Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

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

• 9 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 14 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 29 requests for RD1 redaction
• 62 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 24 requested closures
• 128 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 18 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

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

Another Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs

I made an appeal last week. I didn't expect the discussion to go beyond the topic and it eventually was closed a couple of days later. I'll try again and answer the allegations on my previous appeal.

I already removed this reminder a couple of years ago after I was told that it and I realized I was too harsh with that. I have moved on from that long time ago. When some editors convinced me to participate in the ANI, it took me some time to think of what to say there. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do so by the time a consensus was made.

I really have moved on from my past troubles and learned from them. Believe me or not, I'm very honest with what I said, especially in my previous appeal.

I'm appealing (again) for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I really promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.

Proposal: Lifting Superastig's topic-ban from closing AfDs

ASTIG😎🙃 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

---

• A new appeal only a week after the last one was declined (unanimously) shows a complete lack of clue. So that's an obvious Oppose from me. I'll make a proposal of my own below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose And this is getting dangerously into WP:IDHT territory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The last appeal closed unanimously against this just a week ago. How could you think this appeal was a good idea today? Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is really starting to sound like you want this a little "too" much. Which is making me uncomfortable with wondering "why". - jc37 15:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Besides this appeal being too early and indicative of WP:IDHT, it is also inadequate and unclear. Inadequate because it gives no indication, besides mere assertion that the editor has "moved on", for the topic-ban not being needed any more; at a minimum, I would have expected to see substantial and substantive participation at AFDs as an discussant (I see the editor !voting at only 4 AFDs in the 5 months after the ban was enacted). And unclear because I for one cannot decipher whether Superastig is pointing at this response as something they should have posted earlier at the topic-ban discussion or something they regret posting at all; and why is this being called a reminder?! All this suggests that Superastig should not be closing AFDs anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose All I see here is pure WP:IDHT and nothing else. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no evidence that Superastig understands what led to the original topic ban. And as Abecedare notes, participating in all of four AfDs since the topic ban was imposed does not indicate an attempt to get more experience in AfD or learn the process better. Plus, a second appeal one week after the first was unanimously opposed is seriously concerning. WJ94 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose tone deaf. Wikipedia is not a game. There are plenty of areas in which you can help, but if your disruption just moves there - further sanctions will follow. Star Mississippi 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lot of snow falling here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WJ94. This inability to get it shows how necessary the tban is, frankly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Why do you (Superastig) want to close AfDs so much anyway? It's not as if they won't get closed by someone else, and if they are closed with the wrong result you can always go to deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been six months since they were banned and times have changed. I see Astig's sincerity that they have moved on from his past mistakes, especially in their previous appeal. Along with the proof in their previous appeal that they're eligible enough to close AfDs, I believe their topic ban from closing AfDs should be lifted. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tone deafness is enough on its own, but coupled with the blatant tag-team/canvassing with SBKSPP and the bizarre IDHT tantrum he threw at being called out on it, it's obvious Superastig should not go anywhere near closing discussions in the foreseeable future. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from appealing their topic ban on closing AFDs for six months

• Due to the cluelessness shown above, support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As I said above, this is getting close to WP:IDHT. To be blunt, find other areas to work on Wikipedia for now. Come back next year to see if the community would be more open. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6 months may be too short a wait given the substantial conduct and communication issues but better than nothing. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Now, here's an interesting thing. As I read our rules and the precedents behind them, I don't think there's anything to stop Superastig from appealing this ban on appealing the first ban. We could get very deep in a recursive loop of banning appealing the previous ban banning appealing the ban before that. Nevertheless, I support this appealing ban. — Trey Maturin™ 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  At that point, we would be far into WP:IDHT territory. ~UN6892 ^t_c 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don't give 'em ideas, Trey! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, I missed off "recursively construed" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  If he appeals the appeal ban then I for one will certainly be re-cursing. Many of you are familiar with my special talents along those lines. EEng 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with enforcement mechanism. Appealing a second time within a week is disruptive, but Trey Maturin has a point that these restrictions have in recent times become meaningless. As such, I support with the addition of an enforcement mechanism: Should Superastig appeal early then said appeal is to be immediately closed and Superastig blocked for at least one week, with the block length to escalate should additional early appeals be made. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - this should be self-evident even without a formal ban. Any discussion result should never be appealed in a shorter amount of time unless it can be shown either that the discussion was extremely unfair or closed improperly; or that some new fact, which either occured or was discovered after the discussion was essentially over, is provably relevant to the point that several users likely would have voted differently as a result. Animal lover |666| 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support and lets make it a year. The users comments above dont appear to have any of the required maturity to seek a removal of the ban, but doing it anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support while I still think further sanctions are needed, commenting here to endorse some action. This user is more interested in wasting our time then changing their behavior. Since it appears a broader AfD ban won't pass, this will give the user sufficient time to show productive editing that could merit lifting of ban. Star Mississippi 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Girth Summit told Astig in their talk page that "The restriction is indefinite, but may be appealed at AN no sooner than six months from today." I guess Astig was given the time frame of six months from the day they were Tbanned. Since their deadline is sometime within this month, I don't think they will be able to appeal anymore (not even after another six months) after this one. Correct me if I'm wrong. SBKSPP (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SBKSPP: I think you're misreading "no sooner" as "no later". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh shoot. I thought they're the same. Meaning "at least six months"? Then that means Astig is wrong here since they appealed sometime after five months. Changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support a ban of no longer than six months with whatever enforcement tools are available. Superastig’s continued poor conduct shows no signs of changing so no point in continued appeals of his original ban at this time. Frank Anchor 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't see their behavior changing in any meaningful way, given their immediate leap to appealing again. I can't legitimately see anyone being too eager to accept an appeal for at least a few months, and certainly not before Superastig can demonstrate that they understand WP:NAC. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from AfD in general

• I brought this up at the previous failed appeal and it got some traction, but the thread was closed before I could make a formal proposal. Superastig's history with AfD convinces me that they are not a net positive in this area and should be fully topic banned from deletion discussions. I'll repost my comments from the previous thread:

Another discussion involving Superastig showed up on my watchlist a few weeks ago. In this conversation (which occurred after they had been topic banned from closing AfDs) another editor said to Superastig: There are a few stations and TV channels that are up for deletion here. [...] I hope you could spare some time to save any of them from deletion. Superastig proceeded to vote keep on several of these articles. After being informed that this was canvassing, Superastig replied as follows:

In other words, you're telling me that it's a mortal sin for me to participate in deletion discussions after getting pulled out from my "break". I've stayed away from deletion discussions for a few months and never cared about a single article listed for deletion until @SBKSPP pinged me. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. It shouldn't be a big deal at all. It is never a mortal sin to be concerned about the articles listed for deletion, for God's sake.

You can hate, whine, cry, complain, throw hissy fits, say this, say that. But, my votes in the recent deletion discussions have (will have and still have) merit no matter what.

This behaviour speaks for itself IMO. Later, Girth Summit explained to them at length that this is in fact canvassing, and they still refused to get the message, stating Therefore, I believe what they did is not canvassing. I'll still stand by my views no matter what. Between the canvassing issues, the PA mentioned above, their past conduct at AfD and this unconvincing request, I believe that this editor is unable or unwilling to conduct themselves appropriately in this area and should be topic banned from AfD as a whole.

