces of sourced text is generally not ok? Certyainly it is not ok to continue removing them without any discussion if the removal has been reverted?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs randomly changing numbers in articles

There have been IPs randomly changing numbers in various articles mostly connected to Religion in Russia for a while now, see 95.132.134.221, 2402:4000:12C3:AF97:1:0:26CE:47D5, also [32]. Religion in Russia was page protected for a while starting April 1, but it expired April 10. As the edits above show, the problem is not limited to that article either, with some at Thai People, and others at Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Islam in Russia. There have also been similar edits at Dnieper ([33]) and I'm certain at other locations as well, but I can't remember exactly where I saw them. It's been going on for a while. I'm inclined to believe that it's the same user using a proxy, or maybe there's some concerted effort online somewhere to vandalize Wikipedia as one IP geolocates to Ukraine, one to Sri Lanka, and one to India. Anyway, some admins looking into it/anyone sharing similar changes made elsewhere would be appreciated.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Spi abuse and retaliation against me by My very best wishes

I have been having disputes with another user about sources. As of yesterday they accused me of being a sock puppet and now today they're accusing me of being another sock puppet. It seems like they're using any little thing to get me banned since I don't agree with their viewpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nicky3331. Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the administrators as it doesn't seem like it's going to help being new users to Wikipedia, If they're being accused everyday of being different sock puppets.Thelostone41 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Both are legitimate SPI requests with evidence, which involve not only your account, but also other accounts. Note that the first SPI request resulted in two sockpuppet accounts being blocked. Please just wait until the second SPI request will be resolved and closed. You are welcome to express any disagreements on the SPI page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The sock report came back negative for me it seems like my wiki colleague is trying to get me banned as a sock and are using any little thing to get me banned.Thelostone41 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You may just overlap areas of interest with the sockpuppet accounts, so it appears that you're connected even if you aren't. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, My very best wishes was not notified about this report. I have notified them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While I get the whole "procedure must be followed" thing, C.Fred, they were the first one to comment here... Primefac (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred I did tell them about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1022975829&oldid=1022849638.Thelostone41 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thelostone41: My apologies. I didn't see that they deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• My apology for deleting it. But I am not sure what exactly user Thelostone41 would like to achieve in this AN request. I filed a number of SPI requests before. It was never a problem. User Thelostone41 did say here that they work for the company Draft:ShariaPortfolio, and it was without making any proper WP:COI notification on their user/talk page. Hence I thought he is possibly the same person as Nicky3331 who created the draft for the page about this organization. Was not filing the 2nd SPI request a proper course of action? Prior to filing such request, I did ask if such request would be appropriate here, but received no response. I do think that editing by Thelostone41 is problematic [34], but this is not a proper noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thelostone41, I can understand that a sockpuppet investigation would feel very upsetting, but it's nothing personal. Place a WP:COI disclosure on your user page and that should clear up any further confusion. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User Report of Hoa Bihn, an account for vandalism. Please be fast!

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

---

Hoa_Bihn (talk · contribs)

This User:Hoa Bihn is vandalism intended account abusing me. He was blocked on Wikidata because he was vandalising datas. Now, he is here, irritating users and vandalising articles. Please block him as soon as possible..245CMR.•^👥📜 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Help me! I am surrounded by vandals

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

---

User:RunaSB is a Sockpuppet from a user from Wikidata and now he is vandalising my userpage. Please block him and try to protect my page as will create another account and start again..245CMR.•^👥📜 12:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That has been handled by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Emmanuel Adebayor

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

---

Can someone revert the move? Clearly disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How do Nigerians deal with surname order? If they use Western order, then sure, this should be reverted, but if they go with surname-first then it would be a return to "convention". Primefac (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Emmanuel Adebayor is the WP:COMMONNAME, always in commentary it is pronounced that way. Its French, so why would his name be backwards? Govvy (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been dealing a lot with odd or unusual family name usage recently, so to me it seems like a valid question since I don't know what they do. Your explanation seems reasonable so I'll move it back. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It now appears to be vandalism. YODADICAE👽 17:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I've looked at a few of their historical moves and they appear reasonable. Not sure what spurred this outburst. Either way, I've blocked them for 31hr. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you for that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Aribitration enforcement

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

---

Four reports have been filed in the last 5 days on WP:AE, including one appeal, and there's been nary a response from an admin. Would any of you folks with the bit care to wade in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Five reports now, and no bites. Can't say that I blame any of you: one of the joys of not being an admin is that I don't have to worry about sorting out AE reports, since I can't even if I wanted to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A number of admins have stepped up, so this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Lost talk page

