Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	32	0	32
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	11	0	11
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	104	0	104
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 122 sockpuppet investigations
• 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 110 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 117 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 (30 out of 7662 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees Uttar Pradesh 2024-05-04 04:45 indefinite edit,move raise to indef ECP per request at RFPP and review of protection history Daniel Case StoneToss 2024-05-04 04:12 2024-08-04 04:12 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Palestinian key 2024-05-04 04:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of national symbols of Palestine 2024-05-04 04:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Disinvestment from Israel 2024-05-04 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-05-03 18:04 2024-05-12 05:38 edit,move raised to ECP as one disruptive user is autoconfirmed Daniel Case Shakespeare authorship question 2024-05-03 14:22 indefinite edit Article name was changed without consensus SouthernNights Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) 2024-05-03 02:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ze'ev Jabotinsky 2024-05-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Yamla Khwaja Naksh 2024-05-02 19:21 2024-05-09 19:21 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Colombia–Israel relations 2024-05-02 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R animal with possibilities 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2524 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Malay name 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Tiger Reth 2024-05-02 14:17 2025-05-02 14:17 create Repeatedly recreated GB fan Palestinian self-determination 2024-05-02 11:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in US higher education 2024-05-02 09:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in Columbia University 2024-05-02 09:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Somaliland 2024-05-02 05:29 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; going back to ECP and will log at CTOPS Daniel Case Battle of Ocheretyne 2024-05-02 04:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 University of California, Los Angeles pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-02 04:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:MC Stan (rapper) 2024-05-01 17:40 2024-11-01 17:40 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Lisa Fithian 2024-05-01 16:48 2024-05-15 16:48 edit,move Dweller Brizyy (Singer) 2024-05-01 14:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Randykitty 2023 in Israel 2024-05-01 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Cliff Cash 2024-05-01 11:14 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip 2024-05-01 06:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Johnuniq Thomas Kaplan 2024-04-30 20:37 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry Moneytrees Nothing 2024-04-30 18:18 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: Something: upgrade to WP:ECP due to disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C 2024 Israeli protests 2024-04-30 18:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

Request to re-open Georges Feydeau infobox RFC

This a request to reopen an RFC and allow it to run longer, because:

• Legobot tagged the RFC on September 29; the DNAU was dated Nov. 3 (tomorrow).
• On October 30, further input was requested at VPR
• That day, 2 editors voted (including me)
• On October 31, 4 editors voted
• On November 1, 1 editor voted
• On November 2, 1 editor voted
• Five hours later, the RFC was closed as "no consensus."
• The closer wrote, "It's right to close it now," but I disagree. There is no rule that says an RFC must be closed after 30 days, and this one was still attracting new participants daily -- this is contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE
• Of the 8 new votes that had come in after the VPR posting, 5 were "yes" and 3 were "no," so this was trending towards consensus, rather than away from it.
• The final tally at closure was 18 yes, 13 no, or 58% in favor (18/31).

Aside from being closed too early, I think the closing statement itself does not meet the standards for closing statements, because:

• It provided no explanation for how it arrived at a no-consensus result -- as WP:CLOSE says, "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This closing statement didn't do that.
• The closing statement did not summarize, or even identify, any arguments, on either side
• It did not weigh any votes, although some votes seemed to lack any meaningful rationale (such as the final one)
• It did not count the votes (if you think that sort of thing matters)
• What it did was simply assert "no consensus," and then write a generic description of how WP:ONUS works after a no-consensus RFC.

Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow WP:CLOSE or WP:ACD, I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"It did not count the votes. See Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote". Given there was no consensus in the weight of the arguments (based on policy and guidelines), the "trending towards consensus" claim is a straw man. Vote counting has never had a place on WP.

In your little chronology, you missed the point that Legobot removing expired RFC template on 29 October after thirty days, so it's already run over a fair period already. The advertisement at VPR on 30 October was the second time it had been advertised at that venue, the first time being on 29 September. Is creating more heat and dramah and dragging out a timesink rfc really beneficial? It wasn't on 30 October (when I requested a close at WP:RFCL, and I doubt it is now either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closer: Levivich gives me two substantive points to respond to.

1. I closed the discussion prematurely. No, I didn't. That discussion had gone on for more than the requisite amount of time. It was eligible to be closed. With AfDs, there's a deplorable tendency to relist them when they don't reach consensus, but RfCs aren't the same; they're 30 day discussions that suck up a lot of volunteer time. We only want them relisted in exceptional circumstances. The "trending towards consensus" argument reduces to "if you'd closed it at a different time you might have got to the result I wanted".
2. I didn't say how I got to "no consensus", and I didn't summarise the arguments, and I didn't count the !votes, and I simply asserted that the outcome was no consensus, all of which are just the same point said four different ways. The arguments reduce to "Infoboxes are useful" and "The infobox information is redundant to the first paragraph". Editors cited no policy or guideline that says we should or shouldn't have infoboxes, because no such policy or guideline exists. It's just an aesthetic judgment.

Changes to an article need consensus; the consensus wasn't there; and at some point we have to draw a line under it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closed when !votes were still coming in, better to re-open it now and let that continue to see if a consensus can develop. nableezy - 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". If anyone does decide to open a new RFC right now, it would be disruptive in the extreme. Those that care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist ahave had ample opportunity to comment on it in the previous 30 days. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.

Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "Clusterfuck" one of those bird names they're trying to change? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a strong reason to reverse this closure. S Marshall is correct in that there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox; as such, infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, and there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. Under the circumstances 18/31 is on the border between weak consensus and none, and I cannot fault a finding of no consensus. Aside; this is why the infobox CTOP designation should remain in force. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to "badger opposes", but I'd like to respond to there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. While it's true there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox, there is also no clear-cut policy on whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:N is a guideline. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when a close should be overturned. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an information page. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when to use WP:IAR, which is probably the least clear-cut of all policies. But in all these situations, we weigh votes based on strength of arguments. Why shouldn't we weigh votes based on the strength of arguments in infobox discussions?

  If there were a clear-cut policy, we wouldn't need to consider strength of arguments at all, because the policy would be clear, and all we'd have to do is apply it. Strength of arguments is exactly what we need to look at when we're talking about anything that doesn't have a clear-cut policy. It makes no sense to me that we should approach it as: (a) if there is a policy, apply it, or (b) if there is no policy, take a headcount. That seems to be the very opposite of WP:NOTAVOTE.

  I submit that there are good arguments for, and against, having an infobox, and editors make such arguments in every infobox RFC (though not every editor), and you can see examples on both sides in the RFC at issue here.

  On the other hand, if we accept that infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, why is 18/31, 58%, on the border? Is "consensus" 60%? Why not 51%? Is that in any clear-cut policy, guideline, info page, or anything?

  Finally, if we accept that it was on the border between weak consensus and none, and there were new votes coming in daily, isn't that exactly the reason to leave the RFC open, because it's on the border, so a few more votes could make a difference, one way or the other? Levivich (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, with respect, you're splitting hairs between policy narrowly construed in Category:Wikipedia policies, and policy broadly construed, meaning documented principles. We have documented policies and guidelines about notability. On infoboxes, we don't. We therefore have no basis to weigh votes besides setting aside entirely off-topic or ad hominem commentary: strength of argument is based on policy, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And you're quite wrong that clear guidelines obviate the need for discussion; we have tons of guidelines about notability, yet AfDs remain contentious.

  As to the timing issue that BK49 raises below (I appreciate the note, Barkeep, I agree it's rare for us to disagree) I wouldn't necessarily object to this RfC being open for longer, but I don't see a strong reason to extend it purely on the basis that comments were still coming in. Infoboxes are contentious on Wikipedia, and contentious topics draw attention, especially if the RfCs are advertised widely long after they've begun. If we left the average AMPOL RfC open until comments stopped coming, we'd never close most of them. TL;DR: after the 30-day timeframe has long lapsed, I don't see a handful of new comments being enough to overturn an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  strength of argument is based on policy I think it can also be based on principles, practice, and/or logic. I don't think the three options are WP:PAGs, off-topic, or ad hominem. (And I'd suggest our notability guidelines, though voluminous, are not clear.) Levivich (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rare is when I find myself so disagreeing with Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. and it later says Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days... so our RFC information clearly contemplates situations where longer than 30 days would be an appropriate length. With the post to the Village Pump it was no longer clear that consensus wouldn't be achieved and so leaving it open for a few more days to see if that was the case, or not, would have been appropriate. However, given that momentum behind that will have evaporated by the time this thread reaches conclusion, I think this harm can't be cured. But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been closed at that time in my opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.

  I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.

  I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it continues it will be disruptive and can be dealt with as such. I know you've made at least one difficult close in the past on this matter and have a better awareness of the arguments than many, so are in a good position to take a measured approach looking both forward and back. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Impatient?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - Closing discussions is difficult enough and rehashing this does little to help anyone. My comment today wasn't to overturn or challenge this close but to ask the closer to remove the part of the close that admonished me for extending the RFC. I didn't violate any rules by extending the RFC and per WP:RFC it's perfectly reasonable thing to do to find consensus. Plus, it was working to get more comments. Most of the RFC infobox discussions over the past year have ended in consensus inclusions. The few that have not have been close and they suffered from the type of "flood the zone" commentary from both sides that was wisely observed by nableezy. The wall of text responses in the survey do little to change minds and only discourage others to comment. This particular RFC appeared to be contentious as soon as it started. The exact same scenario is playing out in a similar RFC that started a couple of days ago. I would encourage the participants on both sides to dial it back. If you are unable to find common ground speak your piece and move on. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) I agree with Barkeep, who already wrote out a bunch of words, so I'll keep it simple. When new editors are continuing to join an RFC it's not ripe yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Fwiw, the exact opposite happened here on James Joyce and complaints were made when more !votes trickled in before the 30 day period expired. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved), the text of the close goes in-depth on the closer's reasoning. Seems like a fair and well described close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - The RFC was opened for over a month & it was time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Bad Close (uninvolved) Having an absolutist fixed set time view as the closer suggests is a no bureaucracy violation, and as comments were still coming in, the close rightfully should have been forestalled. Moreover, the stated rationale for the jump to close makes little sense, because that RfC was taking basically no effort by the community as a whole, and it takes very little effort and mere minutes to leave a comment there. It is neither a complicated, nor unfamiliar matter for the community to deal with, and is in total a small content editing decision. So, this close wrongfully interfered with community consensus gathering by cutting it off while the community was commenting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: In the RfC I suggested the article would benefit from an infobox. The closure went against my suggestion. But I'd find it truly pathetic were I to offer an opinion here! The two sides are already split along the lines they chose in the RfC. The Ayes to the infobox find the closure premature or otherwise problematic; the Nays find nothing wrong with it. I'd suggest, although I suspect this is how it's going to play out anyway, that only the opinions of uninvolved editors should be taken into account. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In the last two years, of the 14 infobox RfCs I've reviewed (that's all that I'm aware of), only 2 have failed to find consensus against inclusion, and those two look far more similar to this discussion than any of the ones which succeeded. The 2013 ArbCom decision states that editors should "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and MOS:INFOBOXUSE makes clear that the discussion regarding infobox inclusion or exclusion is a page-specific content decision. Since 2021 closers of these discussions have generally not weighed general comments highly, with more weight given to arguments which focus on the specific attributes of the infobox proposed based on the article state and information available at the time (see Ian Flemming for an overview of this argument and Calude Debussy for a no-consensus example of its application). The arguments against in this RfC generally focused on the specific state of the article and proposal: there wouldn't be much information in the infobox and the little information there would be is found in the first sentence. The comments in favor of an infobox were rather general, and the late-breaking supports especially focused on how infoboxes were generally useful to readers rather than how this one helped this article specifically. Those kinds of comments are not weighed highly. We weren't having a referendum on whether infoboxes are generally useful, so keeping it open longer for more comments which don't address the main oppose argument doesn't help form consensus. Closing it after the usual 30 days and in line with precedent on infobox discussions is perfectly acceptable so I see no reason to overturn. On the merits, it adequately sums up the discussion and correctly interprets it through the lens of existing policy, so I see no reason to overturn on those grounds either. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Closure was reasonable. Additional push for input toward the end of the traditional 30 days probably wasn't ideal and additional input that came in because of it shouldn't be sufficient to hold off closure--otherwise it makes RfCs too easy to game. But most importantly, it seems very unlikely that the proposal was going to get consensus. And for the record, given control of the issue, I'd have included the infobox, so the outcome isn't how I'd have !voted, but the close is how I'd have closed. 04:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closure Marshall's close was nuanced, analytical, policy-based and ultimately a fair assessment of consensus. I took no part in the discussion. ——Serial 13:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I am an advocate for infoboxes and I personally think that a majority of articles, longer than a few sentences, will have one sooner or later. It's the trend and with good reason, although I agree there is an issue with the content of infoboxes they do serve a purpose for readers that need quick info neatly compiled in a list and don't want to parse through an article to find it. However, one size does not fit all, also, one size does not fit all. I'm endorsing the close partly because there was clearly no consensus in this case, and this case is all that need be considered. As a side note, these discussions always turn into this because one side or the other refuses to acknowledge their contribution to it's lingering negative affects. The incivility in these discussions exhibited by both sides only serve to discredit both sides. There is no winner whether the outcome benefits one side or the other. I admire, respect and truly care about many of the editors involved that I have been fortunate to get to know through discussions and all involved are part of my community. I wish we could have infobox discussions where we genuinely discussed the article at hand and didn't resort to drudging up past block history or staunchly clutching to the same reasons for or against infoboxes. If there was less immediate vitriol more editors might be inclined to get involved with reasoned discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close/disagree with conclusion !votes were 19-13 in favor of keeping the infobox from what I saw (feel free to correct my math if I'm in error). When the majority want a change and it's denied, it's antithetical to the consensus-building process. This is a binary decision keep it or don't. Several "no"s were "it shouldn't be required" and such opinions could be discounted as that was not the proposal. The idea that we have to have our almighty WP:Consensus needs to be tempered with the reality of effectively endorsing the minority viewpoint. In this manner, Wikipedia is tone-deaf and seems to miss the basic democratic principles upon which such knowledge contained within it has flourished. Such actions drive away users because "I was here first" takes precedence over "what most people want to do" and stifles creativity/development over the opinions of gatekeepers who routinely obfuscate advancement. I'm not saying the closer here specifically has that intent (I can't possibly know that nor would I impugn their character over complete speculation). My point is that it is not wise to do so. Buffs (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Principles of timing discussion closes

I've been trying to extract the principles that underlie Levivich's, Nableezy's and Barkeep's dissents here, and I think their basic position is that consensus is better than no consensus. (Am I being fair?) They're saying I should have waited to close because consensus might have formed, and if I understand them right, then I actually disagree with them at a philosophical level. On a philosophical level, I think that where there isn't a consensus, we shouldn't try to make one happen. We certainly shouldn't wait for a moment when consensus appears and then pounce. I think that we should close the discussions before us when they're eligible to be closed and participants who want them closed, and if there isn't a consensus there at that time, then as a matter of principle we should close it then and there as "no consensus". If I'm wrong -- if it's actually right to use timings to engineer or construct a marginal consensus out of a no-consensus outcome -- then we need to write that up and put it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions because it's nowhere to be found there!—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is on that page, WP:WHENCLOSE, last two bullets. In this case, second bullet point, discussion was not slowing down, it was picking up (8 new participants in the four days prior to the close, including one on the day of, and one the day before), and, third bullet point, further discussion would have been useful because it was trending towards, not away, from consensus (the majority in favor over the course of those 4 days got larger, 5/8 is 62.5% in favor, and the discussion in tots ending up at 58% in favor at the time of close, which is either consensus, or close to it, depending on your view).