• Making another unconvincing appeal just a week after their previous one was unanimously opposed is additional evidence that they lack the judgment necessary to participate in this area. Spicy (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support exhausting time sink. Would even support broader sanctions after this incredibly tone deaf appeal. Star Mississippi 01:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This is honestly too much. Half a month has passed and yet, you seem to question my past actions instead of moving forward. I already admitted my mistakes. I have moved on from those. Sheesh. ASTIG😎🙃 01:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is, if you'd actually moved on, you wouldn't have started the thread above, and we wouldn't be here. - jc37 02:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Superastig, can I make a suggestion? When your behaviour and your interaction with others is under scrutiny, I think you would be best to omit words like "Sheesh" and other similar exclamatory expressions from your vocabulary. How you handle critical feedback can be a key part of how any future appeals you make will be judged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well then, I'll try my best to do so next time. ASTIG😎🙃 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, some of the attitude from members of the WP administrative community can be a little overbearing, and at times frustrating. GeneralHamster (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you really have changed, then you should've waited at least six months or rather more. Your previous appeal seemed too soon IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. A topic ban appeal immediately after one was just declined shows a very concerning lack of WP:CLUE, which is effectively a prerequisite for participating in charged areas like AfD. The Night Watch (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per my support in the previous discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support AfD TBAN broadly construed; Superastig's behavior regarding their AfD closure TBAN appeals shows a lack of WP:CLUE as they tried to appeal their TBAN right after it was immediately unanimously declined. Allowing this to continue will simply be a WP:TIMESINK, plain and simple. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 04:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Retaliatory proposal. This user should be free to speak his mind; it's only his actions that should be constrained.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless it can be shown that his behavior in AFD is problematic (neither the OP nor any of the voters even attempt to do this), there is no justification for such a ban. Bans are not a punishment, they are to protect Wikipedia against misbehavior. Animal lover |666| 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose this one, as I've seen no evidence of any ongoing disruption at AfD in general that needs to be prevented. The problems were, as far as I can see, all centred on closing deletion discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - One of the reasons I opposed the initial proposal to lift the topic ban is that Superastig has only participated in four AfD discussions since February. This is also a reason to oppose a broader topic ban - there is no evidence that Superastig is causing any serious disruption at AfD. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• What is the point of banning someone from an area they are not contributing too but if they return and are disruptive the tolerance level might well be different. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is totally BS, given that they barely participated in AfDs after they were Tbanned. If an article they created gets contested in AfD and they cannot defend it because of the full AfD ban, that will be unfair for them. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose these proposals are getting out of hand. There is zero evidence that Superastig has been disruptive at AFDs over the past six months. Frank Anchor 03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't comprehend why one would propose that someone who has not participated in AFD much would be banned for it. Nfitz (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem at issue isn't one of AFD as a whole. It's specifically about the editor's closures. I echo multiple others in this thread in saying that this measure is unnecessary. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Further battleground problems

I just noticed something disturbing at User talk:Superastig#Edit warring on Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan. In response to a content-related disagreement (and I've no idea who's right over the content as I haven't looked), Superastig ended with "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is or this issue you started will get worse. The choice is yours." That's the exact same Don't you dare challenge me attitude that earned them the ban from closing AFDs. And it happened when their behaviour is under close scrutiny here at AN. Their user page says "I have really moved on from my past troubles and learned from them." That would not appear to be true. So, do we need some sort of final warning about dropping that aggressive and threatening attitude? It can't be allowed to go on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I also read that as a threat. I'm seriously thinking a preventative WP:BLOCK is likely in order here. I'm open to other interpretations though. - jc37 12:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this was more or less my point in the roving disruption, although it was before this discussion. They are a problem, nut just a problem in AfDs. last time it was canvassing, now it's edit warring. I have no idea why they haven't been more broadly blocked in their career. Star Mississippi 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not great [1]. Whether or not the actress playing the girlfriend in a film called "My Girlfriend, The Returnee" can be named as being in "the title role" (who cares?), this bit of the edit war is over a completely unsourced cast list that Superastig insists is correct because it's in IMDB (whether it's "verified" is irrelevant - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#IMDb). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am really surprised that their conduct hasn't received more scrutiny before since this is really obvious violation of both content and conduct policies. And their AFD stats show that Superastig !voted in 28 AFDs (with a result match stat of <75%) and apparently closed almost 1900 AFDs. With the poor understanding of wikipedia policies they have displayed here, I cringe to think of the potential damage. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Now THATS a reason to ban them from closing! The 75% isn't that troubling in itself. But there's a clear lack of understanding here - and that's a huge number of closes. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: - they voted in 28 AFDs out of the last 200 AFD pages they edited, not out of 1891. Simply explotating that figure would lead to an estimate of 265 total votes. Anyway, here is another link showing more votes from the older AFD pages they edited, showing 66 votes out of 200 AFDs. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Thank you for the correction in my methodology! Scrolling through all the pages of their AFD stats, I now see that they !voted in roughly 1350 AFDs (with a result match stat of about 88%) and so apparently closed about 550 AFDs. Nothing "wrong" with any of those stats per se and so that shouldn't IMO play a role in any further sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to give them a final warning about that IMV. Their attitude varies, differ when it comes to participating in AfDs, closing them or contribution. It can be better discussed in a separate thread and not here.

Based on their contribution, they barely go berserk and the recent one is an instance. So, it's pointless to give them a final warning. SBKSPP (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So, SBKSPP, do you think their comment that I showed above is in any way acceptable? Don't you think we need some assurance that they will change their aggressive attitude towards other editors? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that Superastig has not responded, either here or at their talk page where I told them their comment was unacceptable (and they have edited since). If we don't see some kind of acceptable response, showing understanding of how their aggressive ownership approach must stop, I would urge some admin action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the phrase this issue you started will get worse. If that happens, then they persisted. It's out of my control. So, I don't see it as a threat. It's not like saying they're gonna get haunted, which is considered a threat. I can't haunt them 'cause I don't know where they live. This is why I'd rather stay away from anything that would cause me to lose my cool. ASTIG😎🙃 10:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Superastig, I don't see any way to misunderstand "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is...". It looks like blatant battleground ownership to me (and you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership). *You* do not get to dictate that your edit stands, and it is absolutely unacceptable for you to try to control content that way. Do you really not understand that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Help needed at SPI

WP:SPI is chronically backlogged, and historically this is the time of the year when things are worst. This year is no exception; we've got some cases that were filed 3 months ago. So, if you're an admin looking for things to do, please consider coming over to WP:SPI and helping us work through the backlog as a patrolling admin. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Summer vacations are hereby prohibited (Yamla, that includes you!). Lazing around in parks, either alone or with your family, will be reported to the authorities (Drmies, what were you thinking?). All holidays (in the American sense) are cancelled forthwith! Any admin who does not respond immediately to Roy's call, shall be included in the ArbCom case calling for removal of their permissions. This list of prohibitions, etc., is subject to expansion without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Watching the Tour, Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at a few over the weekend. Hopefully others heed the call, too! --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone else besides me was wondering how they could help: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions - jc37 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So, I remember doing some things to help out there in the past, but this is seeming more complicated than I remember. And reading that page, and a few sub-pages, I'm still not entirely comfortable that I understand what is wanted lol. Does someone have a "Simple Wikipedia" short version of how an admin can jump in the shallow end of the pool to get their feet wet first? : ) - jc37 13:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases and look at the caes marked in green (CU completed). Those are typically cases where a checkuser did a technical investigation but couldn't make a determination on the technical data alone so they need somebody to dive into the behavioral side.