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

---

Sharmakshat2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the HMHS Britannic article, and somehow the talk page has disappeared. It is not showing as having been moved by Sharmakshat, and accessing the talk page is not showing it as having been deleted previously. Nor is it showing at the talk page of where Sharmakshat moved the article to. Can someone track it down and restore it to its correct place please? The article has been moved back to its correct place. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Eureka! Found it and moved it. Should have checked "what links here" in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Edited much-used templates, please check

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

---

I've edited {{They}} and {{He or she}} because a new {{tfm}} template for a merge discussion was being transcluded into every use. Surrounding the tfm templates with noinclude seems to have worked but there might be other consequences, other best practice – I don't know. Could someone check, and if they're wrong also fix {{He/she}}? NebY (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE

On 14 February 2021‎, Solavirum was topic banned from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed. He had been misusing categories on several articles, adding Category:Armenian war crimes on several pages that had no sources for war crimes and just obviously weren't[35][36][37][38][39] and adding Category:Massacres of men and Category:Massacres of women on articles where people weren't targeted for their gender[40] (article has since been deleted). In addition, Solavirum also made a genocide denial comment about the Armenian Genocide: "a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". For those unfamiliar with the subject, blaming Armenians civilians for non-existent revolts is a common form of Armenian Genocide denial. Per WP:NORACISTS, this was a strong indicator that Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE.

Less than a month after being topic banned, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 for discussing the subject on his talk page and asking another user to make WP:PROXYING edits for him.[41][42] He was also given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). One week ago, Solavirum violated his topic ban again by writing "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels" on the Turkish War of Independence article,[43] in addition to several other edits on this Armenia related article and it's talk page. Solavirum was citing an unreliable source from infamous Armenian Genocide denier Justin McCarthy, including for claims of Turkish civilian deaths being over 42 times higher than what the previously cited source said. He not only violated his topic ban yet again, for which he was given another two week block, but also again showed that he is simply not here to help build an encyclopedia, just to push an WP:UNDUE agenda. --Steverci (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum has not edited since they have been blocked, and it is unclear why Steverci (who already complained about this decision previously, without success [44]) decided to bring this up. However, what Wikipedia certainly can benefit from is indefinite topic-ban of Steverci. They have already been topic-banned for years, unbanned recently after a successful AE appeal and, apparently, decided to get all their opponents topic-banned so that they can do whatever they want. They are currently edit-warring at Shusha [45] [46]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see now that Drmies, the blocking admin, advised them to come here [47]. I am however still of the opinion that it does not make sense to discuss Solavirum until they edit again, and that Steverci editing in the Armenian-Azerbaijani topics do not improve the encyclopedia. They clearly consider Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this at the suggestion of @Drmies: who said there should be separate discussions for topic ban violations and a user being NOTHERE. --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I suggested that because Steverci was a bit unhappy with the admittedly mild two-week block. I really don't have much of an opinion on the matter. I have not seen any evidence that Steverci is incapable of editing neutrally, and while I think they were a bit forward in pressing for a longer or more serious sanction, I don't think that this is some sort of vendetta, and I don't support a topic ban for them. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there's a pattern of Steverci filing enforcement requests in order to win a content dispute by getting banned editors he disagrees with. This is a frivolous enforcement case he flied on me after we had a disagreement: [48] Also, it would be good if admins checked his editing against consensus on BLP article about well known South Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal. Adding extremely partisan sources in criticism section without consensus at talk with other involved editors is not in line with WP:BLP rules. A third opinion at talk would also be appreciated. Grandmaster 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I deleted the entire section. It's possible that some of its content belongs at Black Garden, but accusations that he's distorting the truth and spewing propaganda are obviously in violation of BLP policy. The reviews section needs to be moved to the article on the book as well, if you'd be willing to do that, as it's not about him personally. Jr8825 • Talk 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your assistance with resolution of the problem with that article. I will move reviews to the article about the book, and will only mention that his book is award winning, and generally received positive reviews, if that's ok.

But that is not the only instance of POV editing and edit warring by Steverci. Please check his recent reverts at Shusha, mentioned by Ymblanter. The source Steverci refers to says: In an interview, Arkady Ter-Tatevosian, the Armenian commander who masterminded the capture of Shusha, blamed the burning of the town on aggrieved Armenian citizens living in neighbouring Stepanakert who had endured months of Azerbaijani shelling. "The [Armenian] Karabakhis have a very bad habit, a superstition, of burning houses, so the enemy cannot return". Steverci twice removed the part where it said that the houses were burned to prevent enemy population from returning, even though that's exactly what the source says, and he himself included that source, selectively quoting it. [49] [50] Please check his edit summaries, a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How acceptable is that? Steverci returned from the topic ban, but I do not see that his behavior changed significantly. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the edit summary and talk page, those are two conflicting reasons (aggrieved reaction or strategic superstition), and the source doesn't also mention them in the same sentence. It's also not encyclopdic to assume what the civilians could've been thinking, and is currently reads very awkwardly. De Waal is also not a great source to go into this much detail, because he is known both for his pro-Azeri bias and for selectively quoting interviews. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the enforcement case against you primarily because you made an edit falsely attributing the claims of two Turkish and Azeri analysts to the third-party source RFE/RL, and even referred to them as "RFE/RL experts" despite them having no affiliation. This was rather identical to how Solavirum was adding as many negative categories for Armenian articles as he could. In both cases, the user was either too preoccupied with their agenda to notice they were wrongly attributing something, or they just didn't care. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Steverci