Continued new participation + further participation would make a difference = keep it open, per WHENCLOSE. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you're entirely missing my point.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I am. I'm also missing Vanamonde's point about strength of arguments above. This seems clear to me for the reasons I've said above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its if there is a chance of a consensus developing it is better to let that happen than to close it on some timeline, and if there are people still coming in to comment then there is still a chance of a consensus developing. I dont really care which way this goes tbh, I have zero interest in the infobox wars or the "content creators" vs the "wikignomes" or any of the other battle lines that appear to exist here. But just on a process question, if things are looking like more time will potentially lead to a consensus, then it is better to allow that to happen than to close it as no consensus. Its why we relist things. nableezy - 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let me help you with that. We agree that the key paragraphs are the last two bullets of WP:WHENCLOSE. They read:

• When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
• When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.

You understand that to mean I should have left the discussion open.

Well, on the first of those bullets, we haven't reached the point where the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing, but we've certainly got to the point where the same editors are repeating themselves. There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus.

On the second, the further contributions are definitely unhelpful. Infobox decisions are straight up votes. I can tell that you're amazed and horrified by this fact, but it's how it is. Arbcom has specifically asked the community to come up with a guideline or at least a set of principles about infoboxes but after the last lot of infobox wars, nobody had the stomach to start the RfC. Everyone was either sick of it or topic banned.

I don't get why I should care that it was "trending towards consensus". It's not my job to find a consensus. It's my job to read, understand, think, and decide if there's a consensus or not. I make that determination at the time.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think both SchroCat and Dronebogus should have been formally warned for their suboptimal behavior in that discussion. In fact I started to fill out the paperwork to do so but decided I wouldn't have had the time to defend the action in the following days so I didn't take that action. I was getting ready to take SchroCat to AE for continuing that less than optimal behavior in this discussion but then he left me a friendly and productive talk page message and so I decided to try responding there in a softer approach. But that sub-optimal behavior doesn't change that that new and productive comments were being left - it is my opinion that the comments from October 30th on were collectively quite productive. I think this idea that we need 30 days to find consensus was a bad mindset for you to have had when approaching this close. Consensus can, and often is, found faster than 30 days even in an RFC and there are times - and this is one - where consensus might take longer than 30 days to find. The goal of an RfC is to gauge what the community thinks about a specific issue not to have a time limited discussion. Hopefully, there consensus can be found. If it can't it should be closed as such, but yes you shouldn't prioritiize some 30 day deadline over the finding of consensus, which is exactly what the information pages tell you to do. I think you misapplied those principles when doing this close and sadly that misapplication has caused a harm that we can't easily fix just by reopening. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

^ I agree with this, and would add: it should matter that it was "trending towards consensus" because any closer's job, first and foremost, is to not get in the way of consensus by closing too soon--exactly what WHENCLOSE says.

I don't really care about this infobox or infoboxes in general, either, but what I do care about is that individual editors do not singlehandedly shut down productive discussions by other editors. I care that closers don't start closing things just because 30 days have passed when new participants are joining the conversation. If we don't wait for discussions to run through before closing them, we short-circuit the consensus-building process. This is especially true when the close is "no consensus" -- what is the point of closing a discussion as "no consensus" if it's still ongoing? What good does that gain? There is a perception amongst some that stopping discussion is a good thing. I disagree, strongly. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Building off what Levivich says here, one thing I wish more closers would do is distinguish between "no consensus" and "consensus against". In any number of RfCs there is a consensus against something which is absolutely as valuable to know as if there is consensus for something but it's instead closed as "no consensus". But that's a periphery concern to the facts of this case where the outcomes were realistically going to be either consensus for or no consensus and a couple days more of participation could, and should, have let us know which was the true opinion of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If the community agrees with you and Levivich, then what edit would we make to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to summarize these points?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

None. I think you didn't properly apply what is already there in WP:WHENCLOSE: it was too soon, it wasn't stable, and further contributions were likely to be helpful. If the community agrees that the timing wasn't correct - and I will note that of the editors discussing that point a significant number of editors seem to agree, with Vanamonde offering the most strident defense of timing as opposed to the overall content of the close which I don't object to - I hope the outcome of this will be for you to factor that feedback into your future decisions about when you close a discussion. Of course Levivich has already said the outcome he wants - for the discussion to be reopened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I think it's clear, my answer is also "none," but I'd put the question back to you, S Marshall: what words, had they been written at WP:Closing discussions, would have caused you to conclude "not yet time to close" for this particular RFC on Nov 2? Personally, I generally don't think bright-line rules are helpful, so I wouldn't be in favor of anything like "X days with no new comments," and I think the current description on the page is clear enough, but not everyone agrees with that, so perhaps there is some other/additional language that would clarify it, that isn't a bright-line rule. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's surprising that you'd to ask me to write the words that justify your view when I don't agree with you... but okay, let's try it.

Straight votes: In rare cases, the community needs to make a decision about which no policies or guidelines are germane. These tend to be aesthetic judgments, such as which of two photographs to use, or whether the article should have an infobox. Before deciding to treat a discussion as a straight vote, the closer should make sure that nobody has cited a germane policy or guideline in the discussion, and should then use their personal knowledge and searches to make sure that no policy or guideline is germane. Where the matter is a straight vote, try to avoid a "no consensus" outcome. You should instead leave the discussion unclosed until the !votes swing one way or the other.—S Marshall T/C 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Break: "Manage the conflict"

The Gnome, I've inserted a break here as this is a separate topic from the RFC close, which warrants further examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• S Marshall|, you wrote "There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus." I wouldn't know about such an opportunity. What I do know is that the recommendation in WP:BLUDGEON is treated with a lot of indifference by everyone, including administrators. When a discussion develops into a conflict, then, more often than not, the reason is that one or more contributors are permitted to attempt and force their point of view by the sheer volume of their comments. For instance, SchroCat was twice warned they're all over RfC, bludgeoning the discussion, once by yours truly, but the admonition to allow others to contribute was ignored. (Schrocat even came to my talk page to accuse me of "incivility".) I strongly believe that the discussion would have proceeded much better, irrespective of conclusion, if the noise was forced down. -The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  You made only one less comment that me in the !vote section, including the disgusting comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological". That was followed up by Dronebogus's comments "SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive". And I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions was supposed to mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did write that. I'm not the civility police: as a discussion closer, I do content, not conduct. All I do is determine what the community thinks about something and write it up. Anyone can see that a conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus exists but that's conduct. It's for uninvolved sysops to determine the rights and wrongs, i.e., not me.

  Having said that, the conflict touches on my role because of how it affects discourse. Infoboxes are a designated contentious topic and they generate one heck of a lot of RfCs, so if two prolific editors are often arguing about infoboxes, then it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for that conflict to be managed.

  You've mentioned WP:BLUDGEON and measured it in terms of the number of comments someone writes in a discussion. I don't measure it in those terms, though. Consensus-seeking editors talk to each other. They reply to each other's points. Each tries to understand the other's position and address their arguments and that's awesome and it's what a request for comment is for. And some editors are passionate about their subject, which is one of the things about Wikipedians that I find most endearing. I'm a discussion closer because I rather enjoy reading such conversations. And let's remember that WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or guideline, although it is certainly widely cited.

  I'm saying that the number of contributions someone makes to a discussion isn't a problem. Where editors talk about each other and restate their own positions while ignoring the other's points, that's the problem.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, that was the case in that discussion, i.e. editors talking about each other and restating their own positions time and again, as in parallel monologues. The epithets flew! The above missive by Schrocat is indicative of the discussion's tone - and still believes the comment was about them, which would be funny under other circumstances. Your point about passion in Wikipedia and extensive discussions finds me in agreement, the latter of course only if long discussions are constructive and educational. The whole kerfuffle rendered an admin's intervention critical, in my opinion. (And I don't think being a "closer" affects such an intervention.) Finally, WP:BLUDGEON is a very useful recommendation, which is why, as you also note, is so often invoked. In any case, I simply wanted to submit this remark for potentially a future consideration. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I took the time yesterday to step back through the diffs of this dispute (because it's always instructive to see how something unfolded in real time, which can give a better impression than just reading what remains on the page).

The dispute began as the article was featured on the main page – a high activity, high stress day for any FA – with the first callous arrogant post (followed rapid fire by someone who should know better than to launch such a proposal on TFA day). The misrepresentations of what happened at this article (in a recurring pattern [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ), the pretentions of innocence on this page, and the lack of adminning of issues that would be sanctionable even without two arbcases and a contentious topic designation, are astonishing. That the goading, failure to confine comments to the specific merits of an infobox on this specific article, and doubling-down without striking of personal attacks (sanctionable even without CTOP) have not been adminned – and the issue has been reduced to the idea of a "conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus" – does serious disservice to all that actually happened here. Clearly unacceptable personal attacks,[6] [7] [8] only partially struck,[9] and goading that precipitated those personal attacks,[10] [11] [12] haven't been adminned in spite of CTOP restrictions in place, and there is a one-sided representation on this page of who did what to lead to that.

S Marshall, as a non-admin, did their job in closing the RFC, which was gamed and had no consensus before or after the inappropiate notification, and in which one person followed arbcom guidance on how to discuss merits of infobox inclusion while others didn't (strength of argument was clearly in play, and new feedback was adding more heat than light); S Marshall's job was not to admin behavioral issues, and those who should do that, haven't. On strength of arguments, those against the infobox generally stayed on the topic of this particular article and presented clear reasoning or questions towards seeking consensus without invoking the infobox dispute generally (samples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), while those in favor flaunted the ARBINFOBOX2 reminder to discuss the merits at this article, rather than infoboxes in general, or gave no reasoning at all, or wouldn't engage consensus-seeking questions (samples [20], [21], [22], [23]). SchroCat's intemperate remarks were all struck. There was an edit war that, while unfortunate, raises valid points about the context in which these RFCs have been presented, and how ARBINFO2 has not been enforced by adminning. Outright unacceptable personal attacks (by any definition of civility, "obsessive and pathological") -- goaded by the initial use of the word pathological -- were only partially struck after two independent editors called them out; that remains on the page for every admin who has looked thus far to ignore. A frequent bludgeoner (The Gnome) professes innocence and blames another for bludgeoning-- of which there is no evidence for weeks into the dispute. SchroCat, a word of advice: you must stop taking the bait. You were clearly baited, yet if you hadn't taken the bait, we'd probably see sanctions in place today against a couple of other editors in the dispute.

What doesn't remain on the talk page is how the issue began, pre-RFC, on TFA day, now in archives. Why is someone who can call another editor "obsessive and pathological", in a CTOP area subject to civility restrictions, and then only partially strike that, still allowed to edit in the Infobox topic area? Must we have a third arbcase to examine why the recurring behaviors are being ignored? The bludgeoning came from one who projects innocence, and the blatant personal attacks haven't even been discussed on this page, except to be ignored and labeled as the "above missive by Schrocat" followed by a smiley emoticon when referencing a blatant personal attack (more goading); the presentation of this dispute on this page is not even-handed, leading me to wonder if a third arbcase will be needed to understand why that is happening and to deal with the recurring behaviors, which are a repeat of ARBINFOBOX1. Admins: deal with the misbehavors, and watch the Infobox problem go away. The case before us is not about bludgeoning; it's about blatant flaunting of WP:ARBINFOBOX2 by a very small group of editors.

I suggest a temporary halt to infobox RFCs by involved individuals until these behaviors can be examined before arbcom. I don't see how re-opening this RFC, without dealing first with the misbehaviors, will lead to any different outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus noticed of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And nothing of Tim Riley’s “civil incivility” antics here, with remarks about a “kampfpanzer” directed at a German editor notable for her politeness, “infobox zealots” and “infobox absolutists”? Nothing about WP:OWNership being practiced and denied by editors who vehemently oppose infoboxes on certain articles? Nothing about SchroCat’s laundry list of incivility blocks? About the fact that he basically called me stupid multiple times here and here? Yet everything about civil editors offering opinions you think are invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You are responsible for your own behavior regardless of the actions of others. With no acknowledgement of the problems with your own editing, only more digging in, I see more evidence that we need a new arbcase, with removal of those individuals extending ARBINFOBOX1 and ARBINFOBOX2 from the infobox RFC "battlefield" that has been created, including those doing it "politely" and surreptitiously by proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have admitted my behavior was unbecoming and even offered an apology. I would like to see a similar admission of wrong from the other parties. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, I see. I wasn't aware that discussion had continued after it was closed. I'm happy to see your partial acknowledgement, and sorry to hear of your editing difficulties. I wonder if you see that the discussion might have proceeded differently had you fully retracted all three personal attacks on the original RFC? Or that you appear unaware or ungrateful that you escaped being blocked for those attacks, when you throw up here SchroCat's block log? Would you contemplate -- to reduce your stress and that caused on others -- removing yourself voluntarily from the Infobox RFC campaign for at least a year or two, and removing yourself from the possibility of being exposed to "polite" requests to proxy for other individuals who might not be having the best effect on your editing experience? [24] [25] I suspect that if you focus elsewhere for a while, you will find that a better experience, and ARBINFOBOX3 can be entirely avoided, because there are so very very few editors furthering this ongoing infobox discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt notified of this discussion. [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Have to think about it Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus Thanks for considering it; sometimes things can look so different a few years down the road. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict twice, with the new section below, and then also with the notification above: I compiled the diffs before the notification.)

Diffs then. Two diffs preceding the collection above.

02:53 Infobox added by User:Valentinejoesmith

11:50 Infobox reverted by SchroCat, edit summary "Let's just go back to the PR/FAC version - the talk page awaits if people disagree" - I disagreed, and followed this invitation, and found that Dronebogus had reacted to it before me. Those two reactions to the revert of an infobox are the first two diffs above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I see you referred to above as someone who is "notable for your politeness". As you have dealt with TFA before, and know it can at times turn stressful, do you think it "polite" to launch an infobox proposal-- knowing the likelihood of it turning acrimonious-- on TFA day? And I'm also curious to know if you think you have been acting in the best interests of Dronebogus, who seems to trust you and have taken guidance from you in these infobox matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's past midnight here. I launched nothing. I was provoked by the edit summary of the revert, admitted. Had the revert come with some good reasoning, I'd probably remained silent. Just imagine the revert had not happened ... - I saw a user who was new to me stepping into the kafkaesque field around infoboxes of which they were possibly not aware, and helping them was my intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Allrighty; perhaps we have different definitions of "polite". I wouldn't do that to a fellow TFA participant; I'd instead mention to everyone else that it would be best to hold off on such a discussion until after the article is off the mainpage. My concern that you should remain under infobox sanction remains, especially now having seen the influence exerted on Dronebogus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like the way you’re casting Gerda as a bad influence and enabler because she doesn’t agree with the status quo, which I think she and I both agree is unfair and not reflective of broader community mores. My incivility is the real issue and entirely my fault. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that, but I think there are bad behaviors being modeled throughout. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is good reading; you have been engaging in sanctionable behaviors in infobox discussions supported by diffs months deep and miles long, and those behaviors seem to have been "politely" encouraged by Gerda, which did you no favors.