A relatively simple one might be AHTaxCrediter. Mz7 ran a check, found that the technical data doesn't indicate they're socks, but left the case open, presumably for somebody to take another look at the behavior. So I'd start by diving into the edit histories of the three accounts and see what you can see. Avatar317 left their own analysis, which you may or may not agree with. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your first two sentences in particular helped a lot to help concretely focus things. Thank you. I'll go look again in a little bit. - jc37 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Jc37: Sorry for stealing your thunder—I've gone ahead and closed out the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AHTaxCrediter case. I suppose I read RoySmith's comment a little too quickly, and for some reason I didn't glean that this was intended to be a sort of exercise for jc37. I personally enjoy doing the technical and behavioral evaluation at the same time, so I'm surprised that I decided to use the green "CU completed" category in this case—I must've been feeling a little indecisive at the time. In this particular case, I wouldn't have complained loudly if we applied blocks, but we are now in the middle of July, and the last edit from those accounts was June 1. Because we may unfortunately be past the point of WP:PREVENTATIVE, I closed the case without blocking the accounts.

If I were to offer a suggestion, in my experience the "easiest" cases are the most recently filed ones in the beige-colored "Open" category (the table is sorted in chronological order by category, with the most recently filed cases appearing towards the bottom of the table). Before I became I checkuser, I remember that was where I was most likely to find straightforward cases. The green "CU completed" cases tend to be a bit more challenging, but that is definitely the category we need the most help with. Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries and thank you for the suggestions : ) - jc37 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is to just jump in and ask questions when something doesn't make sense. If you're on IRC, #wikipedia-en-spi-clerks is a great resource. RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Tried to join just now. That IRC channel is invite only. It is not bundled into the default admin channels. Perhaps it should be if you intend it to be a help channel for new patrolling SPI admins. Up to y'all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I plead complete ignorance of the inner working of IRC, but I'll see if I can get you an invite to the channel. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I'm told you should be good to go now. RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Uhoh. I've been recruited. Guess I have no choice but to help out now :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be an admin draft. Get a new mop and all the places that need admins get to bid on your services. Kind of like a cross between the The Draft and The Match. None of this floundering around and doing whatever interests you. You go where we tell you. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looked at a couple, although not sure how helpful the closes were as they seemed more stale than needing action. Happy to learn in this area. Star Mississippi 00:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, I tackled a few cases. I'm not sure I understand why "closed" cases are still on that list, though--will they disappear after someone presses a button? Drmies (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

After a clerk or CU archives them. People like me aren't allowed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to expand on that, there's a final review during the archiving process as a quality control process. RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added {{Administrative backlog}} just now, which will add that page to Category:Administrative backlog, which will hopefully get the attention of admins that patrol that category looking for backlogs to crush :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I did one, and looked at quite a few others. To say this can be a fair amount of work, depending on the situation, is an understatement. Everyone who helps out there, clearly deserves a kudos. - jc37 21:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed none of the requests are awaiting checkuser. 16 are in "CU requested" state and I offered a weak opinion on whether I think CU is justified. If people think I should just act on that, let me know. I strongly expect clerks to rule differently than me in some cases so I'd rather hear from them. 5 are "Awaiting clerk". 50 are "CU completed" and 31 are "Open". I may be mistaken but I don't think that backlog is waiting on checkusers. Please let me know if you think I'm missing categories where a CU could specifically help out, don't want to overstep. Barring that, I'll start digging in to the "Open" cases (as a regular admin) this week and try to make a dent in them. It is indeed a big list. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla: In theory, cases progress through "CU requested" -> "Endorsed" -> "Checked". In practice, we seem to have evolved away from that workflow. I see very few endorsements. When I do see that a clerk has endorsed a case, I tend to jump on it quickly, but otherwise I mostly peruse the "CU requested" and "Open" cases to see if there's any I'm already familiar with and work on those. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful context! --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

Is the [email protected] email still being watched? I submitted two cases a while ago (May 10 and June 9) but haven't gotten any response from either. Perhaps its another chronically backlogged queue? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If I recall, that email address is basically just an alias for GeneralNotability's email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also experienced this. How else are non-admins supposed to report paid editing without violating our WP:OUTING policy? I submitted a report in March and have not yet heard back. It's frustrating. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

• For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Backlog

Has anyone seen WP:RFPP ? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It needs archiving, but the bot appears to not be working. The archive page is a bit too large for my computer to handle, though. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed that :P - FlightTime (open channel) 21:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the malfunctioning bot makes it harder to easily see what still needs examining. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Any backlog should be cleared now. From the older requests, I haven't acted on the article XHDTV-TDT. I'd appreciate if someone with a good computer could archive all the resolved requests. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Challenge close Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14

This post challenges RFC close relating to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14. History:

• 1. I ran RFC Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14 in which the RFC contained a specific proposal. A number of votes in the proposal ignored the specific proposal or complained about the procedure of running and RFC to unwind an earlier consensus that was formed through RFC. Essentially these votes either ignored the RFC specific proposal (arguing other procedural claims) or didnt agree that an RFC be used to change the consensus, making these votes largely off topic or nonsensical. Of course an RFC is used to unwind an earlier RFC. These votes should have been ignored as off topic. After those votes are ignored, then the clear consensus is obviously to remove the defacto ban that currently exists on the article. We dont use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to determine that an RFC is not the appropriate venue to remove the consensus of an earlier RFC. "There were substantial procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion" in that the closer admitted down-weighting a majority of votes and went with the editor's own interpretation.
• 2. Nemov (talk · contribs) requested an experienced editor to close the RFC at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA
• 3. Combefere (talk · contribs) closed the RFC noting himself his vote counts (himself stating the votes were 11 vs 9. The user found so-called consensus by admitting he down-weighted the WP:NOTCENSORED votes. Therefore I "believe the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"
• 4. Two editors (the editor who requested the close Nemov) and myself both voiced our displeasure with the close at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA with Nemov declining to seek review.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment for point #3 — I did not "count myself" in any way. I assume this is a misunderstanding. Jtbobwaysf had at one point stated that there were eight editors in opposition, and may have incorrectly assumed that my count of nine included myself; it did not. Editors I noted in opposition included: mfb, Ozzie10aaaa, Shobbolethink, XOR'easter, The void century, Paleo Neonate, AndrewRG10, Bon courage, and Mx. Granger. I am guessing that Jtbobwaysf failed to note Mx. Granger's opposition; this is ultimately moot because I discarded arguments made by Mx. Granger (and Paleo Neonate) when determining consensus. Combefere ★ Talk 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

My comment was based off your statement in which you said: "By my math it was 11 supporting and 9 against, but it's also not a vote." at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA. I didnt mean you counted yourself, but I do assert that by discarding the censorship votes you have allowed your view to be the most important. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You struck your comments leaving "count myself" in quotes. Are you quoting me? I think it would be more useful if you could explain how you went from a majority in favor to a majority against? It was simply through down-weighting votes that mentioned censorship? Is there a policy that supports this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I originally interpreted your quote "noting himself his vote counts" as a claim that I had "counted myself" or "counted my own vote" in the closing. Since you have confirmed that this was not your meaning, I struck the rest of the comment. I now understand your meaning of "his vote counts" as 'his accounting of the vote totals' and not 'he counted himself as a voter.'