Per WP:BOOMERANG, Steverci is indefinitely topic-banned from Armenian-Azerbaijani topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• You base this proposal claiming I "decided to get all [my] opponents topic-banned", as if I had any power over that. Those were the decisions of other admins based on the actions of those users. I remember when I reported a user that was very obviously openly canvassing, you made a personal attack against me. Why have you been so hostile to me ever since my topic ban was removed? --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Because what you are doing is not improving an encyclopedia. You have clearly taken one side and promote the interests of this side does not matter what, treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're the one throwing around accusations like "They are interested in removing as many people as possible from the oppose party, and to bring there as many people from their own party, so that after several screens would have been written, no reasonably impartial user could join, and the discussion is doomed to be closed as not done. Or possibly not even closed, just archived at some point. This is the tactics used pretty much in all these discussions." I don't make this accusation lightly, but it seemed that you wanted to sanction me instead since months ago out of some personal issue. It's weird, because I had remembered you being fair and reasonable. I've been doing my best to edit a lot better since being unbanned, and have been doing a pretty good job despite editing in contentious topics. --Steverci (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think I have any personal issues with you, at least I can not recollect any. It is difficult not to see however that you are engaged in edit-warring and you consistently try to eliminate the users you disagree with rather than to discuss with them (yes, I know, consensus in these topic is not possible, but you all should attempt at some kind of agreement rather than an open edit-warring). I do not think this is what you have been unbanned for. I see however that this discussion has the potential of turning into one more Armenian-Azerbaijani battle so that nobody would read it, let alone of taking a reasonable decision based on it. Sometimes I think that all warriors from both sides must be just topic-banned en masse, but may be we are not yet ready for this decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I probably should apologize because I indeed do not know what is in your head and what your intentions really are. You should understand however that for an uninvolved user your actions look exactly like this, whatever you intended to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support.--Renat 23:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: A week ago Drmies blocked Solavirum and now you ask Drmies to participate in this discussion and say that you were only following the advice and "luck wasn't very good"? It is not suppose to be about testing someone's luck or getting rid of editors using the most convenient way. Also, Steverci, do you know who is "emailing administrators expressing the desire to negotiate blocks"?--Renat 02:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci: I agree with Ymblanter, opening up yet another case against this editor indicates a battleground mentality. You very recently brought a case against them here and they received a ban, further chasing things is simply tendentious WP:HOUNDING. I get it, you think their contributions are a net negative to the topic – you've expressed this view many times before – but the difficulty (and a requirement) of editing in a controversial area is learning to accept and work productively with editors who you fundamentally disagree with. I don't support a topic ban because I appreciate you've worked hard to contribute positively since your last one was lifted, but viewing things through the lens of righting great wrongs, or us vs. them, will lead to further problems (and boomerangs such as this). You don't need to continuously characterise other editors' contributions (sometimes inaccurately). Disruptive editors' contributions speak for themselves. Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hard disagree Can I kindly ask what in the hell is going on here? To anyone unfamiliar, Steverci is referencing this case 1 that got Solavirum banned for only 2 weeks for violating a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles second time, enforced by El_C. How does Steverci's complain of a relatively short ban for violating WP:BROADLY second time now, turn into a indefinite topic-ban for Steverci ? I'm sorry for my ignorance maybe I'm understanding something wrong, but how does Ymblanter just casually suggest to topic ban another user, when all they did was to complain (and if you look at the history of Solavirum's violations, rightfully so to an extent) about a short ban for a second broadly violation? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The confrontational behaviour in WP:AA2 has become normalised over the years (example here: Armenian editor reports Azerbaijani editor at a noticeboard, Azerbaijani editors arrive to defend the editor and Armenian editors queue up to condemn them, or vice versa), but that doesn't mean this type of behaviour is no longer tendentious and disruptive. Jr8825 • Talk 10:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, but that didn't answer my question. Steverci has valid grounds for his complaint, as even the admin Drmies, who enforced the block for 2nd broadly violation said that "many will consider that relatively mild" talking about the 2 weeks timeframe 1. And as Steverci pointed out in that case, Solavirum went through the cycle of denying his violation of the topic ban 2, then when his blatant denial attempts get called out and even the admin agreed that he violated it (and got blocked for it), he finally "understood" everything on his talk page [3]. It seems like Steverci's complaint of Solavirum's relatively short ban has reasonable grounds, but for some reason there is a lot of WP:OTHER here, and unfounded "boomerang" topic-ban proposal for Steverci for some reason. Instead of discussing why someone who violated the topic ban 2nd time now, and who clearly isn't here to built encyclopedia shouldn't be banned just for 2 weeks, some people here deflect everything that Steverci said, and an admin of all people proposes to topic-ban him instead? This vote was just uncalled for to say the least. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there is to be an indef t-ban imposed on Steverci, it has to be justified a whole lot better than anything we have seen presented here. Saying "per BOOMERANG" does not provide an adequate justification. This ANI thread itself is not vexatious even if it is perhaps ill-advised and premature. But that, by itself, doesn't justify anything more than a warning. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is too severe of a sanction at this point in time; this ANI thread appears to not have been filed in bad faith.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't TBAN people for diff-less complaints that include speculation about motives; apologizing for that unfounded speculation but leaving the proposal in place is ridiculous, as is the suggestion that we should just be topic banning people en masse. The proposer should be trouted. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, fine, I will not deal with Armenian-Azerbaijani mud throwing anymore. I do not have any personal interest in this conflict. I wanted to save time to the community, but if the community is not interested, I am sure they are going to find some other way of dealing with the situation. I have a lot of other things to do. I provided diffs btw, but people do not seem to be interested in paying any attention to what I have actually written.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The only diff you've linked to in this thread is by Drmies. A diff-less (and argument-less) tban proposal doesn't save the community time, it wastes it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about free use for Artificial Organs (journal)