Gerda Arendt, also, while we're here, maybe you can help me understand your statement that there's only a single-digit number of editors opposed to infoboxes? I'm curious about how that could be, considering the difficulty in finding consensus in discussions, and wondering if that might support my hypothesis that the problem is not so much with infoboxes per se, as the methods that have been used to advance them. If that's the case, it might mean that removing more quickly those editors who further disruption, or maintain lists for going after entire topic areas, or ask others to proxy for them, might solve the whole problem of disruption in this area. If there's really only a handful of editors who oppose, why then do we need to keep seeing the kind of disruption visited upon this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw that question only now. We talk about a comment made in August, and I said "dislike" (not "oppose"), and I meant "dislike enough to revert". Let's look where we are today and be more precise. On my user page, I have - for years - listed the names of articles where I noticed that an infobox was reverted. In 2023, I noticed 14, seven of which have no infobox today. If you follow the article histories you will find that the reverts were made by no more than four users. In 11 cases, I did nothing. For Feydeau, Cosima Wagner and Robert le diable, I posted on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt do you think it might be time for you to stop maintaining lists, which render you "infobox advertising central" and may be serving to further the battleground? If readers and editors really want infoboxes to the extent you say they do, why not let those completely uninvolved in past infobox disputes pursue that without your shepherding and intervention at every turn? I submit that your input had a detrimental effect on Dronebogus, whether or not they recognize that. It seems that Dronebogus got the impression that keeping lists of targeted areas was collaborative editing. And they were going to be the one to end up sanctioned-- not you. Maybe it's time to completely and voluntarily step away from infobox disputes, and remove all lists and references to same ? There are plenty of others who can and will opine if and when they think an infobox helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that infoboxes should never have become battleground, and will do what I can to stop the "wars". I have tried to explain the conflict to a younger generation, and they couldn't understand. In the infoboxes case 10 years ago, I made a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted, because I believe - contrary to some other editors - that removing content is worse than adding it. Those were mostly operas and classical compositions, because the introduction of {{infobox opera}} and {{infobox musical composition}} were the reason why the case was requested. The list was been deleted, regarded as an attack page, in 2016.

Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately. As explained, in most cases I just made a note and did nothing.

I have begun a list of articles where infoboxes were established peacefully. I don't see how that is detrimental to peace.

My advice to Dronebogus is on my talk page (because asked there) for you to check.

I believe that the RfC for Mozart was as close to the centralised discussion that the 2013 arbitrators demanded as we can get: high participation and quality of arguments. That can indeed speak for itself, - there were plenty of others who opined, namely Voceditenore: "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes [27]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [28]. ... The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)"

I think our best approach would be to follow the good advice by Brianboulton: take a fresh look. For peace.

Could you perhaps draft the Infoboxes Accord? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately. And now, in a discussion about canvassing and coordinated editing, we have a proposal to further same privately? I may be very confused, but this seems to be the heart of the ongoing discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How would you describe the present discord? What I see is that a good faith edit was reverted with no better edit summary than status FA. Imagine a better edit summary would have been offered: no discussion, no RfC, no AN thread. 14 articles in a whole year: do you really think we can't do better than claiming this is a war? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would “solve” the problem by, essentially, systematically eliminating the loudest opposition. Not a good look when you’re complaining about “maintaining lists for going after entire topic areas”. I’ve already stated that most editors probably don’t have a problem with infoboxes, but the status quo is so aggressively entrenched that trying to change it inevitably means butting heads with those who passionately support it, which is both draining and leads to anyone who does so being labeled part of some violent radical infobox extremist cell. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I trust her because she actually displays common sense here and is involved in a project that otherwise seems like an anti-infobox advocacy group. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, We are all influenced by and known by the company we keep; your infobox involvement has only led to problems. For your consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And by "common sense", you mean "views that align to your own"? To me, you appear to be suggesting that those with whom you disagree on this subject, lack "common sense". Personal attacks extend to groups of people, remember that. Cassianto^Talk 07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better way to “manage the conflict”?

I think there’s a better way to tone down the infobox wars than dragging every regular who’s done something objectionable to ArbCom and instituting mass sanctions to “make an example of ‘em” and scare contributors into submission (because this is what it would be in practice, no matter how you frame it as “preventative”). I think two simple rules could be implemented: state your argument once and leave and only discuss content if a consensus to include has been formed. Because as discussed above there’s very little actual debate on individual merits— it’s largely an aesthetic preference with some philosophical components added in, and rarely is anyone interested in actually listening to the other side so much as stating the same thing they always say in these arguments over and over (yes that includes me, I feign no innocence). Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes; just stop conducting "infobox wars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They’re going to happen whether I’m involved or not. A simple solution is to stop them from becoming “wars” by making them straight consensus votes with no capacity for back-n-forth sniping. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it. There's only three editors furthering the issue. But you can take me up on my offer, and then open the possibility of "I told you so" a few years down the road :) Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. The best way for an individual editor to deal with infobox wars is to decline to participate in those pointless, time wasting debates. Boycott all those debates which do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Go write or expand an article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I could also argue there’s about the same number maintaining the status quo; the fact that most RfCs do, in fact, end up pro-infobox is telling. I’d rather the opposers just drop the issue and stop fighting against an emerging meta-consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can argue ad nauseum about anything. These debates are an utter waste of time for all concerned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

People act like suppressing infoboxes from certain articles is a free action because it’s the status quo, but it’s not— it has to be enforced by reverting any attempt at adding one and constantly explaining to new users on talk pages why x doesn’t have one. So the status quo is just as much of a waste of time on the whole. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you are unconvinced by my long held view that these debates are a complete and total waste of time. So go ahead, and waste your own time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better way to manage the conflict?

Well, not really, no.

There are three choices. Either (1) everyone manages their own behaviour; or (2) someone else steps in to manage their behaviour; or (3) we leave the behaviour un-managed. (3) is undesirable and (1) isn't happening, so we're at (2). QED.

Those of us who aren't sysops have one tool in our box to help with (2). We can politely remind people that they need to manage their own behaviour. Where that fails us, as in this case, we use our sysops as referee. They deploy the excellent judgment and top class interpersonal skills that RFA is meant to test for and all sysops therefore undoubtedly possess. Where that fails, all we have left is sanctions.

I would suggest to you that the feelings of alienation from and persecution by Wikipedians that you mention are avoidable and your sysop-imposed departure from the project isn't inevitable at all. Never revert anyone, but proceed directly to the talk page; speak your mind mildly and politely; say it once and then move on. Accept that sometimes other people are wrong, and that's okay.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It took a few years for me to learn, it's best to practice 'not repeating' oneself in any RFC, RM, etc. Trying to convince an editor who disagrees with you, will most likely have the opposite effect. Concerning posts in an RFC, RM, etc? Less is more. GoodDay (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Dronebogus (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Query about use of Village Pump Proposals

• Queries for Barkeep49 and Levivich; at the point you made your (initial) posts to this thread, were you aware that the October 30 VPR post followed on a September 30 post of same? How is this not thinly-disguised canvassing or easily gamed (as in, if I haven't yet gotten the result I want, I'll keep cross-posting 'til I do)? And is even the first VPR an appropriate use of VPR; that is, what is the scope of VPR (I was under the impression it was for meta issues, not individual article disputes), and how does repeated use of it for individual articles, rather than issues of broader impact across all articles, not facilitate "asking the other parent" and gaming of the system? I'm truly confused about why we would stall closing an RFC because someone repetitively asks for more feedback, worried about the slippery slope acceptance of that, and wonder how VPR is intended to be used, and how allowing an RFC to continue running as long as people are cross-posting about it elsewhere will not lead to gaming the system, and make anyone reluctant to come in and close an RFC. As a non-admin, I'm not in a position to state whether the close was premature, but S Marshall is a most sensible editor; I'd not want us to be discouraging sensible editors from tackling tough closes, and I'm truly confused about why multiple cross-posts about an individual article isn't gaming the system, and why we want to open that door. Why should VPR be used to canvass editors to infobox discussions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really have an opinion on RFC notifications at VPR. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich ok, just me trying to understand whether VPR was used appropreately in this case, and maybe someone will clue me in, but for your part specifically, when you said in your opening post that "On October 30, further input was requested at VPR", were you aware it was a duplicate of a September 30 post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't remember whether, a month ago, I saw that post on VPR or not. Also, I have no idea where else, besides VPR, this may or may not have been advertised. I only mentioned the Oct 30 VPR post because that is what brought me and other voters (I assume) to vote between Oct 30 and Nov 2, when the RFC was closed, and I'm asking for this RFC to be reopened because there was active voting on the day of, and in the days prior, to the close. I don't mind answering your questions of course, but tbh I don't understand why the earlier VPR post, my thoughts on its propriety, or my awareness of it, is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened because there were new votes coming in. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's me wondering how many times someone can "ask the other parent", and worrying where that will lead if we truly endorse same, and concerned that such a trend will turn VPR in to the go-to place to canvass. Re you in particular, just wanting to doublecheck whether the knowledge of the earlier post changes your initial impression. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't change my view. I think when an RFC is "tied" (or close to it) after 30 days, it's a good idea to advertise for more input. If editors have already invested time into an RFC and it's "on the border" of achieving consensus (like 58%), trying to get more editors to participate is the most efficient route to a clear result. Also, I don't really see how a post to any village pump can be canvassing, so long as it's neutrally-worded, since the village pump isn't an audience with a particular viewpoint. As to VPR being overrun by RFC notices, yeah, that could be a problem, but I don't think that is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, Levivich; now I understand your viewpoint. (And glad you acknowledge my concern about VPR being overrun by RFC notices, but I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if we come to it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong publicizing a RFC on VP per WP:RFCTP. It's particularly strange accusation of "thinly-disguised canvassing." What particular group is being canvased here? Are you opposed to getting more input? Nemov (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCTP says you can post on Village Pump forums "if related to it". Can you explain how a content discussion is "related to" the Village Pump forums? I'm not convinced it's "related to" it enough for posting once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware but I disagree Sandy with your idea that it's thinly disguised canvassing. Both posts meet the criteria laid out in the guideline, with the only questionable piece being the repeated posting. What I think that shows is a belief by Nemov that broader participation will support their POV which may or may not be correct but seems like the kind of action we want to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  They don't meet the criteria. The VP forums are not there to be used for advertising content RFCs. Only RFCs that are "related to" the particular forum should be posted there. We have a feedback request service for advertising RFCs, not every other forum that people think they want to clog up once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're right that content doesn't belong on the Village Pump. However I think, for a number of historical and practical reasons, that I wouldn't label Infobox disputes as purely content ones and this is why I did not find a single notification to a pump objectionable but instead in keeping with the CANVASS guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  We will have to differ on whether it ever appropriate to post to the VP for something that is not supported related to VP activity. It's certainly not justified by the RFC guidelines and I personally think it wholly inappropriate. In this case, if only it were "a single notification": the notification that was put on the VP was left after Legobot removed the RFC tag and after I left a request at WP:RFCL was the second one post on that board about the same RFC. The RFC had run for over 30 days, been on the Feedback Request messaging service and been advertised inappropriately on a VP forum and there was still no consensus before it was inappropriately added to the VP forum for a second time. Disruptive much? However, as it seems that people are not going to bother with the the guidelines at WP:RFCTP, it does now mean that any future IB discussions are likely to see such notifications at other semi- or un-related forums - FAC, etc, is likely to now have such notifications neutrally notifying of the process. I wonder how long it will be before someone is accused of gaming the system by doing just that. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, BK, that answers my question then. It's ten or fifteen years too late now, with the fait accompli accomplished, but it's interesting that posts to WT:FAC and other places were avoided for so many years while IBs were imposed on FAs, as posting there was thought to be a breach of the spirt of canvassing. I've continued my discussion of broader concerns at User talk:SchroCat, as they're beyond the scope of this closure discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  But since we're here at AN, where admins can opine on such things, and because the last Arbcase requested a community-wide discussion of infoboxes, why are (most often, the same) editors being allowed to pursue individual article infoboxes, and not admonished to open the community-wide RFC instead? How is the arbcase not being flouted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind, SchroCat located a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 143#Infobox RFC. And I even participated in it (growin' old ain't for sissies, apologies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of Village Pump Proposals

Back to the concern about how to publicize RFCs, and whether Village Pump Proposals is best used for meta-issues, or should be used for individual article disputes, and why the approach taken here seemed to breach the spirit of the canvassing guideline. If publishing RFCs to VPR is to become the accepted norm, it could overrun Village Pump Proposals when there are other options available to more directly engage editors knowledgeable in a specific content area. WP:RFCTP mentions that RFCs can be publicized on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.

Nemov you have notified VPR of five infobox discussions on four Featured articles, but have never once notified the relevant WikiProjects, which is the place where (theoretically) editors knowledgeable about that specific content area are more likely to congregate, follow or respond. The four FAs all passed FAC without infoboxes. The five articles are:

1. FA Rod Steiger, 21 March, which 3 WikiProjects have tagged, in addition to WT:FAC which could have been notified
2. Colleen Ballinger, 27 April, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged
3. FA Richard Wagner, 11 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC could also be notified
4. FA Felix Mendelssohn, 17 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC
5. FA Georges Feydeau, September 30 and again on October 30, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC

If WikiProjects and other more directly involved pages were approached first, this whole matter would seem much less like a problem waiting to happen, where key pages and players weren't notified, and more like an attempt to reach those editors most likely to understand the content issues, rather than appear only because of a stance on infoboxes. I hope we can agree that moving these acrimonious discussions into the realm of what a useful infobox would convey on a given topic-- rather than just IB yay or nay-- would benefit both the articles and the participants, and that one goal should be to engage those who best know the content and sources. Absent that, it still seems to be that the approach taken on those five articles is more likely only to pull in editors who have strong views about infoboxes, which is likely to continue to result in heated discussions along the lines of yea or nay on IBs, rather than specific benefits to specific articles.

My suggestion continues to be that this was not an appropriate use of VPR, which should be reserved for meta issues; if it is an appropriate use of VPR, then we should expect to see all RFCs posted there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, this isn't an issue and neutral worded notices that encourage more feedback are good. I will continue to do so when it's necessary to help find consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've always seen neutrally worded notifications of a discussion to WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, or village pumps as best practice and not canvassing. I think canvassing only comes into play when you start going offwiki or you give notifications to individuals (rather than groups). I appreciate that others may have a different interpretation of WP:CANVASS, and I have been surprised in the past at how vague WP:CANVASS is. I think that page would benefit from a bulleted list of allowed notifications and disallowed notifications, rather than its appropriate/inappropriate/scale/message/audience/transparency table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the tension here between general notifications and project specific notifications arises from the fact that disagreements about infoboxes are sometimes between general supporters of infoboxes who believe in good faith that they practically always add value to an article, and specific cases where editors working on an article feel that an infobox is not justified (as I argued in this RfC, for full disclosure) because there is not enough information that is true and not misleading to include in one. General appeals for more participation in an RfC are likely to move the needle away from the subject-specific or article-editor preference. That doesn't mean it's wrong to post these notifications to places like the village pumps, but I think it's likely they'll have that effect, whatever the intent of the notification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie did you mean to include a link on "as I argued in this RFC")? Yes, that is (one) part of the issue. Considering the view expressed here on the use of VPR for notifications, then fora like FAC and GAN should also be noticed in future infobox discussions. And I continue to request that Novem (who as far as I've seen, is the only editor using VPR for infobox discussions) first use the more typical avenue of notifying the WikiProjects tagged on the article page, or at least do both. As Mike says-- to avoid moving the needle away from people who work in the specific content area. Realistically, because FAs have been targeted for infobox inclusion, the FA-process community should have been a bigger part of the discussion all along, and yet were not notified historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The Village Pump is called that because it is the place where any and all Wikipedians can come together to discuss anything.

We have some loosely topic-defined VPs simply because having one page would be too long. But VP/Misc does exist for everything else.