I didn't intend to relitigate here, just to clarify that quote above. I believe my comments in the closing summary and at closure requests^[note] sufficiently explain my finding of no consensus. Uninvolved editors will have enough information in those links to review the close. See also WP:NHC and WP:NOTVOTE for a better understanding of how closing editors determine consensus.

[note] the four links above to the discussion at WP:CR have become broken due to archiving

Combefere ★ Talk 06:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Downweighting NOTCENSORED arguments seems reasonable, as NOTCENSORED is a policy about why we don't remove content merely for being objectionable, not about why any particular content should be included. People make this argument all the time when something is excluded from an article, and it is always given little weight. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not censored says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." and this RFC was to remove the mechanism that was employed to restrict objectionable content (in this case a theory on the origin of the virus). The primary scope of the RFC was not to propose new content, although some editors sought clarification of an example on what the new content might be. The idea that respondents pointing to a wikipedia policy on censorship, when the very RFC is about a specific de-facto policy supporting censorship, should be considered banal and not at all a reason to down-weight votes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion concluded that COVID-19 pandemic should not mention the COVID-19 lab leak theory, and this WP:AN report concerns an RfC that proposed overturning that result. The RfC close was "no consensus" and correctly pointed out that those using WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason to include the lab leak theory misunderstand NOTCENSORED. Consider any disagreement about whether something should be mentioned in an article—NOTCENSORED cannot allow those wanting inclusion to always win. NOTCENSORED is saying that penis will include a picture of a penis regardless of whether some readers find the images objectionable or offensive as that would not be a reason to remove them. Arguments over whether content should be included have to be based on the merits of the content in question. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, if someone says: I think we need a gallery of 100 penises in the penis page and people response No that's clearly unneeded and unhelpful to readers, and I don't see how it complies with WP:GALLERY. Even if we did feel a gallery was useful, one of 100 images is just silly. The other side doesn't just get to say WP:NOTCENSORED and add a 100 image gallery. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to bring this closer to the original question let's imagine for some reason people kept asking on Talk:Penis to add a 100 image gallery and people got sick of that, established a clear consensus that we're not adding a 100 image gallery and to add this to FAQ. Then someone comes and started an RfC about removing this FAQ item, it's entirely reasonable to reject arguments who solely cite NOTCENSORED. BTB, it would also be entirely reasonable to reject arguments which said we should keep this FAQ item because frankly we shouldn't even have 1 picture of a penis in the article because it's offensive and makes the article unsuitable for children. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

To use the penis example, it would be also difficult to revoke the penis ban if it became accepted to display photos of penis 3 years after the FAQ ban three years earlier on penis display. It seems the RFC was malformed in that the way the policy works presumes that the ban should continue, as in this case a majority of editors wanted the ban lifted, but their voices were nullified as the justification for ban removal was not considered to be valid. 'Hey penis' are cool now, let's lift the ban' would maybe also result in downweighting' in this OSE example (which was useful for me to understand it)...If i am reading this right, it seems the RFC was malformed and the only way to remove the ban would be a RFC that focused on a particular unoffensive penis to include on the article, and if editors approve that, then discuss how that fits with the ban? A few editors expressed that opinion during the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You're partly right that a specific proposal about including some text and where would have been a better suggestion and I'd note a number of commentators already made that suggestion. However any proposal be it a specific proposal to include some text or simply to remove the FAQ item, would still have to address the earlier express concerns about including such text, and explain why they're no longer valid or maybe that they were invalid in the first place. Since the arguments against inclusion last time were not based on us needing to censor something objectionable but other valid reasons in accordance without policies and guidelines especially the lack of coverage in MEDRS, arguments should be based on such considerations. Strikingly, despite that being a key consideration in the previous consensus you seem to have been the only one to even bring it up and that was half way through. While I would have liked opposer to mention it, I can understand they didn't feel the need given the RfC and nearly every commentator failed to address such issues or even establish a reason for the RfC. Again to be clear, whether arguing for inclusion of some text, or for removal of the FAQ item, arguments that we're not censored fail on their face since those are not the reasons we have a consensus against inclusion. IMO the wider problem is you're still confusing the FAQ item as a "ban". It's not a "ban". It's simply reflecting the fact there is or at least was at the time consensus that there is no merit in accordance with our policies and guidelines, to including a specific frequently proposed suggestion issue. (Which is after all the purpose for such FAQs, to stop people continually making suggestions which we've established are not happening.) Note that if a new RfC finds there is no consensus to exclude mention of the lab leak, IMO the FAQ item should be removed or at least re-worded to make it clear there is no current consensus on the issue. But it's impossible to read that from this RfC since it was so flawed. It is possible a specific RfC on amending or removing the FAQ item would pass. But I find this unlikely for many reasons including that it's a silly waste of time. Similar concerns would arise about proposing some text which you're sure will not get consensus for inclusion simply to try and establish the FAQ item no longer has consensus. Remember that the removal of the FAQ item because there is no consensus to exclude mention, doesn't mean there is carte blanche to keep proposing specific inclusions. If it becomes clear that although there is no consensus for inclusion, it's unlikely there will be any consensus for inclusion either, then it's likely to be disruptive to keep proposing different ways of including mention. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to worry so much about the FAQ item. The main concern should be, is it likely we can achieve consensus for including something about the lab leak? If we can't then WGAF about whether the FAQ item is technically accurate that we have current consensus against inclusion. Just leave it be and worry about something that actually matters. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

First I disagree on the ban concept, it certainly is a defacto ban and other editors noted that. You mentioned I could have run an RFC, stating "It is possible a specific RfC on amending or removing the FAQ item would pass." This is what I ran and many editors said it was silly, so the RFC was amended to include a proposed text. Clearly running around in circles. It seems there is no procedure to remove an FAQ item. The MEDRS argument is silly, as we are referring to history (not biomedical information), see WP:NOTBMI. You seem to think the discussion is also silly saying "something actually matters." Different things matter to different editors, that is part of what makes wikipedia broad in coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED would be a viable argument to make if people objected to the content in question because it was offensive. I don't think anyone objected on those grounds, i.e., by appealing to politeness, good taste, or general social or religious norms. (The wording of WP:NOTCENSORED uses offensive, objectionable and inappropriate in generally overlapping ways. As it says, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies; obviously, objectionable content doesn't mean "content to which one can raise a policy-based objection".) XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• If this gets reopened, I'd probably feel obliged to comment, and we all know that's going to be a waste of time because my comment would be way too long despite not having much to add. Let's not go there. (Non-administrator comment) (got attracted by the mention of deletion discussions) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:basedpalestine