Hello,

I am a bit confused on what the requirements for free use for images are. For example, I posted an image of a Journal cover that I was given permission for (I have the email if anyone is interested), but that was removed since it is not free-use compatible. Could someone clarify on what I am doing wrong/what else I would need to do to make the cover compatible with free use?

Thank you!

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillathehun (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tortillathehun: If the copyright owner is willing to license the image under the copyleft licenses that Wikipedia uses (WP:CC BY-SA and WP:GFDL), then they should follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. (And it has to be them who does this, not you.) If they've only given permission for you to use it, then I'm afraid that's not enough, as any images added to Wikipedia (that aren't exempt as fair use) must be okay for anyone to use. For future reference, a question like this is more suited to The Teahouse. This noticeboard is more for administrator matters. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 23:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that the Commons does not accept non-free images. I have uploaded a copy locally and added the appropriate fair use rationale and license.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues

Already tried at ANI, but that's seemingly been ignored. Please see the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues. As I've noted at the SPI page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caidin-Johnson may also be involved in this, which would make all of this part of a bigger LTA issue. Magitroopa (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

House of Corsi hoaxing

O Correto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have indef blocked User:O Correto for writing blatant hoax articles on the Italian Corsi family, as recognised by Þjarkur.

I have speedily deleted most of their article creations as none of the content was verifiable: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/O%20Correto/0. They all used sources that did not mention the people they were used to support. However, further back in time articles Antonio Corsi, Giovanni Corsi, Bardo Corsi, Nera Corsi, and Giovanni di Jacopo Corsi may be real people, though I'm less sure about the latter and they may all need attention. Also the overall article House of Corsi and the expansion of composer Jacopo Corsi need attention.

This appears to be part of a pattern of long-term abuse also affecting Commons, Pt Wikipedia, and It Wikipedia. File:Busto di Antonio Corsi por Alessandro Rondoni.jpg was uploaded by User:Frost Hyuuga, who is globally locked as a sockpuppet of User:Vinciussssss (locked by User:Tks4Fish), who had tried to create an article for Vinci Corsi on Pt Wikipedia.[51] On Pt Wikipedia, O Correto was tagged as a sockpuppet of Vinciussssss, but then unblocked. Another connected globally locked account is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/O_Marqu%C3%AAs_de_Caiazzo. O Correto has made a lot of uploads to Commons connected to this hoax: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/O_Correto. This account may also need to be globally locked. Fences&Windows 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

O Correto has appealed their block. Fences&Windows 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thanks for pinging me. I had previously CU-confirmed, locally blocked and locked O Correto, but he was then un(b)locked after a successful appeal at ptwiki. I am particularly inclined to re-lock the account, considering he has fallen back into his old behavior, but I'll talk with my colleagues about it before acting. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 05:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

severe backlog

At Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. The autopatrol queue was worse but I dealt with that a couple days ago. If anyone has a little time to spare today there's currently 19 requests, the oldest is 17 days old. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)