Let's not try to hyper-control what should be an open forum for discussion.

If the concern is that VP/Proposals has been getting too long of late, then let's talk about adding another sub-page. not curtailing open discussion. - jc37 15:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this should be allowable, then WP:RFCTP (which suggests that you can only post RFCs on Village Pump forums "if related to it") needs to be re-written, because this goes in the face of the current guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, that's an essay, but let's sidestep that as immaterial at the moment.

I don't see an issue with the text. The sub-pages are topical. And MISC is there for the rest. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a natural hierarchy of notifications for content issues. An RfC about how to present Rotten Tomatoes reviews in a film article may only need to be notified to the films project. Some RfCs might benefit from notifications to multiple WikiProjects, and perhaps to FA/FL/GA pages if good/featured content is involved. The broader the question at the RfC (a matter of editorial judgement, of course), the higher up the hierarchy the notifications should go. But I can't see a reason why anyone would want to notify village pumps and not notify the lower (i.e. more focused) levels of the hierarchy. I'd interpret RFCTP to mean this when it says "if related to it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting hung up on controlling the venue of a discussion, kinda gets into WP:CREEP territory. The important thing is that the discussion be somewhere where interested editors may join in the discussion in question. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also true that notifications shouldn't omit appropriate pages, and that doing so can unintentionally introduce biases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can and has introduced bias. Many of us who held what are now apparently old-fashioned views of what comprised Canvassing, and followed the spirt of what we believed the guideline meant, never dared discuss an infobox proposal outside of the article talk page, for fear of arb sanction. And yet today, centralized "what was once viewed as canvassing" is allowed, while talk page misbehaviors are the norm. Standards of acceptance have apparently changed, after the horse already left the barn while others were sidelined by previous ideas about (not) canvassing; the guidelines need to reflect the changed attitudes. I can't decipher any useful purpose for escalating to VPR when more relevant WikiProjects are ignored and bypassed. Perhaps we should just have a message board dedicated to infobox proposals if VPR is to be used as a beacon for proponents of one side of a discussion, while bypassing fora where others are present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If your concern is notification, then as I mentioned below, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, has you covered. The list of accepted options is pretty extensive. And that list has been stable for years.

But also remember - no one is "required" to notify of a discussion. But if you think an appropriate place should be notified, Be Bold - anyone can presumably notify about a discussion, following those guidelines. - jc37 15:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, WikiProjects that relate to an RFC, is the best place to notify interested editors. The Village Pump pages? are kinda like a dusty attic or basement. Unless you have'em on your watchlist? you ain't gonna visit them much. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification has had this covered for a very long time. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says to use Village Pump "for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions". However you want to look at this, the guidance is all about only using VP for non-content matters. As I said above, if they are going to be used for content matters in future, then the guidance will have to be re-written, because at the moment the use for advertising individual content discussions on individual pages is inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we say that it's okay to cross-post to the Village Pump but if it's a Featured Article then WT:FAC is a more relevant venue.—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know nothing about FA, but if there isn't already, it seems like there should an FA RFC page that lists all current RFCs on FA talk pages (not just infobox). Levivich (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  These last two proposals still bypass WikiProjects and, for example, GAs. The problem is bigger than just FAs (although FAs seem to have been targeted because ... well, they're FAs, so they're the best place for establishing fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing time?

Anybody wanna close, as this discussion has petered out? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion with an eye on closing it, but having done so I think I'd rather just let the thread quietly archive itself away. Essentially, I agree with SandyGeorgia and Cullen328 - any discussions about infoboxes are a waste of time, partaking in them is a waste of time, and trying to change the minds of people who oppose your views is a waste of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion. I think we might have reached peak Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point! I think this calls for a discussion about the discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I just figured, it doesn't look like the RFC closure is going to be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't have enough subheadings yet. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You spoke too soon; another one needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Does this need a formal close?

I agreed with Barkeep above so I can't close this. But it doesn't meet the threshold for needing a close anyway. Closure is endorsed, no consensus about anything else regarding infoboxes except that everyone agrees there's no consensus on anything regarding infoboxes. Don't need some fancy colored box to spell that out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure or archive. The general discussion has moved 'away' from the RFC-in-question, to RFCs on infoboxes in bios over all. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

[Putting this here because I don't know where to put it now] -- Just another thought while we're talking about ways to manage the conflict: everyone who has found themselves jumping in to opine in infobox debates on at least five articles in the past two years is now topic banned from discussing infoboxes on article talk pages for the next two years. Exceptions only if someone is a major contributor to the article in question. Sort of a shortcut to the sort of thing ArbCom might find through other means. I dare say the reason this turns into a problem is because of entrenched "sides" that turn up every time and resume the same personalized disputes. Does something like this have any chance of finding support? I suspect not, but this has been going on for so many years that it feels like it's time to just thin the number of "[pro/anti]-infobox regulars". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That would likely solve (most of) the problem, and I think it a proposal worthy of its own section before this is closed. I say "most of" because one of the editors who turns up every time may also be a contributor on some articles, so "major contributor" would need to be more tightly defined. It would also eliminate the whole problem of the Village Pump. @SchroCat:.

In fact, considering how game-able "major contributors" could be, if the general idea behind this proposal has traction, it might be more expedient just to list the editors to whom the restriction would apply and be done with this. There are no more than ten. I went through and analyzed several dozen infobox disputes the other day, and the complete list of those who regularly show up is less than 10 editors, but some of them seem to be just editors whose editing habit is to respond to all RFCs (not only infobox RFC), and some are regular contributors in the content area of the article (eg, following article alerts). Would those be included?

Additionally, as I've diffed some proxying in the discussions above, should it be user talk pages as well as article talk pages ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'd widen it to include all pages except article talk pages and during article reviews (there would also have to be an obvious exception for AN/I, AE, ArbCom, etc if the restriction is breached). It would stop the proxying and other disruption - and I'd make it as broadly construed as possible - including pasting diffs but not specifically mentioning IBs, this sort of thing and anything that can reasonably be considered mischief-making or pointy on the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That diff occurred during this discussion, to which Gerda was pinged, so it's as if WP:ARBINFOBOX never happened. I've looked further at my notes from the analysis of a few days ago, and if we broadly take everyone out of the game who has opined at five RFCs in two years, that would encompass severl good faith editors who seem to be only routinely responding to (all) RFCs, without any behavioral issues. I suggest for Rhododendrites' proposal to be workable, someone should propose a formal restriction on the editors most prominent in this and recent discussions, who have furthered what continues to be called "infobox wars"; there is an extremely small handful of editors furthering the agida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

how game-able "major contributors" could be - I'd probably pick some arbitrary numbers based on xtools, for example "prior to the infobox dispute, a 'major contributor' is someone who contributed at least 5% of the current article (not including an infobox) or made at least 20 edits to the article". The numbers are low enough to include anyone we could reasonably consider to be a major contributor and high enough that any attempt to WP:GAME them should be pretty obvious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it could work. Sandy, would you be willing to provide the list of RfCs you analyzed and the stats on which editors contributed the most? I think that data would have to form the basis of a formal proposal to implement a restriction like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A little reluctant to start singling people out unless the proposal has traction, but I'll put forward (for now), some examples that demonstrate problems in how to frame the restriction:

• PackMecEng has contributed on at least four infobox discussions this year (I could miss some by not knowing where to look). But analyzing their overall contributions, they seem to be an editor who responds to many RFCs on many subjects; it seems unjust to lodge a restriction in such a case. That is, context matters-- they don't seem to be engaging in "infobox wars" for the sake of infoboxes per se. There are several other similar cases-- don't want to single them all out unless we're going somewhere with this proposal-- this is just an example for fine-tuning the thinking.
• Taking another example, what do we do when highly prolific and long-involved FA writers (who are likely to have many FAs watchlisted since the article's FAC) show up in infobox discussions on FAs, which have been targeted? For example, I won't meet the five delimiter, because when infobox discussions start, I (until this recent bit) unwatch the article and leave. But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites? Particularly since the method of working at FAC, FAR and on FAs is generally to propose changes at the FAC or FAR or article talk page, and leave the actual changes to the FA nominator? These highly involved contributors won't show as major contributors in the stats, even though they are.
• Another tricky bit for the data: it is abundantly clear that certain content areas have been targeted (and I gave several diffs above for that). So it's to be expected that editors who edit in those content areas are going to show up five times. The goading that has been allowed to go on was largely focused on certain content areas, and specifically on FAs; why would in effect penalize editors whose specialty is FAs in a certain content area (generally performing artists)?

So, before I start with data (meaning, before I walk myself into a landmine, and before I take the time to convert my scribbled notes to something thorough and in a useful format), how would we handle things like these examples ? I think it fairly clear by now that there are four editors who not only show up regularly, while often being responsible for initiating the infobox RFC to begin with, and whose behavior is less than conforming to the intent of the two arb cases. I think there may be too many other factors to go for a strict five limit, and it would end up restricting good-faith editors who either do or don't agree with certain infoboxes, but haven't done that in a disruptive fashion; the aim is to end disruption, and not all of the editors who show up repeatedly are a) non-contributors by edit count, or b) disruptive "infobox warriors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites? - Same rules as anyone else IMO. If they've a "major contributor" to that article (however that winds up being defined), then go ahead; if not, you can still participate but at some point if you keep showing up to infobox RfC after infobox RfC without being directly involved with the article, you become part of the problem and it shouldn't matter if you've helped with other FAs or have it on your watchlist. Just from a practical perspective, a proposal that creates an exception for a special class of FAC participants even if they haven't edited the article will never find consensus around these parts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There should also be a method to easily add people to the list (in advance and once it is set up) who breach the restrictions imposed by ArbCom’s ‘Civility in infobox discussions’ ruling, those who ‘soft canvass’ on multiple talk pages about IB discussions, etc. If your analysis picked up some of those too, Sandy, that would be good to see for inclusion.

Again, I'd ensure this is cast widely, but I think there would need to be clarity on, for example, where there is already an IB, but individual fields are being discussed (eg, where there may be errors, incorrect/misleading information or whether to include a field at all), rather than whether to have a box or not. (I'm not pushing for or against the point here, just flagging where there needs to be clarity to avoid future problems of editors stepping over a boundary they didn't realise was there. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also to consider is 'wider activity on the article', (similar to Sandy's FA reviewer point above), on activity on article talk (on topics that don't cover IBs). I've left dozens of mini reviews, joined in discussions on points of article development etc, but done very little editing of an article on an article of interest. Should that also be taken into attention? Or is that too easily gamed (or would turn the straightforward basis of the original idea into something too complex to manage in a meaningful way)?

I don't think the process will be complicated to police if the individuals are aware of the strictures of the restrictions and have a 'safe place' they can clarify with an admin/responsible person whether they are exempt on an article before jumping in (coming to, for example, Rhododendrites's talk page to say 'I've done x edits, comprising x% of the text, am I OK to join the discussion', etc). SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You would also have to be clear about the punishments for breaching: clearly defined blocks that lengthen with each occurrence would probably be easiest, but automatic AE provisions too? - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea: exclude anyone who has participated in 5+ infobox RFCs in the last two years, except editors who contributed >5% to the article. Does that mean 5% by edits, text, authorship? However defined, I'd be curious know:

1. How many infobox RFCs total in the last two years
2. How many editors participated in 5 or more of them (the "participants")
3. How many of those editors (the participants) had contributed >5% (however defined) (the "contributors")
4. How often do those editors (the contributors) vote yes/no

I'm going to guess: 10-20 RFCs, 20+ participants, 5-10 contributors, and they almost always vote no. Looking forward to seeing the data! Levivich (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

See my note above about problems determining significant contributors. From my scribbles (which are not in shape yet to summarize), I looked at 16 Infobox RFCs, found repeat contributors going both directions, and found a preponderance of the RFCs started by a small group of editors, who most often had no prior engagement at all at the article. If this analysis is going anywhere, we'd need to figure out how to define major contributors, and how not to penalize the main contributors of the FAs within one or two content areas that were targeted (authors and performing artists). Since I don't use the visual editor, it will take me some time to get this data into a useful table format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd oppose this because I don't think there's a real problem. Most of the infobox RFCs have found consensus over the past year. This particular RFC was created in a problematic way that was in contentious manner. I believe the editors will behave themselves in the future or there could be actions to remedy it. Most of the other RFCs haven't had that issue. This proposal idea would be super complicated to police and also has WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCON issues. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  First, it is important that one declare one's involvement in proposals like this; I would expect you to oppose the proposal, as it would directly impact (i.e., restrict) your ability (along with Dronebogus and others) to participate in Infobox RFCs. I'm unsure if these restrictions will be necessary even, should some of the frequent participants agree to voluntarily step back.

  You, Nemov, have participated in or initiated at least nine recent RFCs (this year only) about adding infoboxes to articles (I'm still tallying), including the double post to VPR discussed throughout this AN.

  1. Talk:James Joyce

     (Where, in terms of declaration, my own involvement was unproductive. The disruption that occurred in that RFC is not evident unless one steps through diff-by-diff, as Dronebogus frequently altered posts after the fact, leading me in exasperation to unwatch an FA I have curated for 17 years.)

  2. Talk:Jenny Lind
  3. Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16
  4. Talk:Rod Steiger
  5. Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 1
  6. Talk:Richard Wagner
  7. Talk:Felix Mendelssohn
  8. Talk:Georges Feydeau
  9. Talk:Fred Sullivan

  Second, I don't think it will be "complicated to police" at all; the data is not unclear about which editors have furthered infobox discord (as opposed to simply weighing in on infobox discussions), and once that data is tallied, we can then expect to see diffs for those editors of disruptive or other behaviors not in the spirit of the INFOBOX and INFOBOX 2 findings.

  Third, per Rhododendrites post at 15:20, the criteria would probably be refined once data is tallied. I am unconvinced that the initial proposal nails down the criteria we'd likely end up with (which is why I floated examples for discussion); more relevant is whether participants are engaging productively in the spirit of WP:INFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, or simply following lists of articles to target, proxying for others, or campaigning outside of their normal editing area to get their personal preference installed, often without providing relevant reasoning for an infobox, rather falling back on the general "infobox wars".

  And finally, I will tabulate the data in sandbox, but I have two full days (Mon and Tues) in medical appt's with my husband, followed by all-day driving Wednesday for Thanksgiving Thursday-- so I'm unsure how quickly I can get that data in presentable format, but surely before this weekend.

  ARBCOM has visited this area twice, and yet disruption continues: bright line criteria like Rhododendrites proposes may not end up being the final criteria in stemming the disruption; examining in detail the participation of those who have furthered the disruptive elements of Infobox discussions may be more relevant than absolute cutoffs, but I suggest some allowance will need to be made for editors and content areas that have been consistently targeted. I don't expect the community will find the data unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should give this a chance. This incivility and disruption has been going on long enough and even ARBCOM action hasn't been able to quell. The community will be involved in every step of the process and many more discussions will transpire over criteria and exact wording of any restrictions but this has got to stop. There is no time limit. Good luck with the DR's appointments, SandyGeorgia. I hope it is nothing serious. Be safe on your travels. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, ARoseWolf: appreciated. It's been serious for a long time, and will continue to be so, some days I'm grouchier than others (to the extent that some days I don't recognize my usual self in my posts, and have had to apologize). I only raise it as I'm usually quicker at pulling stuff together than I can be lately.