Request admin action against basedpalestine (talk · contribs) for WP:DISRUPTONLY and WP:WHYBLOCK. For example, see this edit. Longhornsg (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Basedpalestine for overt threats of violence. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Coaching, ICF, WP:COI

@MrOllie claim "Per WP:COI you shouldn't be editing this article at all" as an ICF accredited coach. I consider this discrimination against people based on their profession. Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coaching

Please help us resolve this. SirGazsi (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the Coaching article, read the first sentence, "Coaching is a form of development in which an experienced person, called a coach, supports a learner or client in achieving a specific personal or professional goal by providing training and guidance." and thought - huh. The article desperately needs rewriting as, at the moment, it looks like semi-incomprehensible gibberish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Weird, this is the old first sentence, now it starts as "Coaching is a collaborative partnership...". Do you still see an old version from your cache, perhaps? SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie's reverts. Your edits [2] have loaded the article up with promotional sounding text backed by primary sources to various coaching agencies. Massive quotes about how amazing coaching is, such as The International Coach Federation (ICF) defines coaching as "partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential. The process of coaching often unlocks previously untapped sources of imagination, productivity and leadership." belong in an advert, not an encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: "Massive quotes about how amazing coaching" (sic!) is the definition itself. I feel you express general scepticism rather than any real argument. SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you wanted to add a definition of "coaching" to the article it should be sourced to something like a dictionary or a textbook, i.e. a secondary source that approaches the topic from an academic context. Copying big chunks of spammy, promotional text from biased, primary sources that exist to promote coaching is not appropriate. You need to listen to what people are saying, rather than dismissing criticism with handwaving and attacking people you disagree with. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Saying that an ICF accredited coach shouldn't edit the article on coaching at all is probably a bit strong. Certainly, however, piling up the article with quotes from and references to the ICF's website does look highly dubious. I agree with the IP above that some of the stuff you added looks more like marketing copy than encyclopedic writing; I agree with Ritchie that a rewrite is needed, but I do not believe that the changes you have made so far have been a net improvement. For example, I don't know why you think the lead ought to include the assertion "There are many definitions to coaching that are listed in the Definition section., and I am very doubtful that the source you cited - the ICF's website - supports the assertion. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"There are many definitions to coaching that are listed in the Definition section.", and I am very doubtful that the source you cited - the ICF's website "

Sorry, you're wrong. It's not the ICF website. Furthermore, in the Definition section I reference SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

SirGazsi: My bad - it's not the ICF website, it's the Institute of Coashing Studies' website. You're missing the point though. First of all, that assertion has no business being in the article's lead - we simply don't write like that, the lead is there to summarise the article, not to describe the article. Secondly, it's not clear to me why there is any source cited there at all. The purpose of a citation is to support the preceding assertion - so, if the reader wants to, they can check that the assertion is accurate. There is no way that a third part website can support an assertion about the content of our article. In other words, you've added an unnecessary sentence to the article, and for some reason you've cited the website of a commercial organisation which in no way supports the content of the unnecessary sentence. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but it's pretty clear that you don't yet know how we write articles here, and you would do well to take on board the advice you're being given be experienced editors, here and on the article's talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

From WP:COI: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. ... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. While you are not prohibited from editing Coaching at this time, you have now been made aware of some views of your edits and how they are harmful. Again from WP:COI: If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. I strongly suggest you request edits on the article's talk page using {{edit COI}} instead of updating the article directly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You're judgemental in your writing, swinging Wikipedia policies like a sword, but provide no arguments at all. I'm open to hear your valid reasoning.SirGazsi (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You created this discussion with a swing at @MrOllie: stating that his statement of policy to you is discriminatory. I quoted the policy he pointed to, which states how a COI can interfere with an editor's judgement. I offered a way for you to step back from the fire so that you don't get burned. If you think that's judgemental, that's on you. Here you have multiple people telling you that you have a COI, and yet you continue to push along the same route, and you continue on below. I think there's a WP:boomerang around here. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• There's definitely a difference between adding promotional content and not being allowed to edit an article because of professional standing. Coaches have a COI in respect to Coaching, but not so serious, I think, that it should generally prevent them from editing it. But if their edits are adding promotional material, which certainly seems to be the case here, that material should be removed, and perhaps the editor involved in adding the material should be partially blocked from editing the article, not because of a COI, but because of the promotional editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you seriously call citing the definition of coaching a "promotional editing" ? SirGazsi (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I believe it's important that we give due recognition to the International Coach Federation (ICF), the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and other major professional organizations in the field of coaching and their definition of coaching. ICF is the world's largest organization of professionally trained coaches and, as such, its viewpoints, standards, and definitions hold a significant degree of authority within the coaching profession. They set and enforce ethical guidelines, provide certification to coaches, and conduct research in the field of coaching. Their definition of coaching is based on the collective experience and expertise of its global membership. Discrediting ICF means ignoring, furthermore discriminating, the majority of professional coaches across the globe. SirGazsi (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Definitions should generally be broad, but you also appear to be following a highly primary-source route, rather than wikipedia's focus on reliable secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

"Sound of Freedom" talk page is becoming a forum

Sorry to bother you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film) More than 40 edits wee done in less than 2 hours, most of them are atacks between editors. https://i.ibb.co/6rcMMpy/image.png Alcyon007 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I had already taken the page off my watchlist because of the disruption occurring there, and I felt I was being baited into saying something actionable. We definitely need admins to weigh in on that page and wrangle it back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added that page to my watchlist. I have no interest in the subject matter but am more than willing to keep an eye on it. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I archived some of the earlier discussions but the most sprawling discussion is the RFC. I do know there is a template for article talk pages that says not to use them as a forum but I don't know how to even search for it. Are any admins aware of this template and can provide a link or place it on the talk page themselves? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Does {{not a forum}} fit the bill? NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Notaforum" template added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Doubt that would help anything, Krimuk2.0 seems to be there solely to troll other editors and templates dont work on trolls. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

An IP whose personal attacks had to be deleted by someone else is accusing people of "trolling"? :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Krimuk is absolutely trying to goad others, parroting warnings back (even if it makes no sense to do so), and generally trying to get under other editor's skin. I left the Talk page because they're clearly trying to bait us into saying something actionable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So you're back to taunting me at another page. Please do something constructive for a change. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Aaaand there's a prime example. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk about mooning the jury. I'm blocking for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, the block notice reads indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed that. I have no idea what happened there, I definitely meant to set it to a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

With Blade's acquiescence, Courcelles has unblocked with conditions, including staying away from the page in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am not trying to engage further, but I just want to pen down what I think about this situation.
• As I understand it, an editor who has contributed to Wikipedia for over a decade, and having written dozens of featured content, can be termed disruptive simply for having a disagreement and resorting to sarcasm to deal with it?
• As I pointed out, my last edit on the talk page was a day and a half before this block and I have only made two edits on the article itself: this and this, which was on 15th July! So, there were no active disagreements at the time of the block, which was done totally out of the blue without preamble or debate. Even the terms of the unblock (to stay away from the page) is something that I have followed a full day and a half before the block.
• So why exactly was I blocked? Does an editor of long-standing on this website have so little value that sarcasm to deal with conflict gets them blocked? We have all had heated discussions in the past, and in the absence of personal attacks/edit-wars/socking, a block does not solve anything other than display domination over a weaker player. Why would we contribute here when all's required from us is obeisance and a refusal to see the human behind an editor who has given so much to the site? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sound of Freedom is a CTOP area and so it's especially important all editors should do the best to keep the ratio of heat to light low. I think we can forgive a little sarcasm when an editor unfortunately briefly loses their cool, but when it's turns into so many comments of it, many of them clearly unproductive and a lot of it just plain silly (especially the smiley stupidity); not so much. That said, a better solution might have just been a partial block from the article and talk page. Or maybe an alert if necessary and some sort of topic ban via CTOP. Still when an editor is behaving so unproductive, and comes to AN and repeats the same thing, they shouldn't be surprised if they end up blocked. If you manner of handling conflict and disagreement is to descend into continuous sarcasm to the point where your comments often become completely unproductive, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. And especially not in CTOP areas on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

See, I stopped editing there entirely a day and a half before the block was imposed. So how did the block help anyone? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable WP:NPA by User:Tony1

Telling me to go to hell because they got reverted when they changed my words in a Signpost piece.

This came out of nowhere, and I do not care for that sort of interaction or language. Block them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the Signpost article is rather unique on Wikipedia as being by-lined, it seems like it shouldn't be open to direct community editing, as it is the signed work of a particular person. It would seem that suggestions on its talk page for changes would be a better approach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's one thing to want to copy-edit it, I've merged many of their suggestions before they reverted that too [3] (puzzingly restoring a prior version of mine). It's quite another to tell people to go to hell over it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've seen Tony1 completely over-react to something and go off the rails. He's a great copyeditor; why does he want to undo his reputation in ways like this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Go to hell" is not a personal attack, any more that "Fuck off" is a personal attack. See WP:NPA: a personal attack is a derogatory/disparaging comment about another editor. To say "go to hell" or "fuck off" does not say anything about another editor. They are rude expressions, and Tony1 might have been more polite, but he did not personally attack anybody. As for the copyedits, yes, Tony is a great copyeditor, who excels particularly in changing fancy wording to plain, clear wording. For example, in this context he changed "Prior to 2008" to "Before 2008". I don't understand why you would revert such a change, Headbomb; for my money, it was an obvious improvement. I wouldn't have told somebody to go to hell over your reverts, but I do understand why Tony's justifiable pride in his prose skills was hurt. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

"Go to hell", combined with "ignorant writing", is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL and is certainly a personally attack. And whatever pride that was supposedly hurt is in no way more important than behaving like an adult.

As for why I would revert 'Before 2008' to 'Prior to 2008', it's because there is no substantive difference between either, and whichever you prefer is a matter of taste. And since it's my article, I get to pick which words are used to say what I want to say. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In a departure from usual practice, I'm going to have to disagree with Bishonen. Firstly, my opinion (emphasis, this is my personal view, others can disagree as much as they like etc etc) is that Signpost articles are personal essays or writing, and the guidelines are roughly analogous with talk page guidelines ie: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." So while I don't think it's a problem with somebody stating the converse opinion ie: Signpost articles can and should be improved by other editors as and when required, I don't think either of those opinions is policy, so it's a judgement call.

On the civility front, I think I've definitely changed my views on this over the last few years since Eric Corbett was finally booted off the site. Firstly, arguing about 'x' is a personal attack is a complete and utter waste of time (for example, I find some of the things Jacob Rees-Mogg utters to be offensive and he never uses the f-word); the important thing is is the comment likely to help in resolving the dispute? In this case, no it probably isn't. It's not a blockable offence, but it does make me scratch my head and wonder what on earth Tony expected to achieve by saying that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I know you said they're *roughly* analogous, but a major difference between the Signpost and talk page guidelines is that on the Signpost it's OK to fix other editors' typos/spelling errors, clearly unintentional slip-ups with word usage (e.g. extra/repeated words), etc., because the Signpost articles are being published in a sense (as part of the magazine). I've been doing those sorts of edits to Signpost articles for many years and no-one's ever had a problem with them, but if I did things like that to talk page comments people would rightly raise a fuss. There's also Tony's comments in his userspace at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing § Misplaced formality ... and your first comment here. Graham87 13:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About, it says: "We welcome post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles, subject to review by the Signpost team; we value our readers' efforts to correct simple mistakes and provide needed clarifications." While looking into this a bit more, I noticed this dummy spit on the Signpost talk page by Tony. Graham87 13:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I too welcome copy-editing and have made tweaks to published pieces. I don't, however, welcome changes in style or vocabulary just because someone prefer other words. Again, I took about half of Tony1's changes on board. The others were arbitrary, or just wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie, I too thought Beyond My Ken made a very good point about the byline. But the thing is, Headbomb didn't seem to agree with that point, since they replied "It's one thing to want to copy-edit it, I've merged many of their suggestions". That was why I didn't mention BMK's point. My view, then, is more specifically that if Headbomb didn't want to be copyedited, that should be respected — but they seemed to not object to it. And "Go to hell" still isn't a PA. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

Oh right, well in that case this looks like a plain ol' content dispute to me. So yeah, Tony shouldn't have over-reacted, Headbomb should have brushed it off (cf. WP:NPA "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact." and not coming running to ANI over it. Overall, this looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FUCKSCONTEXT, "fuck off" definitely can be sanctionable: "most of us agree that 'fuck off' is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions". Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