  I wanted to add that the targeted areas are all artists: composers, musicians, actors, comedians, playwrights, writers. And almost always FAs. And quite frequently as the first foray into that subject by the infobox proposer. I do promise to tally the data into a table, hope we will take our time on this, do believe that the community can have an effect here where the arbs have been unable to stem the disruption, and apologize for not being able to move as quickly as usual on the data; my scribbles are clear to me, but in an indecipherable format for others. I suspect if we can sideline a very few participants, the rest of the community can then peacefully decide on infobox use without so much agida that people who contribute and curate top content feel their efforts futile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sandy, you may want to include Debussy's RFC too. (Another one with many familiar names where there was no previous discussion and a non-neutral opening statement.) It was another closure from 2023. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx; my scribbles started with James Joyce in January this year, and I haven't even looked at 2022. Honestly, considering restraints on all our time, my hope is that (before I have to spend even more time compiling this data), that we'll see a push here for certain problematic editors to voluntarily step back; that could my old Pollyanna peeking out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Two others closed in Jan 2023: Tchaikovsky and Mackenzie Ziegler (the latter not technically an RFC, but all the hallmarks of one and was advertised from her sister's RFC (closed 32 December 2022), so many of the same attendees); also closed as an RFC by the same person who closed Mackenzie's RFC. I think that's all the 2023 ones, but I don't watch out for them and don't comment on all of them, so I cannot be 100% sure that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I commented on a lot of RFCs and since October of 2022 been struck at how passionate people are about the subject. That's why a few months ago I attempted to create a proposal to help move these discussion out of RFC since they getting approved anyway. Those of us who worked on the proposal were mostly editors who were blissfully unaware of this issue 15 months ago. Anyway, the proposal failed to gain consensus, but many editors argued there wasn't a real issue that needed to be addressed and the status quo was fine. Nothing has changed since that was discussed.

  I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend. If there's an editor problem there are measures in place to address that. I suggest moving forward with that if you believe there's case. Thanks Nemov (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites what is your reaction to the statement that "I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have much of a reaction to it, apart from to observe that if one of the relatively small number of people who would be affected by an objective, quantitative measurement of involvement has the initial response of assuming conspiratorial bad faith, I might be inclined to think we're on the right track. If there is indeed a trend that depends on a group of editors with no connection to the articles going around just to support the addition of a kind of template they like, then we can frame it either as coordinated bureaucratic bad faith or as an intervention to ensure that participants are focused on the article rather than advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, @Rhododendrites, we agree on a lot of things but characterizing one side as "advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences" while seeming to imply the other side is doing the opposite is exactly why we are in this position and why there is such an impasse. The other side is doing the exact same thing and their argument against the infobox is purely stylistic. One side says it helps, is beneficial and aids readers who don't want to parse through text while the other says it servers no benefit, is redundant info and does not look good when viewing the article on mobile. The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue. That's why arbcom's solution was no solution. And because there is little to no policy solution to this, editors have resorted to incivility in discussion. This proposal should be about limiting the incivility not determining to choose to accept one style and punish another. If the goal of this proposal is the latter rather than the former then it has already lost my support. --ARoseWolf 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  And for the record, I don't believe either side is acting in bad faith. Are they both passionate? Yes. Do they let their passion rule their judgement in how to communicate with fellow editors? Absolutely. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  On the other hand, I read "since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend" as a failure to acknowledge that it's not results that are the main concern, rather the methods and behaviors. I read that statement as an implicit assumption of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @ARoseWolf: ?? I didn't characterize one side that way (or didn't intend to, at least). I characterized the parties on both sides whose participation should be limited that way. The other side is doing the exact same thing - yes, exactly. The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue. - Yes, exactly. The distinction I'd like to make is sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based on investment in the article/subject, and sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based solely on that stylistic preference or allegiance to a side of a dispute. The idea behind the "concrete proposal" is to try to reduce the number of people in these latter categories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize if I read your statements incorrect, @Rhododendrites. Perhaps I latched on to it because it's usually the characterization made against one side of this argument but it was unfair to pass that on to your statements. From your clarification we agree in principal as I find we typically do. Investment in an article is poor reason for advocacy of certain style. We as editors should be just is dispassionate about others editing articles we create as subjects should be about an article about themselves. Policy based edits, yes. Stylistic edits, no. --ARoseWolf 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I read the statement by @Nemov and disagree with this characterization just as much. I do want to know Sandy's proposal and I believe it should be given a chance to be heard. I don't believe Sandy wants to create more "bureaucratic" anything and we shouldn't make assumptions about it until we've heard the details. These discussions have caused enough hurt, damage, and disruption. --ARoseWolf 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Of those 9 articles, 7 of them have an infobox. The two that don't are the one that's being appealed here (haha, remember back in the good old days when this thread was an RFC appeal?), and one that is still open.

  So Nemov initiated or participated in 9 infobox RFCs in the past year, 7 of which had consensus for an infobox, one didn't, and one is ongoing. 7-out-of-8 is 87.5%.

  Right 87.5% of the time, and you want to TBAN them for that? lol! Good luck with that. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  See my query to Gerda back on 01:53, 7 November; if there really are only a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes, and 87% of the time they will be installed, then theoretically there would be no change in content outcome if the list-keeping, targeting of certain editors/topics, proxying and any other disruption identified were put to end by the community, but there would be a change in how pleasurable we could all find our editing experience to be. As, theoretically, there would be no change in outcome if some editors stepped back voluntarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We must be cautious about limiting editor participation on RFCs about infoboxes on certain bio pages. Suggesting who can or can't participate, based on how much they've contributed to a bio page? might create an WP:OWN situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving bot archival per my promise to have the data table by this weekend; still working on it (offline in a spreadsheet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox data: November 2022 – November 2023

Data is at User:SandyGeorgia/2023 Infobox discussions.

I manually tallied, so errors are possible; please point out any additions or corrections needed at the talk page, User talk:SandyGeorgia/2023 Infobox discussions, so the discussion here can stay focused on interpretation of the data.

Generally, I don't believe the five cutoff notion raised above is the way to go, as it impacts good faith editors causing no disruption. Some !voters are merely following the RFCs, many are main contributors of articles that were systematically targeted, and a few don't always !vote in one direction. Focusing the discussion better on where the actual disruption has been coming from would be more productive. That is, rather than limiting participation, limit the goading, prodding, poking, proxying, failure to notify in ways that engage major stakeholders, and otherwise failure to drop the stick and move on to something more productive.

If this moves towards a concrete of the concrete proposal, I believe it possible for the community to end the infobox disruption in ways the arbs haven't yet been able to, but I don't yet think that Rhododendrites' proposal is the best way to approach that. I also didn't have the energy to look back at two years worth of data; the last year captures the trends. Repeating what I said above: it's possible that the problem is less infoboxes per se, than the behaviors and tactics that have been seen continuously since the first arbcase, that have kept the area contentious. The problem is not infoboxes; it's editor behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest separating actual RFCs from non-RFC discussions in that table, otherwise it skews the results. Levivich (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really. At least one of the non-RFCs was linked from another, had much the same attendees and was closed by the same person. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

With only 17 articles, I trust readers to be able to sort that. Could we keep suggestions about improving the page on the talk page there, so we can focus here on what to do with this data, if anything?

Tomorrow, I will try to add something about total number of editors opining in infobox discussions relative to the "Frequent Flyers", but the way I tallied the "everyone except the Frequent Flyers" means that will take some time and more manual work.  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the table so the non-RFCs are at the bottom.

Looking at RFCs closed within the last year, looks like there were 13 of them, 9 resulted in consensus to include, 4 resulted in no consensus, 0 resulted in consensus against. Of the 4 that resulted in no consensus, they were started by 3 different editors, and the two that were started by the same editor were about related subjects (siblings).

I don't see any problem with too many RFCs being opened, either by the same person or otherwise. I see no reason for any kind of group TBAN or, frankly, even changing infobox RFC policies or guidelines--the system seems to be working fine overall (I'd feel differently if they were mostly no consensus results).

The conduct in RFCs--bludgeoning and incivility--is a separate issue (not limited to infobox RFCs), and should be handled on an editor-by-editor basis. Levivich (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

For that, I think you need to look not at the numbers, but at the behaviors (bottom of the page, intentionally kept to only that which has already been raised in the discussion above, as I'm sure others can offer more diffs of the disruption). That is, I have no doubt that Dronebogus and Nemov have caused disruption in this area, and it's not because of the raw numbers, but the behaviors. Similarly, we have those who almost never !vote, but keep the disruption alive, as I've also touched on in the discussion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Robert McClenon to view the results of the research (see this, Robert). It may educate you in light of the egregious errors you've made with this error-strewn post. You may wish to reconsider/strike/reword your comment - parts of which come close to personal attacks, as it's so badly written and phrased. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's response best summed up the data trend I see: "I don't think it's healthy or constructive to have roving bands of editors who turn up in every infobox discussion." But we have not only repetitive voters: we have very few editors actually initiating the discussions without having had any prior involvement in the article (in every single case), prodding the discussions, and poking at the topic continuously to keep it contentious. Rhododendites' proposal is to figure out how to address those "roving bands", as the restrictions ArbCom imposed over a decade ago did not stop the poking, prodding and behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there also a problem with roving bands of editors who turn up at articles they've never edited before and fix typos, or change links, categories, citations, images, short descriptions, navigation templates, or talk page banners, or ask questions or make suggestions on the talk page? I thought "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means we want roving bands of editors who go around to various articles and try to improve them.

Here's some counter-evidence: of 9-out-of-13 RFCs in the past year, how many different editors removed the infoboxes from those articles, and for how many years had those editors been removing the infoboxes from those articles, and how much editor time would have been saved in terms of unnecessary RFCs, if those editors who removed the infoboxes had simply not removed the infoboxes? Hint: it's many of the same major contributors to those articles.

See, the major contributors to those articles don't want an infobox -- that's why the articles don't have an infobox -- but most everybody else does, most of the time -- that's why most RFCs come out in favor of an infobox. If it's decided by contributors: usually no infobox; if it's decided by non-contributors: usually infobox.

The problem in that situation isn't the non-contributors, it's the contributors, whose local consensus is out of alignment with global consensus. The RFCs kind of prove that.

I still don't think that's a problem that needs solving: that's just the consensus process at work. Local consensus is inevitably overridden by global consensus, as it should be. One infobox RFC per month or so is not too much when there are over 6 million articles. Levivich (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there's definitely a problem. A small group of people targeting a defined set of articles is a problem. (I know you're pro IB, which explains the blind eye turning to the problem, but there is a problem). Part of it is that people are not turning up to "fix typos, or change links, categories, citations, images, short descriptions, navigation templates, or talk page banners". They are there to vote (after an RFC has been inappropriately advertised on the Village Pump). Not !vote, but vote. They don't know the subject, don't argue on specific factoids within the article and many don't even bother to look at the article, but they just do a knee-jerk "I want an IB", without considering the drawbacks on that specific article.

"how much editor time would have been saved in terms of unnecessary RFCs, if those editors who removed the infoboxes had simply not removed the infobox": How much editor time would have been saved if people who had no feeling or real understanding for the topic worked on any of the rest of the 6.7 million articles, rather than opening an RFC on what is normally a GA or FA rated article?

Blaming contributors is the lazy option. It's the vote-counting option. Trying to blame contributors for being out of step with the global consensus is misguided: there have been attempts to change the MOS to move it towards including biographies infoboxes on all biographies. They've all failed. The community has rejected that idea multiple times (something you may wish to dwell on), but the community has also got bored of the constant pushing on IBs and tends to ignore RFCs on the point as the timesinks they are. Those pushing for IBs have meta bludgeoned a large section of the community away from the topic as a whole. That's the global consensus. The RFCs kind of prove that, as one might say. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I assume you meant to say "infoboxes on all biographies"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Levivich re "is there also a problem with roving bands of editors who turn up at articles they've never edited before and fix typos, or change links, categories, ... ", I think of this as more akin to the old date-delinking arbcase, or a matter of Engvar/Citevar. There's much more than gnoming/copyediting going on in these disputes; it's a group of editors who seem fascinated with the infobox issue, and particularly fascinated with the infoboxes of one subset of Featured articles nominated by one group of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We have rules against going around changing engvar/citevar; we do not have rules against starting or voting in infobox rfcs. "a group of editors who seem fascinated with the infobox issue, and particularly fascinated with the infoboxes of one subset" is disproven by your own data, maybe I'm misreading it, but this is what I see:

• The 13 infobox RFCs that were closed in the past year were started by 8 different editors
• Those 13 articles had 9 different top contributors
• Most of the 8 editors who started RFCs didn't vote in most of the RFCs
• 200+ editors participated in the RFCs, only 20 of them you categorize as "frequent flyers" -- most editors didn't vote in most RFCs, only 6 non-article-contributors voted in half or more RFCs
• The diffs of problems you posted are by 5 different editors, only 2 of the 5 are on the frequent flyer list

Unless I'm misreading it, your data demonstrates that there is not a group of editors who are repeatedly starting these RFCs, that at least 95% of editors participating in infobox RFCs (194/200+) aren't part of any roving band of anything, that most of the 6 editors who do frequently participate aren't causing any problems, and that most of the problematic editors don't participate frequently. (Assuming the diffs show problems--I don't know, I didn't read them closely.) Levivich (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We have rules against going around changing engvar/citevar It is worth reflecting on the reasons that we have these rules. It's because they're questions that lack and will always lack a global consensus, that have generated a lot of contention, and that are fundamentally ancillary to the goals of encyclopedia-writing; sound familiar? You're very focused on the outcomes of the discussions, but that misses the point that it would be better if people were not arguing about infoboxes, regardless of what that means in terms of outcomes. --JBL (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be better? What's the problem with 13 RFCs in a year? Levivich (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the high level of contention it causes, which results in people wasting time and energy in many layers of discussions and meta-discussions and meta-meta-discussions about an essentially unimportant and uninteresting question. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What high level of contention? Where? Is this -- what -- the first and only infobox RFC appeal in the past year? I don't recall any infobox AN/ANI/AE threads in the past year? Maybe I'm misinformed, I haven't been around much this year. There are like 5-10 editors on this website that have been, shall we say persistent, about infoboxes for like 10+ years AFAIK, but that's really a constant background noise that doesn't much affect anyone outside of that group. 13 RFCs in a year in which over 200 editors participated, and outside this group of 5-10 (it might even be less than 5), who is bothered, or gives a shit, about any of it?