Contrary to some views expressed above, I think that telling a fellow editor to "go to hell" is incivil and a personal attack; it is unacceptable conduct under any circumstances. Considering that Tony1 has not replied to this thread, and has instead attempted to justify their conduct, I am blocking them to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct. Considering that they have a long block log for similar conduct, and that the last block for personal attacks or harassment (in 2019) had a duration of 2 weeks, I have set the duration of the block to 2 weeks also. As far as I am concerned, administrators are free to act on an unblock request by Tony1 that contains a credible commitment not to repeat such conduct. Sandstein 13:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein, I believe this is the correct response. However I must say that if I was reverted (like [4]) then I would also be upset. Tony1's version was superior is most regards and he should have been thanked not reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I must stress that I took on about half the changes Tony1 made, changes that went well beyond fixing dashes, like the edit summary said. The other half were all arbitrary or just plain wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm "Contrary to some views expressed above, I think that telling a fellow editor to "go to hell" is incivil and a personal attack" So you unilaterally blocked somebody when you knew there was no consensus to do so and multiple editors opposed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should tolerate editors telling people to go to hell? Because I don't. We are trying to develop a collegiate and collaborative atmosphere — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not really, but equally the way to deal with the situation is to de-escalate it, which this doesn't do. cf. WP:NPA "However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project .... Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Given Tony's history particularly with Signpost, do you truly believe that this type of behavior will not continue? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If telling someone to go to hell isn't a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, nothing is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to Ritchie333's concerns above regarding lack of consensus to block, I would like to point out two things: First, blocks (like unblocks) do not require consensus. Second, the conduct at issue does not only violate community conduct policies, but also the Foundation-level code of conduct, which is not subject to local community consensus. This UCoC prohibits harassment, defined as "any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome", notably insults, as in this case. All editors and administrators are required to observe this policy. According to the enforcement guidelines, "Consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC" and "Refusal to enforce the UCoC" may result in Foundation-level enforcement action. In my view, a failure by administrators to act on the report by Headbomb would constitute a refusal to enforce the UCoC. A block was therefore required irrespective of local consensus (or lack thereof). Sandstein 14:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Are you equating "administrators not blocking in response to a report" with "a failure by administrators to act on the report " and hence "a refusal to enforce the UCoC"? That doesn't make sense to me unless one regards blocking as the only possible response to a report. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I really dislike this interpretation of the interpretation of not blocking. I saw this thread posted as I was lying in bed last night, and decided to just turn off my tablet rather than posting or taking any action. Even had I thought it deserved action (I didn't), all of us have been admins long enough to know not to do anything truly controversial before going away for hours. Given how long it was posted, many other admins must have read it and decided to do nothing. Doing nothing is always a possibility with admin tools, so to frame it as a "refusal to enforce the UcoC" and hint at WMF-enforcement action is overkill. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Doing nothing is always a possibility, yes, if only because we are all volunteers here. But opposing appropriate action to protect colleagues from harassment is, in my view, a dereliction of duty. Sandstein 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is a lot of room between doing nothing and blocking! For example, I would have preferred de-escalotory actions. I wouldn't have spoken up if you had blocked and labelled it as justifiable. But your claim that it is "required" by UCoC or any other wikipedia policy is IMO simply wrong. I hope you'll think it over and scratch the last few sentences of your reasoning in your 14:54 post. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  In the light of what I have read in the news today, I find it outrageous to refer to Tony's intemperate message as "harassment". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocks do not require consensus, but it's completely inappropriate to block when there's an admin consensus (i.e. at least two out of three; Graham87 did not register an opinion) against it. Unblock, please, Sandstein. Why do you think your opinion outweighs Ritchie's plus mine? And your subsuming Tony's post under the WMF's definition of "harassment" is also pure unadulterated opinion, with which I, for one, disagree. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen: FWIW I was surprised by the block (the idea never even crossed my mind) but I understand Sandstein's reasoning ... whether I entirely agree with it I'm not sure, given the other text in this section. However, I'd have to recuse from or strongly caveat a !vote of this nature due to my past history with Tony. So count me as still on the fence. Feel free to move my comment or something ... I can never figure out where to place comments like this. Graham87 18:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I encountered this discussion shortly after it was posted, so I'd had a lot of time to think about it. I was going to stay out of the whole thing (as is my usual practice; I'm a perennial lurker) but it seems like clarification of the usual Signpost copyediting practices was necessary. I have no special position with the Signpost but I'm just a long-time reader and dabbler there. Graham87 18:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that there was or is a consensus against the block, notably including my own opinion. Regardless, WP:CIVIL and the UCoC are policies not subject to derogation by local consensus. Administrators have a duty to protect colleagues from harassment, even if other administrators - entirely irresponsibly in this case - disagree. We are all entitled to a safe, collegial working environment, if only because our cooperative project cannot succeed without it. Sandstein 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

^{Non-admin comment} This feels like a legal threat, albeit just waving the only notionally legally enforceable UCoC at us as a threat. I feel chilled. — Trey Maturin™ 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to saying I think this block was excessive. Tony was snippy, sure. He's been snippy in the past, as well, at least based off the block log. I think it just stretches the definition of "harassment" too far to apply it to a single "go to hell" comment. Tony was annoyed at Headbomb and expressed his annoyance in a way that's not at all good, but he wasn't harassing Headbomb, by a reasonable definition. Nor did he cross the line into personal attacks. I guess my rambling point is I can't say Tony was not at fault in making the comment, but that two weeks is too much, IMO. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this particular block, bringing in the UCoC feels like wikilawyering, especially because, as far as I am aware, there is no local consensus that admins actually have authority to enforce it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Unblocked. According to Sandstein, admins who don't support his block are thereby being "irresponsible". OK, in view of the other admin comments here, and after Sandstein's attack on a fast-growing number of his colleagues, and his elevation of his own opinion to a higher plane, I feel completely justified in unblocking without any formality. In a minute, I will unblock Tony1. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

  Good. The UCoC rationale wasn’t acceptable, one Admin’s opinion of it isn’t good enough to block. Perhaps we need an uninvolved Admin to close this. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's more than one admin supporting this block, and in what world do you live that telling people to go to hell over commas isn't a gross/egretious violation of WP:CIVIL and a blockable offense. Please restore it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unless Bishonen self-reverts, any admin restoring the block now would be wheel warring and get dragged off to Arbcom and have their admin tools yanked from them. It's not going to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ha, did you stick out your tongue at the end as well? PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a good deal of merit in Ritchie333's comment about unproductive dialogue, and that's a useful lens with which to view Sandstein's block. On the most favorable view of the block itself and Sandstein's justification for it, the temperature was going to go up, not down. It might be best if everyone disengages. Folks say that Tony1 has a history of being "snippy." It would be better if he relegated that to the past. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For posterity, I absolutely do not believe that the UCOC requires an admin to block an editor for a personal attack. Blocks are just one tool in the toolbox, and to imply that there was really no choice but to block is either rhetorical gamesmanship, or a serious misunderstanding. I'm very confident I would not have blocked in this situation. I probably would have chickened out and not unblocked either, but that's out of a lack of stomach for arguing, not a disagreement with the unblock. There is much on both sides of the rest of this discussion that puzzles/bemuses me, but I'll leave that for others. But the mian point is, while we're apparently bound by the UCOC, it does not require a block as the only solution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

... and back to the main issue

I went back and had a look at some of the previous threads discussing Tony1's conduct, in particular Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive73#Reviewing approach adopted by User:Tony1 which, looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes today, is just beyond the pale. I also noticed the related ANI thread where I went from thinking a block was excessive to being convinced it was justifiable - although I do note Tony subsequently backed down and was unblocked. I see parallels with that discussion from 2019 and the one today, in that Tony1 seemed to react completely disproportionately and shout abuse at editors for no justifiable reason. I think the principal difference from today, is that this wasn't as egregious as back then, and - importantly - Tony1 has not continued to be abusive; indeed, his last comment before the block today was perfectly civil and polite.

Nevertheless, I don't think this discussion is over as Tony1 hasn't logged on since before the block to give his views and react to it. I hope that he'll ignore it and do something else; however, my fear is that on past experience, that may not happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As a small history lesson from an old-timer who was there back in the day (2005, 2006, 2007), Tony was one of the people that set the current standards for FA, elevating it from what then known as WP:Brilliant Prose and comprising of articles which could today be charitably described as B-Class. It was a transitional phase for wiki; and his (almost singled handedly) asking for/(ok...demanding) clear and precise prose coincided with the then new requirement for inline citations...(getting out my pipe and slippers in remembrance) lead to a very deep, divisive and bitter bloodbaths on a number of fronts. Then Tony's eh..."direct" manner was a *huge* benefit to the project. Nowadays, whether newer nominators know it or not, the FAC writing style is mostly grounded in the series of style guides he laid down early on, eg Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing (which I devoured at the time).