The community, in its wisdom, decided infoboxes should be done case by case. So that means a lot infobox discussions, and RFCs. 13 in a year isn't much, and the 200 editors participating don't seem to have a problem navigating the "noise." Now, kick the noisy editors out by all means, but I am not seeing any evidence of any broad problems concerning infoboxes outside of a few noisy editors. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• So we've got combative and argumentative people, deeply entrenched positions, and no agreed policies or guidelines, in a contentious topic area. No wonder it's so intractable. May I suggest one of the old-fashioned RfCs where we ask the community for ideas about how to solve it? I'm concerned that AN is not a venue capable of solving complex and difficult issues like this.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There have been so many threads about infobox disputes already. At the risk of nearly reproducing my suggestion above, I'd say the only possible way this could be productive is if that discussion absolutely excludes every person who has ever jumped into an RfC on an infobox for an article they weren't previously a major contributor to (that would exclude me, too, fwiw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I agree. Looking at Sandy's data I wonder if the right approach is to ban RfCs about the inclusion or removal of an infobox on individual articles unless the RfC is started by a major contributor? I've written scores of magazine articles, and I think about half or more have infoboxes -- probably a few more that don't have them could have them added. However, there are a few where I think it doesn't make sense. At Talk:Amazing Stories there have been a couple of discussions about infoboxes, but no RfC was ever started -- instead editors who had the page watchlisted participated. I think if all infobox discussions occurred that way it might reduce the temperature. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    But Rhodo, the whole point of an RFC is to get people who haven't edited the article to vote. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. But that seems to be what causes the problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    The data presented by Sandy disproves that. The overwhelming majority of people who have not contributed to the articles have not caused any problems. Even the people who have most often voted in infobox RFCs without ever having contributed to the articles, even the overwhelming majority of those people, have not caused any problems. What Sandy's data shows is that very many people who haven't contributed have voted (like ~200 editors), and very few people have caused problems (like less than 5). The data literally disproves this idea of "ban everyone who voted without contributing." Levivich (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think we may be in violent agreement; as I said from the outset, there is a very small handful of editors causing the issues, and if we focused on those, and took them out of the game, the community could more peacefully decide how to handle infoboxes. And by "out of the game", I'm including "polite" proxying, list keeping, targeting, and badgering. In my initial count (four or five), I (mistakenly, and based on only one RFC) thought The Gnome was one of the repeat offenders; they are not. Those who simply can't drop the stick, and whose behaviors have not been constructive, are clear in my data, and if the community truly wants infoboxes, perhaps those few editors can be encouraged or forced to let the rest of the community decide. (And, no, Rhododendrites, editors like you, who have contributed constructively, should not be included in those who should be encouraged to step aside -- you are one of many who have contributed constructively.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    Violent agreement is the best kind! :-D I hope those few editors you mention just look at the diffs, get embarrassed, and do better going forward. Thanks for putting that together, I actually think it'll have a positive effect on the issue just by virtue of gathering data and diffs in one place for everyone to look at. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't really attempt to gather all diffs; just what I noted as I tallied, and what was already raised in the discussion above. I was mostly focused on tallying, and assuming others would add behavioral diffs if someone besides those already mentioned was misbehaving.

    I had a Wikifriend once who specialized in summarizing every arb case and remedies in 30 words or less, emailing them to me to keep me laughing and show what a timesink arbcases were, only to come to the 30-word obvious. Even I (with my classic verbosity) could craft a 30-word remedy to end the disruption here.

    Three editors stand down from all engagement with and discussion of infoboxes, broadly construed, and one agrees to confine commentary on infoboxes to articles where they are a significant contributor.

    Done, 30 words. No topic bans, negotiated settlement, no more lists, targeting, goading, proxying, and overfocus on installing infoboxes, find another way to spend your time, there's plenty out there ... and watch the problems go away.

    I'm becoming more concerned about the number of misrepresentations and memes one sees throughout the arb candidates questions, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but as someone who has participated in a few infobox discussions over the past few years, and has read quite a few more, this is patently ridiculous. To act as though the only behavioral issues in infobox discussions are confined to the people you assembled your data against is absurd. I'm hesitant to call out specific names here, as I don't really have the time to create a similar analysis to yours, but you know as well as I do who does this. I can only assume, having read that entire thing, that you think that bad behavior is justified because they're being 'poked' and 'baited' and because they're Significant Contributors, so it just makes sense, is exactly the problem that makes those discussions so toxic! A reasonable person cannot be 'baited' into acting poorly by posts on wikipedia. If someone can be bear-baited on this website, they should work on not being a bear.

    The undertone that we have to restrict participation in RFCs based on contribution to an article is counter to the exact reason that RFCs exist. You might as well submit a proposal to ban them on FAs, that sort of seems like what this is angling towards anyway. Parabolist (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    ... but you know as well as I do who does this? I do? Thanks for letting me know ... before this discussion, I knew of two editors furthering infobox discord. As I said, I made no attempt to assemble diffs beyond what was already raised in the discussion above (methodology). Not my mission. Further, at no point have I said we should "restrict participation in RFCs based on contribution to an article"; we have frequent flyers who are frequently disruptive and have furthered discord. I have constantly said to examine diffs, not numbers, and remove those who are furthering discord by poking, prodding, goading, keeping lists and targeting -- not those who are peacefully weighing in on RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    No, Parabolist. This isn't about 'Significant Contributors' reacting to baiting. It's clear on the Feydeau RFC that the comments of Dronebogus and The Gnome ("The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological", "your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive") go way beyond "baiting" (and don't forget, this is supposed to be a contentious topic where behaviour like this should not occur). There was no angry response or harsh words in response to either of them, only a different editor asking them to remain civil. No-one baited them into making such disgraceful comments either; I'm not sure how these comments are in any way defensible anywhere, let alone in a contentious topic. Have a look further, if you wish: the Wagner RFC has Dronebogus telling Johnbod "your opinions are not good" and similar incivility to people. Not great. Have a spin over the Joyce RfC. Charming stuff in there from the same editor. He started the RFC by breaching a stack of instructions on RFCs and then dives straight to incivility with unfounded accusations. If incivility and pushing from a small co-ordinated group isn't considered disruptive, I don't know what is.

    You don't think there is proxying going on? It's a couple of years old now, but this is a great example from Arendt, telling someone at the Kubrick RFC to go to the Sibelius page to vote. A few days later that user followed her directions and voted in favour. Arendt opened the thread – one of her seven comments. (The main editor of the article (Ipigott) wasn't even pinged to the discussion). SandyGeorgia, you may want to add those links onto your list of substandard behaviour from Dronebogus, Nemov and Arendt. If I could be bothered to go back through the thousands of talk page posts on the topic of IBs, I would find countless examples of soft and hard canvassing on the topic.

    I've put in a general support for Rhododendrites 'concrete proposal', above, and I'll repeat my support for it again. In fact I will go further on it: I will agree not to comment in any other IB discussion (unless I am a formerly significant contributor to the article, its talk page or its FA review) or about IBs on any user's talk page, on the condition that Dronebogus, Gerda Arendt and Nemov agree to the same restrictions. If they agree to those relatively minor self-policed restrictions, I will do the same. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for pinging me. I'm not going to add to my previous comments above as they're sufficient. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• It strikes me that we could exapt the principles from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Principles to infobox discussions and RfCs?—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

2,000+ admin actions in violation of WP:BAN

General Discussion

As the dust settles from [29], something has been nagging at me: There are now about 1,000 blocks and 1,000 deletions, plus some other admin actions, that were performed in violation of an ArbComBan. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened in the modern era of Wikipedia adminning (i.e. since c. 2012). Now, editors have broad discretion to revert actions made in violation of a ban, and WP:RAAA would not apply here for multiple reasons, but in this case most actions will be trivially valid, anti-vandalism and -spam actions. But not all of them. Some will be judgment-calls, even tough ones, where we deferred to the discretion of a fellow admin, and where that discretion should maybe now be reviewed.

Should there be some kind of review, particularly of the blocks? I could put together a list of outstanding tempblocks and p-blocks, plus indefs of any established users, and admins could reblock in cases where we're willing to assume responsibility. Maybe that's too much, and I'm aware of the WP:DENY aspect here, but at the same time, if I got blocked and then found out the blocking admin was a sock, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I think we owe it to those people to at least take a look at whether the blocks were any good. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any actions that stand out to be particularly egregious after a cursory glance? The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Probably, most of the admin actions she did are ones that no admin would have declined. Such actions should be left alone.
2. You probably won't get admins to mass-review her actions. Even her deletions, which non-admins can't.
3. If you believe any specific action she did was incorrect, feel free to request admin review.
4. Any admin may undo her actions without it being wheel-warring.

Animal lover |666| 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Reblocking will just give the user a longer block log, which they might not appreciate. I think it would be better to just list the blocks on a page somewhere (akin to a CCI), and have admins tick "yes, reviewed, I would have made that block". The willingness to assume bad faith shown in this thread suggests that yes, there might be some blocks which need to be undone. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with above that we should 1) apply the reasonable admin standard and 2) not change blocks or other actions unless they don't meet that standard, which I think leads to 3) probably should only list the "currently active" things, whether deletion, block, or protection (or other action). WP:VOLUNTEER as to the utility/necessity of such work. Izno (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. The right thing is to do what we would do with any action committed by an admin removed for cause: review it when it comes up, and add that admin's conduct as a factor to be weighed. For example, ArbCom already does that. We occasionally get appeals from users who were blocked by now banned or otherwise disgraced users. We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. But we do investigate more deeply than we usually would into whether the block was right in the first place. I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? For reblocking, not only does that consideration apply, but further, reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. That would also serve to obfuscate who got blocked by Lourdes in the first place, which might make undoing a bad Lourdes block harder. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know how this slipped through my radar, but that is an absolutely stunning turn of events. My jaw literally dropped reading that diff. It might be worth looking through anything active, but that is a lot of work that might not have much benefit. If there was ever consensus to undo actions en masse, bot ops with admin bots (like myself) could be pinged/contacted to assist. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Isn't this the posterboy for a legitimate WP:XRV use? jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• I would oppose a blanket reversal (which I don't think anyone has suggested yet, but it seems inevitable) but don't have an issue with more contentious blocks being listed for review. If someone is willing to do the excruciatingly boring work of compiling those, they have my thanks in advance. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't envy the work. This is like when a crooked cop gets caught and then all of the arrests the cop made need to be looked at. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't envy the work, and I've been involved in some of these mass review projects, from GNIS (still ongoing) to the one with all of the sportspeople. This seems worse. CaptainEek, I have sympathies for someone who might have been illegitimately blocked and as a result just walked away thinking that Wikipedia was run by idiots. We cannot necessarily rely on people coming to complain as a driving force. We should at least look. And we should differentiate between blocks to enforce bans (Are there even any?) and blocks that are not part of banning. Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Marking this with future timestamp (2 weeks) to stop bot from automatically archiving sections that still needs actions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that anyone who wants to say anything on the blocks has more or less done so. Are there any other things we need to review? Fermiboson (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Three blocks that still have "unfinished business" (Darshan Kavadi, Omer123hussain and Timfoley50). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here's my blessing on whatever is needed for the Foley potential unblock. They asked me to stay off their page and happy to oblige while simultaneously not obstructing you or any other admin @OhanaUnited Star Mississippi 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

AN/I boards

As Lourdes herself noted, comments given on AN/I also carry admin authority, and randomly scrolling through archives I do see that she was quite active in terms of participating in discussions, threatening (or recommending) admin actions, or closing threads and sending people elsewhere. Is there a point in looking at those actions as well? Fermiboson (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Blocks to review

ipb_address	actor_name	disposition
Special:Contributions/65.28.77.182	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/136.34.132.39	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/172.58.63.16	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B03E:3864:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2804:1054:3010:0:0:0:0:0/44	Lourdes	Y OK - there's an LTA sitting on this range and major disruption re-occurred immediately that a previous 1-year block expired. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/49.145.0.0/20	Lourdes	Y Only a partial block on four articles, and appeared to be justified. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:4040:AA53:F500:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/86.157.242.237	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	Y This one is good - persistent falsifying of BLP birthdates over a period of months. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/172.97.45.5	Lourdes	? This is the Martin Bayerle spammer, also User:Imagixx. Could probably be dealt with via a few pblocks from particular articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/1.152.104.0/21	Lourdes	Y Persistent disruption and vandalism over many months, previous blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/1.136.104.0/21	Lourdes	Y As per the entry immediately above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/45.237.49.1	Lourdes	Y Absolutely good - admins can see why. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/109.228.71.226	Lourdes	Probably OK, expires in a couple of days anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/109.101.69.23	Lourdes	removed - Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/182.228.179.154	Lourdes	removed, and then restored after they began vandalising again. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/154.180.107.122	Lourdes	Block evasion, expires in a couple of days. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/62.4.55.186	Lourdes	Same user as 109.228.71.226 above, expires shortly - Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

These are the IP blocks made by Lourdes that are still active as of today. I suggest that an admin review each one and decide if it should be removed or kept (I've done some already). This is a very small subset of the above. There were no indefinite IP blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here are the username blocks (most are indef): Special:PermaLink/1183546654. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at two random username blocks. I suppose that a reasonably thorough administrator would not overlook deleting the page User:Journal of BIoresources and Bioproducts (obvious copyvio etc.) when blocking for the very reason of creating such pages. There may be omissions of this type or of some other type. —Alalch E. 00:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocks of users with 100+ edits

Without prejudice against looking at the full ~900 account blocks, I've triaged this to a list of users with at least 100 edits. My reasoning is that blocks of low-editcount users are much more likely to be routine vandal/spam blocks, and that a brand-new editor who was wrongly blocked will probably have either just created a new account, WP:SOCK be damned, or been scared away for good.

Username	Expiry	Disposition
Amitamitdd (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Kthxbay (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Sockpuppetry confirmed (although not necessarily to master) @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive § 08 May 2020. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Nlivataye (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y User talk:Nlivataye#June 2023 is not inspiring. Izno (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
AlhyarJy (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Had community support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Block consideration for Saucysalsa30. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Wallacevio (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
GRanemos1 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Donovyegg (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Chamaemelum (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Validly-enacted siteban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Gbe Dutu (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Abdel hamid67 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Had community support @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 § Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#User:DaleEarnhardt292001; user did not request an unblock. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs)	infinity	See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
A E WORLD (talk · contribs)	infinity	? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor was the report. Whilst I am not convinced that the accountholder can write, at User talk:A E WORLD#August 2023 2, Lourdes and others seem to be putting up more and more hoops for the accountholder to jump through. Exactly how is the person supposed to prove that xe will do something that xe has stated xe will do? Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Chuachenchie (talk · contribs)	infinity	See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Golden Mage (talk · contribs)	infinity	Not confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo/Archive, and although the block was for disruption it was for disruption that was the same pattern as that sockpuppteer. Tamzin? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Knew there was a reason this one rang a bell. I was quite confident on Golden Mage being Datu Hulyo at the SPI, and Courcelles backed that up on technical evidence. I might have waited a bit longer for an answer on why they were running three accounts, had Lourdes not blocked GM, but 2+1⁄2 months later GM/DH/John still hasn't explained what they were doing, so this block Y should probably stand. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Ah! Special:Diff/1171455039 is a non-confirmation of something else. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ptb1997 (talk · contribs)	infinity	N Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#User:Ptb1997 might have been a trigger-happy block, but the rest of the community shares in the shame of this given Special:Diff/1176584689. The accountholder promised to do better back in September, and our collective response to this for two months has been massively bureaucratic, including ignoring that diff twice over simply because it wasn't put in an unblock request box. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Unblocked, see below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Egerer12 (talk · contribs)	infinity	? This was discounted as a sockpuppet by Tamzin, but is one of the accounts that has heavily contributed to the fact that Draft: namespace and the article namespace are now full of duplicate Country at the 2024 Summer Olympics articles, e.g. Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics and the identical Draft:Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is a massive waste of AFC reviewers' time, especially as there's a backlog of several thousand drafts to review, and would that there were a speedy deletion criterion for getting rid of all of the duplicate drafts! Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC) A full block for WP:Communication is required may be warranted here rather than the article space block. This editor has literally never edited user talk namespace. Izno (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
574X (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#574X already had support from ScottishFinnishRadish. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs)	infinity	? Non-English speaker blocked for not communicating at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Concerning page moves by Yafie Achmad Raihan. Account's Indonesian Wikipedia block log is clean for that and more page moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Unblocked by Mackensen. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Silveresc (talk · contribs)	20231105051320	Y Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Not sure the situation was handled optimally, but it's a p-block and expires imminently, so meh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Sinwiki12 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Not a sockpuppeteer per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinwiki12/Archive, but the block was for repeated whitewashing of Chinese topic articles and diffs such as Special:Diff/1138585762 (Hello, Bbb23!) do indicate that there was a problem here. The account definitely had an article editing agenda that what Wikipedia said about China was all lies put about by American newspapers, and edited several articles in that vein (e.g. Special:Diff/1175736935). See also Special:Diff/1019125984. I suspect that this account would have ended up being blocked in the long run. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
AbrahamCat (talk · contribs)	infinity	Incivility block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User:AbrahamCat at Choke (sports). Worth a quick peer-review by someone here, but on its face it's likely good. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Omer123hussain (talk · contribs)	infinity	* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues definitely needs peer review. It's in the Indian topics area that Wifione was restricted from. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Darshan Kavadi

• I would say that the block on User:Darshan Kavadi (DK) deserves a second look (and possibly reversed for being a bad block). DK was first warned of their disruptive editing behaviour on July 26. DK disengaged and edited other articles on August 1. No other edits were made by DK after August 2. ANI report was filed on August 8 but closed because Lourdes went straight for indef block on first instance. The appearance of non-communication by DK was a self-fulfilling prophecy because DK never had a chance to reply (or saw it too late). It's almost like DK was punished for disengaging from the disputed page in question. No admin would have issued a indef block on a single warning on an account who hasn't edited for a week, which makes Lourdes's actions punitive instead of preventative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Plus, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Requesting advice and suitable resolution was in the area of single-purpose account Indian promotional editing, which Wifione should not have been touching at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

    Shall we unblock this account as time served and remind them about WP:ROPE? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Chuachenchie

• Here's another questionable block. User:Chuachenchie has been editing since November 2020 and had 9k edits. Edits are a mixture of bad (OR, BLP) and good (ITN noms). Lourdes once again went right to indef block and not start off with short blocks and escalate from there. Editor remains active on zh.wp. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• That block was made as a result of this report. That editor managed to make over 9k edits without once talking to anybody or even leaving an edit summary. Communicating with other editors isn't really optional. Lourdes did leave a warning, which was ignored, and there were numerous previous attempts by other people to talk to this editor, which were also ignored. The block doesn't look unreasonable. Hut 8.5 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that Lourdes went for an indef block as the first block shows a series of trigger-happy blocks that dish out maximum sentence from the get-go (at least I wouldn't in that circumstance). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  For a lack of communication I would generally go with an indef since editors who don't communicate will usually ignore a short term block - an indefinite block forces communication. I don't really see an indef as a maximum sentence here, just "blocked until they communicate". Galobtter (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Has anyone tried contacting them on zhwiki in Chinese? I may be able to if someone tells me what to say. As far as I can tell the issue here is language proficiency and CIR, which can be discussed with the editor. Fermiboson (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, looking at their edits on zhwiki, they have no edits outside of template and mainspace there either.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I warned them with {{Uw-editsummary}} on zhwiki. Got ignored there too. NM 02:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited, an indef for refusing to communicate is not a "maximum sentence". It's IMO a completely reasonable way to require communication commence rather than simply allowing someone to wait it out. An indef can be lifted five minutes later by any admin. Many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block, so an indef can actually be much shorter. All it takes is convincing someone the person is able and sincerely willling to address the issue. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  This exercise is to review the indef-trigger-happiness by Loudres. We already have two indef-block accounts overturned by other admins (and another two accounts that has the potential to be overturned) because the block length is not in proportion to the severity. And in my opinion, this is more borderline than those cases. But this user continues to edit in zh.wp, which makes a stronger case that we should review the possibility to reattract this editor back into the en.wp project (unlike other dormant accounts) with a clear explanation of communication expectation by the community before being unblocked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be willing to consider a conditional unblock: the editor agrees to respond to messages on their user talk (which they've never done, not even once, literally zero edits to any talk page including their own, and if I'm reading it right, has also never done on zh.wiki) and to start using edit summaries (which they've done once in 9000+ edits). Valereee (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've left a message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am the original author of the ANI discussion. Just for the record, the editor still continues to exhibit the exact same behavior (OR, BLP, no edit summary, never respond to TP messages) on zhwiki that should have got them banned there a long time ago. NM 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain

• I made the report on Omer123hussain that led to the block above. I think it's justified; there's serious OR issues there; but nobody else seems to want to engage with it. I will not be taking any admin action, though I'm not necessarily capital-I Involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw that ANI report and didn't have time to look into it, but I was glad someone did and took action (those kind of ANI reports get very little attention). I checked Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious which Lourdes linked to and Omer123hussain's use of a 100 year old source and simple refusal to provide the quote from the source that supports their material looks very problematic. I can look into this more and take over the block if needed, but I don't think this block should be overturned simply because of the situation with Lourdes.
  • It seems these block reviews are less "that was a bad block" but more some admins think Lourdes should've been more lenient, 🤷🏾‍♀️. Galobtter (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I think the block needs to be looked at. I've raised it with Omer123hussain and I'll see if the is an option that doesn't involve going straight to an indefinite ban from mainspace. I agree that there is an issue with their editing, but with 9000+ edits and multiple GAs I'd like to look for an alternative solution. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, Lourdes was Wifione and per Wifione's Arbitration Committee restrictions should not have been involving xyrself in this at all. They were Indian topics and at least one was a biography of a living Indian person. This was most definitely bad. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
      • @Uncle G:, I believe what Galobtter is saying is that the block stands on its merits. We're not planning (I assume) to revert every one of Lourdes's ~24k contributions; by the same logic we shouldn't reverse a block that another admin endorses. Your logic is applicable to any block Lourdes made, including the obvious vandals, because Wifione didn't have any restrictions that were ARBIPA-wide; just Indian BLPs and educational institutions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
        • No, it clearly only extends to topic that Wifione was prohibited from, not any blocks. This block is squarely an administrative action in the prohibited topic area. At least one of the articles in the complaint about Omer123hussain was a biography of a living Indian person, and as it was about more than the specific edits cited but about Omer123hussain's editing history in general, which extends to a lot of India-related stuff, that would have likely touched upon more prohibited Indian topics. Lourdes should never have touched this. Xe was prohibited from it as an editor, let alone as an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ptb1997

Resolved

• I'm on the fence about Ptb1997. As is sadly often the case when an admin places a block "Until user resolves issue X", the implied promise there hasn't been upheld in subsequent unblock proceedings. Sadly the accept/decline-focused nature of unblock requests leads to a lot of situations like this, where a user has said most of what they need to say but maybe needs to go into a bit more detail, and instead just gets declined on with little explanation. So with all that in mind I'd tend toward an unblock, with a warning about communication. However, there's also the matter of Ptb19975555, their sock. Evading a block imposed by someone who was in turn evading a ban is not something that WP:SOCK as a policy has ever contemplated, but either way, first offense for socking by an otherwise constructive user is normally 1-4 weeks, so I think commuting to time served, with warnings about communication and socking, would still be reasonable. Or at least I've mostly convinced myself of that in the course of writing this comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm in favour of forgiving the sockpuppetry (which was also handled bureaucratically, with its edits reverted because it was a sockpuppet), unblocking, with a statement that the community expects Special:Diff/1176584689 to be made good on, and will be found a more welcoming place for editors who talk to other editors. Especially as the warnings going back "8 years" turn out to be disambiguation 'bots, bracket 'bots, people talking about where punctuation goes in lists, why not to boldface things, birthdates in biographies, and which sportsperson gets player statistics. Only 7 of the warnings/requests were over the whole of 2023, and 3 of those were 'bots. And clearly the accountholder does communicate on occasion: Special:Diff/841858412. Hence why I think that it was a trigger-happy block. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • This seems a case of someone who genuinely wants to contribute but made some communication errors. I'd favour unblocking, at least as a trial. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Espresso Addict. I think we can unblock and keep an eye. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Unblocked with warnings for non-communication and sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Yafie Achmad Raihan

Resolved

• I am involved with this in the sense that I raised the initial discussion about this user. Luck has it that they have just requested an unblock on promise that they will not do any more wrong page moves. There is something weird with their usage of the unblock template so it may not have turned up on any admin's radar yet. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem was that it was in a <nowiki> section. Animal lover |666| 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Restricting someone editing from article space just because they messed up on moving articles appear to be unproportional response. This is another case of using the sledgehammer-size block on something minor. Could have simply impose a "don't do any more moves or you will be blocked" warning. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  The block served its purpose; the editor has acknowledged it and promises to avoid the disputed behavior. I'll unblock. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I realise I'm not an admin, but would it be of help if I was the one to go through the 900+ other account bans and raise anything that I find here? I want to help to clean up the mess in any way possible. Fermiboson (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fermiboson Yes please. That will be appreciated. Most of the activities that resulted in blocks can be viewed by anyone. It'll benefit from more lights shining onto this issue. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked accounts with 100- edits

A non-admin review of the rest of the blocks which could potentially be mistakes. The log has been reviewed up to the date of 19 March 2019. There are also a number of promotional userspaces which were not deleted, which I have CSD tagged on my own.

Username	Expiry	Concern
Anarkaliofara (talk · contribs)	infinity	Edits were in the area of Indian castes, and not much community input appears to have happened at the AN/I thread, although there is undoubtedly some form of incivility/personal attack at minimum going on. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
A Big Cold Moon (talk · contribs)	infinity	Single revdel'd edit. Appears to be in relation to Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs), a Saudi POV pusher/vandal. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thegreatbooboo! (talk · contribs)	infinity	Does appear to be a nonsense-only account, but it would be better if someone checked the deleted contribs. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
TheSharpBlade (talk · contribs)	infinity	Nothing at all in the logs. Revdel'd BLP? Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Germanicus44 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Block for disruptive/POV editing w/r Ottomans, but nobody except WP:INVOLVED editors seems to have taken a look. Given editing area is CTOP, probably best to confirm. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Sequel5 (talk · contribs)	infinity	No controversy, I think, on the block itself. Having looked over the history though, should the block reason instead be something like undisclosed COI, incivility or WP:ASPERSIONS? Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Wfynde (talk · contribs)	infinity	Account does appear to be promo, but should their talk page entries be treated as COI edit requests? Also, sounds similar to Wifione, though I don’t doubt that’s just a coincidence. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
KG IT 7143 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Block for sock but nothing in logs. Evidence on deleted page? Also, edits relating to Indian (Nepali?) company. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Timfoley50 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Courtesy ping to original blocking admin @Star Mississippi - while I think that the user has clearly been incivil on the user talk page, there appears to be genuine objection to the indef applied by SM at AN/I which was cut short by Lourdes' block. Lourdes' interpretation of the quoted sentence as a legal threat I feel is borderline, so err on the side of putting this here for review. In addition the block reason should also be changed from WP:NOTHERE to WP:NLT, if it stands. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Searchingforaground (talk · contribs)	infinity	Block reason is promotional, but the user appears to not have made any obviously promotional edits (or any edit at all), nor is the username obviously that of any group or company. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) The username is identical to a musician's name. One deleted contribution on a draft page that's written about this said musician. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Multimilkp (talk · contribs)	infinity	Incivil, I suppose, but an immediate indef seems even more unnecessarily inflammatory? (FTR I haven't been able to find the AN/I thread in question so maybe there is something there which justifies it.) WP:ASPERSIONS of socking of the editor this person is in conflict with also appears to not have been dealt with, excepting a sock ban. Lourdes then claims on another user's talkpage that this account is a sock as well. Ultimately, it's not clear at all what the block actually is for. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Experiment77 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Hints of WP:ASPERSIONS but, looking through contributions, nothing that could come close to an immediate indef block. The editor does appear to have left, and Lourdes cites that as her rationale for an indef, so maybe slightly moot at this point. Fermiboson (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Riteinit (talk · contribs)	infinity	Appears to be a WP:BITE block. Editor was given no warning before the indef, and while I can see the case for incivility, I can also see the case for an excitable Midlander who's had a pint. Editor has also left TP message that could be interpreted as remorse/unblock request (although possibly WP:ASPERSIONS?) that should probably have been engaged with, in my opinion. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything beyond that is probably very, very moot. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

TheSharpBlade

I don't see how [30] counts as an attack page or is a negative unsourced BLP. Perhaps I'm missing some context here, though I'm also not sure if this user should be unblocked. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't have deleted that as a G10 either. That said, it appears to be a hoax (unless anyone else can find evidence of a landscape architect named Donald J. Guest), and with the account's only other edit being this, I'd say it'd be best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have deleted it G10, but I see what Lourdes meant in terms of the tone of the second paragraph. I sometimes delete things G11/G10 where there's a mix of adulation with "struggled with drug abuse"/similar without any reliable sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This may be borderline on the attack aspect, but it's very clearly not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article; it's a joke at best and is probably trolling. I might not have blocked immediately, but I'd have given a 4im warning at the very least. There are multiple real-world people named Donald Guest, FWIW. I would not reverse this block. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, not an obvious attack page afaics; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thegreatbooboo!

The deleted edit, from 18 October, is basically identical to User:Thegreatbooboo!/sandbox. I don't understand why Lourdes blocked more than three days after the last edits, but the account is obviously WP:DISRUPTONLY and there'd be no benefit to unblocking. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the sandbox too; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

A Big Cold Moon

The account's sole comment can be read here (it was just caught up in oversight collateral): Support Clearly a bad actor bad faith etc. Does this ring any bells in terms of sockpuppetry? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say almost definitely. I've done a CU and it's exclusively on proxies with another single edit account that's been blocked by another admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Endorse, received email harassment from the account. Not sure if that appears in the CU logs, but the block is good. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

KG IT 7143

• Himalaya Jet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That's where three single-purpose accounts intersect, only one of which was blocked. The second is named after the article subject, and is a very clear conflict of interest editor. The third is a simple partial-blanking vandal. There's an acknowledgement of multiple accounts on one of the first two's user talk page.

Draft:Himalaya Jet is a different situation, and clearly the single-purpose account that did it, taking over almost immediately (which is highly suspect), is far more experienced with editing a wiki. The edit summary (non-)usage is very different, too. A cynic would no doubt say, given how quickly the second single-purpose account took over, that someone else picked up the undisclosed paid editing gig. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wfynde

• Witchfynde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This might well be one for the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This is one of those what-you-are-saying-about-me-without-any-sources-is-wrong-but-I-cannot-edit-a-wiki-for-toffee situations. The article discusses 2020 and one of its only two sources pre-dates that by quarter of a century.

It's also one of those which-band-members-are-the-"real"-band situations. ☺ Clearly the account is named after the band. We should regard this as an attempt to challenge unverifiable content, for which the rationale on User talk:Wfynde should not be overlooked, and the onus is on the people wanting to claim events happening in 2020 to provide some actual sources from the current century.

Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Timfoley50

Thanks for the heads up @Fermiboson:. While I stand by my initial block and don't think he'll be a net positive, I reiterate what I said then, that I welcomed any additional input. If editors, admin or otherwise, feel it should be lifted, that's fine with me especially with so much time passed. That talk page got unecessarily ugly and I'm not going to engage with Foley directly as he asked me to stay off his Talk, and I'm happy to respect that. His immolation was a good example of why it's hard for editors to work in areas with which they have a COI. Star Mississippi 14:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I find BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s initial complaint on ANI that led to Timfoley50's block flawed at best, disinformation and misleading at worst. So many things were wrong in the initial report (characterizing someone as SPA, making it sound like someone with COI didn't declare), spinning "part truth" into a narrative that suits her goal (suggesting that Tim was forumshopping when it was spread out over 5 years) or coming up with her own metrics about talk page discussion length which is not backed by any policy (very similar to ArbCom's portal case). IMO this looks like a bad newbie-biting block. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • My first-impression 0.2c is that, while the editor in question is clearly incivil, the BDP issue could very much hvae been resolved with methods other than a block. No comments or opinions on BHG's behaviour, and I haven't delved into the content dispute itself. Is reopening the AN/I thread a good idea? My main concern here in the context of this mass review is the fact that Lourdes stepped in in the middle and cut short a developing AN/I discussion, even if there is a case for NLT, and had Lourdes not done that AN/I may have reached a different conclusion. Fermiboson (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Having seen no end of this sort of stuff over the years, that has escalated to Arbitration, full-blown user RFCs, and banning discussions, this does seem to have all of the makings of yet more of the same, and I echo Star Mississippi's prediction that this will not go well. Would Star Mississippi's block have been overturned had discussion progressed further? It possibly would have, although that's not a certainty. There's not much to fault about Star Mississippi's offer at the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean and it might have been taken up.