Re the 2019 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive73#Reviewing approach adopted by User:Tony1 archive that Richie mentions above; I though that was a disgrace at the time: if people are going to nom at FAC, they need to expect to be judged by FAC standards. Does Tony need to tone down: yes. Since Richie brings up FAC: are skilled reviewers like Tony still needed? Yes. To quote the closing FAC co-ord on that spat - "A sensible takeaway would have been the message that Tony's reviews are valued but ample consensus that his tone and demeanor are sometimes unhelpful. Unfortunately much of what's been said here isn't sensible or helpful." (emp mine). Disclosure: I consider both Tony and Richie as wiki-friends. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

A skilled reviewer also possess basic human interaction skills. I'd rather suffer a stray comma than a deluge of incivility and insults. And let's not forget that Tony1 is human. He too makes mistakes, and his opinions are not binding on the project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but its where we disagree. I'm always grateful for a skilled copy edit which I tend not to blind revert and then rush to AN/I over a single talk page blowback. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Again for the eleventy billionth time, this was not blindly reverted. I merged about half of Tony's copy edits, when he weirdly reverted me to remove them all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You blind reverted....the edit summary was "This goes well beyond dash fixing, but i'll copy edit some". A person that was actually interested in working to improve wording would have engaged him after his first talk post (easy); somebody uninterested and defensive would have rushed to AN (hard, lead to a block and drama). Again, I disagree with that kind of approach. Dunno, might be an ability to work with other people thing. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you think "but i'll copy edit some" means here? Followed by the merging of about 50% of the copy edits?

Additionally if someone tells you to go to hell of something as trivial as that, you cannot have reasonable discourse with them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Look, you've always been somebody I respected, maybe even somebody have seen as *wise* over the years!:)!! but this seems like over-reaction tbh, that could have been resolved easily with either of ye engaging on a talk pg discussion. This is one of those I hate it when people I respect fight situations...so go figure. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

To move this on, good unblock by Bishonen, with no prejudice to Headbomb. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Minor correction: "Brilliant prose" was renamed in January 2004 but Tony's first edit was in July 2005. Graham87 08:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I understand from personal experience that it can be very unpleasant when someone shows up at your talkpage with a needlessly belligerent, combative attitude. And, whether or not Tony's comment constituted a literal personal attack on the semantic level, it was undeniably uncivil. If I had said those words to another editor, I would fully expect to be blocked even though, unlike Tony, I've never been sanctioned for personal attacks. So, while I have doubts about the manner in which the block was applied (the UCOC bit seems especially unhelpful), it's hard for me to see how that comment didn't warrant some kind of sanction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

To move this to a conclusion...

...as Tony1 won't comment here.

1. Was Sandstein's block against consensus?: There is no consensus that consensus was required in a discussion seeking consensus for action against Tony.
2. Is "Go to hell" a pa?: Yes!
3. Is Tony1 saying "Go to hell" a pa?: No!
4. Uncivil?: Ok
5. Is being uncivil prohibited by policy and terms of use?: Yes!
6. Is Tony1's uncivil behaviour blockable?: No!
7. Is Tony1's uncivil behaviour sanctionable?: We'll let you know.
8. Is "Go fuck off" a pa?: Depends on which side you are facing when you are told so.
9. Can we all fuck off and close this discussion as whatever has happened has happened?: Please don't block me. Remember, context is important.

On a serious note, let's all move on from here. Tony1 is a great editor, but should learn that he can't simply say these statements repeatedly. It'll be sad to lose him as an editor due to a community sanction, if he continues like this. Thanks, Lourdes 08:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, during this thread and before I was aware of the further blowout at ArbCom, I issued a "thanks" (via the button) to Headbomb for his edit to the article Clinical trial. It was a good edit I coincidentally happened upon, and I thought it was a nice thing to do given how this has gone crazy-nuclear. I overreacted at the time we were both annoyed at each other, and it's a good feeling to calm the waters—even the smallest kindness is worth it. Needs to melt away so we can all get on with our tasks. Tony (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tony1: what's wrong with Spintendo's edits here? SN54129 13:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

User Flowersjulie

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

---

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

Not sure what I have done to them but ... - take a look at their edits. not sure how to describe this? Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

They have been blocked as a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Gbawden (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting second pair of eyes at User:Movaigonel‎

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

I've handed a second escalating block to Movaigonel for repeated violation of WP:GS/AA Remedy A. I would appreciate further admin input here, particularly to a) assess whether an indefinite block or tban is needed and b) field further appeals by Movaigonel, as while I am fully uninvolved in editing any of the related pages except as administrative responses, Movaigonel is likely to interpret further enforcement of the general sanctions restriction as an attempt to suppress their political perspective and will likely respond better to other editors. With that in mind, I went with the most-lenient option of an escalating 2-week block, although I think normally in such situations I would seriously consider handing out a broader and/or indefinite sanction for jumping back into prohibited BATTLEGROUND behavior so soon after coming off of a prior block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I have EC Protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Salyan per WP:GS/AA and dropped Movaigonel‎ a note reiterating the points you already made, just so that they don't imagine that it's just "one person's opinion". Don't see any issues with your blocks etc, except for the small bureaucratic matter that {{uw-aeblock}} may not be the correct template to use for WP:GS/AA enforcement (I don't offhand know what would be the appropriate template). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Template:Gs/sanction? Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that's for an editing restriction. For a block it should be Template:Uw-csblock. Courcelles (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the prefect fit. Although since the topic area is also covered by WP:ARBAA2, Rosguill issuing the block as an AE block is also justified. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, enforcing the overlapping sanctions (AA, as well as GSRUSUKR being a subset of ARBEE) makes figuring out where to log a coin-flip. As to the editor in question, I kind of think someone should have invoked the Arbcom version of the sanctions and just topic-banned them. Given they are aware. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to do so as far as I am concerned, particularly following their more recent talk page responses that demonstrate an attitude of negligence towards reading up on our rules for editing A-A topics. I'm standing down because it feels like too many bites at the apple from me, and because while I could be justified in saving the community time by enacting a topic ban now, they are much more likely to challenge such a ban if I impose it, which would waste more community time whether or not the outcome is to uphold the ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz

This page has been on several noticeboards throughout the years, for COI, OR, SYNTH, PAID, etc. Here's an old discussion from ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#Shmuly_Yanklowetz. I don't know what else can be done but thought some more eyes on this would be appropriate. Right now the page reads as a hagiography. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies backlog

After this backlog report back in April, I've been working through the rather lengthy backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, with some reports going back January of this year. There's currently 8 cases that I've flagged for administrator assistance for blocks (mix of range and single IP blocks), and I'd appreciate it if someone with the mop could help out with those. I've already done most of the hard work, I just don't have the tools to actually press the shiny block button. There's also 7 cases where I've asked for a second opinion, and if you have experience in this area I'd appreciate if those could be given a look at. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore and userfy pages created by The Train Master

If the pages that were deleted under G5 as created by socks of The Train Master could be restored to my user space please? I'd like to work on and improve them, and I'll take responsibility for the original work of the banned user. I'm particularly interested in the articles about stations on the Lackawanna Cut-Off, since with those deletions that line is now fragmented in terms of coverage on Wikipedia where some stations are covered and some aren't, meaning it's impossible to "travel" the line in sequential/directional order by browsing WP articles. However if there are any other articles related to other train stations that would have a ghost of a chance of being improved to mainspace standards, I'll take a look at those too. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)