      Wifione/Lourdes's legal threat block did rather curtail that possibility. I agree with you that it's a bit borderline. I don't think that we need to re-open AN/I, though. After all, here is the Administrators' Noticeboard. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm probably not going to have much on wiki time this week so if you (collectively: @Fermiboson @OhanaUnited @Uncle G) think an unblock is the best way forward, feel free to do so. I'm never attached to blocks should they no longer prove necessary. Whether it needs to be here & ANI, I agree with UncleG. I feel like it can be handled here after or in conjunction with extending an offer of unblock to Timfoley50 and semi independent of the Lourdes block since mine was the basis. Star Mississippi 03:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  What about status quo ante? We can restore TP access, and if the user continues down the path they are continuing down, we can reblock per NLT or civility; and if they don't, we continue the conversation as a standard unblock appeal. If they don't say anything, they don't say anything. Fermiboson (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest to leave a note on Timfoley50's user talk page to see if we can reconcile and move beyond that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Riteinit

There are warnings on this user's talk page, albeit relating to edit warring not incivility (which is what the block was for). The incivility in question was very mild, so I agree it should have been met with a (further) warning instead of a block. However it's from so long ago that I suspect their interest in Wikipedia has long since waned. If they request an unblock I think it would be looked upon favourably but I don't see much merit in unblocking an account that's going to remain dormant anyway. WaggersTALK 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the account is a suspected sock, which would make an normal unblock moot. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

IP addresses persistently removing information related to international sport bans on Russia and Belarus

IP addresses have been removing information regarding Russia's ban by the IIHF. The problem exists across multiple articles related to ice hockey and figure skating, and possibly other sports with respect to Russia and Belarus.

Here are the regularly vandalized articles I am aware of:

Ice hockey

• International Ice Hockey Federation, Ice Hockey Federation of Russia, Russia men's national ice hockey team, Russia men's national junior ice hockey team, Belarus men's national junior ice hockey team, Luc Tardif

Figure skating

• Figure Skating Federation of Russia, 2022–23 figure skating season, 2023 European Figure Skating Championships, Alexandra Trusova, Anna Shcherbakova

Here are some of the problematic IP addresses:

• 85.160.0.13
• 85.160.1.205
• 85.160.3.255
• 85.160.4.67
• 85.160.12.47
• 85.160.20.178
• 85.160.34.133
• 85.160.39.136
• 85.160.41.122
• 85.160.43.11
• 85.160.43.122
• 85.160.43.136
• 85.160.47.41
• 85.160.49.19
• 85.160.58.235

Extended content

Sorted 15 IPv4 addresses: 85.160.0.13 85.160.1.205 85.160.3.255 85.160.4.67 85.160.12.47 85.160.20.178 85.160.34.133 85.160.39.136 85.160.41.122 85.160.43.11 85.160.43.122 85.160.43.136 85.160.47.41 85.160.49.19 85.160.58.235 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 16K 16384 15 85.160.0.0/18 contribs 5126 4096 5 85.160.0.0/20 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1024 4 85.160.40.0/22 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 2312 2048 4 85.160.0.0/21 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 256 3 85.160.43.0/24 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 1162 1024 3 85.160.0.0/22 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 128 2 85.160.43.0/25 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 525 512 2 85.160.0.0/23 contribs 1 1 85.160.3.255 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.11 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 15 1 1 85.160.0.13 contribs 1 1 85.160.1.205 contribs 1 1 85.160.3.255 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.11 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs

• 85.160.0.13
• 85.160.8.188
• 85.160.12.47
• 85.160.13.25
• 85.160.34.15
• 85.160.33.188
• 85.160.34.202
• 85.160.40.33
• 85.160.42.41
• 85.160.42.156
• 85.160.43.76
• 85.160.43.136
• 85.160.44.43
• 85.160.44.111
• 85.160.49.19
• 85.160.59.111

I believe it's time for either a range block or perhaps a sock investigation. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Note - Disruptive edits appear similiar to those of globablly blocked editor Max Arosev. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello - is there anybody out there? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No edits from this IP range since October 11, report is probably stale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Swalors

Swalors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @Swalors is disruptive and edit warring in articles Gayur-khan and Simsim despite my requests to stop. He's removing WP:COMMONNAME supported by number of WP:RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - here he added AI image that he presented as the image of Gayur-khan, 6, 7) renamed the article without discussing (1). I recommended the user to use talk page to explain his concerns there but he instead continued on edit warring despite his edits being reverted by me and another user (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You are required to notify the user of this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about that as it's been long since I've made a complaint. I notified the user. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Another sockpuppets of Holiptholipt

Another one. @Drmies: Holiptholipt (talk · contribs) is back with 2800:810:48E:80D0:5DDF:CB58:9CFB:D1AA [31] now, a week after he was banned for the same sockpuppet edits on the same pages.[32] I really don't think this guy will ever stop looking at how many accounts he has made every week in the last year, should a page protection be implemented again? BastianMAT (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• BastianMAT, OK--but listen. A few things: he's not banned; he's blocked. When you put diffs in here, link to the edit, not the version. In the last report you put mobile diffs and that's complicated for most editors. In this case, it would be helpful if you had a look at those articles to see if similar edits were made from similar IPs, so that we can more easily consider a rangeblock. And finally, yes, we all know this guy is not going to stop, and page protection--he's active on a bunch of different ones and we can't protect them all, so if there are frequent targets, note those either in a report, or at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-salt in mainspace?

I just found out that a bunch of articles (68 in total) in mainspace were somehow salted with template editor protection. Is there a reason for this, given that template protection is here to deal with the exact opposite — highly transcluded pages?

If there isn't, should these pages be downgraded to extended-confirmed protection? Or given another protection level?

Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In the process of notifying all the admins who have template-protected an article. Note that this was discussed on the Discord server. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a slightly more accessible list. There's pretty much no good reason to use template protection for this sort of thing (and policy doesn't support it), so most or all of these should be either lowered to ECP or raised to full protection. I'd be happy to help out with doing that, although I'll wait for other comments first. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they were either all misclicks or an old TW default etc. — would make sense to drop them all to ECP (and some of the older ones might be due a WP:TRYUNPROT!) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A number of them, such as Charles Darwin (botanist), look like they were protected as deliberate redlinks in Template:Interlanguage link/doc. I'm not aware of this ever having been a valid use of protection, and they should be unprotected. If that messes up the template documentation, so be it. As for the rest, I've come across protections like this before and they are probably left over from before ECP was a thing, and should be downgraded to ECP or unprotected altogether. – bradv 00:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For template documentation redlinks, my (non-admin) opinion is that template protection doesn't make sense, as it is the template that is massively transcluded and high-risk, not its documentation's examples. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For the deliberate redlinks, seems like an IAR to improve something; in any case lets not mix that problem in with the primary issue here - can be dealt with on its own. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate red links used to be a big thing. Remember this? – bradv 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

00:35, September 6, 2005 MarkSweep (talk contribs block) deleted page The weather in London (content was: '#REDIRECT wiktionary:terrible' Haha. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redlink examples lists a few common deliberate redlinks. Wikipedia:Intentionally permanent red link failed as a proposal in 2006. Wikipedia:Creation of example red links as pages discusses the history a bit. Wikipedia:Red link/History of the example red link (my creation) specifically follows the one example link used at WP:REDDEAL. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Charles Darwin (botanist) should be a redirect to Charles Darwin rather than being a deliberate redlink anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, one documentation choosing an example of red link shouldn't unilaterally prevent the page from being created. If it's really an issue (which I don't think it is as interlanguage links can also easily be made to work with blue links), changing the example wouldn't meaningfully hurt the documentation. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems really, really, weird that a demonstration of a template linking to pages which are notable enough for other language Wikipedias would have a salted link. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the problem is that if we used a real, creatable redlink, it would be created and the documentation would need to be rewritten. Whereas if we used a term that's salted for-cause but happens to exist on some other wikis, we'd be giving a very bad example, since such a term wouldn't be linked in a real article. A better approach might to just make examples use This is a red link (at least, until I get around to creating something notable with that title and ruining a bunch of documentation pages). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Like this and red link were once chosen as deliberate red link titles akin to your example, and now are rightly blue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dynamic list available here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Went through a batch, 16 left. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are apparently five left, is there a reason to leave these ones in particular? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 04:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's a bunch in draft space too (looks like all of them done by Ohnoitsjamie). Galobtter (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, per Special:PermanentLink/1187026248#Mistaken page protection?, Jamie seems to had made a habit out of template protecting pages as less restrictive then full protection, but has stopped. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will work on cleaning up the draft space ones today. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspension of Beeblebrox

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) has repeatedly failed to [p]reserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations by making disclosures on off-wiki forums. These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Conduct of arbitrators, Beeblebrox is suspended from Arbitration Committee membership for a period of six months from this date. During this period, Beeblebrox's CheckUser and Oversight permissions and his access to applicable mailing lists (including the functionaries' mailing list) are revoked. Following this period, Beeblebrox may request reinstatement of his permissions or mailing list access by applying to the Arbitration Committee. Beeblebrox may also regain access via election to the committee.

Support: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, Izno, L235, Primefac, SilkTork, Wugapodes

Oppose:

Abstain: Moneytrees

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Suspension of Beeblebrox

ITN topic ban removal request

It has been 15 months since I was partially blocked from ITN project pages, and whilst the block was entirely sensible and proportionate at the time, I would like a chance to prove why it is no longer necessary. For reference, the discussion on the partial block was at User talk:Joseph2302/Archives/2022/August#Unblock request (I was initially indefinitely site-blocked, and this was reduced to a partial block from ITN area), and as a courtesy, I am pinging Deepfriedokra and RickinBaltimore as the admins that were involved with those blocks.

In the time since I've been blocked, I have continued editing constructively in other areas, almost entirely on sports events (around 95% of my last 500 contributions have been in that area), including current sports events, as these often get the most edits/problems/discussion topics. Therefore some of my edits will have benefitted the ITN project even if I wasn't editing specifically for that purpose e.g. 2022 London Marathon and 2023 London Marathon were both created and substantially edited by me as upcoming and then current events that I nominated to DYK, but both ended up on ITN after being nominated by other people. In the time I have been partially blocked, I have remained civil with editors with whom I have interacted. I have been avoiding areas in which I think I might get hot headed, which was the cause of the ITN block, and will continue to do so. My average editing has decreased slightly [33] (about 30% per month on average), and this has helped me not to get too laser-focused on Wikipedia editing, which was one thing leading to lots of frustration and then incivility.

If unblocked from ITN pages, my main intentions are to comment on articles that I've worked on/interested in, primarily sports articles and RD articles that I might have seen in the non-Wikipedia news outlets. I do not intend to get involved with other ITN debates about e.g. whether ITN has US/UK bias, which were the sorts of topics that led to heated discussions and my original ban. Aside from wanting to contribute positively to ITN in my area of expertise, an unexpected consequence of being partially blocked is that some of the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library resources are unavailable to me, which affects my ability to find historic sources. I believe this is an unintended consequence of partial blocks (as at the time the WP Library set the requirements to no active blocks, partial blocking did not exist on English Wikipedia), and so removing the partial unblock would help me to access these resources for editing, which has been an issue for me a couple of times at DYK when editors have used Newspapers.com sources that I was unable to access.

I hope that admins will consider my request, as I believe that my editing focus and record since my partial block does demonstrate that I can be helpful to the sports-related topics that arise frequently at WP:ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support the request. Indefinite =/= infinite, and the work OP has done since the block goes a long way in showing my good faith that they will stick to the mindset they have demonstrated in the past 15 months. I would want more of the community to chime in, but I am comfortable lifting the restriction. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support the request. per RickinBaltimore.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Has been civil in all things cricket I've seen. Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per RickinBaltimore. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support an extremely convincing request. As a long-term editor, Joseph2302 has always been productive (to say the least!) and also, passionate. As he suggests, one can, perhaps, occasionally get too passionate. It's good to hear everything's all under control, though. ——Serial 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Good editor who has moved on, grown up, has a need, and both Rick and DFO consent. LGTM. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I will take them at their word that they will avoid the UK/US bias debates that are one of the reasons ITN has become so toxic.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Request seems to appropriately address all potential concerns. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic unban request

I'm asking the admins to please consider removing my Syria topic ban. I know what I was banned for, edit warring, causing disruption, not using a civil language with other users, sockpuppetry, and failing to reach an agreement through discussions. and I apologise to all of the Wikipedia community and promise that I will never engage any any disruptive activity again. During my topic ban ( more than 1 year ), I contributed so much to the community portal by fixing hundreds and hundreds of grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes across many articles Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban was applied here on 2022-08-11 and reads, "The community imposes an indefinite topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed; this ban may be appealed after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter)." This ban was logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I have not verified that Whatsupkarren has avoided editing about Syria-related topics. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From what I found, it seems that, at least on this wiki (hint), they didn't edit Syria-related topics. Nobody (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have skirted the edges with a series of edits on people of Kurdish ancestry in October last year (example) but appear to have stayed very clear on en:wp since. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers There are so many notable Syrian figures that do not have articles on English Wikipedia, to name a few: Paul Daher, Farid Boulad Bey, Benedicto Chuaqui. I’ll work on creating many of these.

I will also work on expanding articles such as, palmyra, Ebla, Ugarit, Umm el-Marra, and Tell Abu Hureyra

Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot of active users interested in Syria, I believe I can add so much value Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support They seem genuinely constructive, and I don't see any further disruption their ban would prevent. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

My topic unban request was removed by a bot before being closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1187091102 Whatsupkarren (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed malformed copy and paste. QoH's dirty sock (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiCleanerMan keeps reverting edits that are fine. 188.143.109.163 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I will say 2 things, 1. WCM is fully allowed to remove comments from his own talk page, per WP:REMOVED. 2. You must notify WCM of this thread. QoH's dirty sock (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No violation in policy. Users have the right to remove messages they don't want on their talk page. It's you that continues to be disruptive across several articles. You have continued to add information without providing sources and have thus also decided to remove sources from an article. No proof of French ownership of DS Penske. And removing sources from the Title Character article not just once, but twice. Similar editing pattern with another IP, 94.44.235.214, on articles such as Title Character. Wrong use of the Current Events template on Olivier Minne by 94.44 and by 188.143, and on the DS Penske article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For Title Character, I was trying to remove all unsourced characters, as you did when I added Tartuffe. --188.143.109.163 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking over Special:PageHistory/Title character, what I'm seeing is a bit of edit-warring, inadequate edit summaries, and no discussion whatsoever on Talk:Title character. Basically what things come down to there is that everyone involved needs to stop reverting and start discussing. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a different IP user who has no involvement with the conflict. Unless this is the same user trying to game the system. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately sometimes the beginning of differrent IPs can be similar, if you think using 188 and 184 as shorthand is too confusing, you could abbreviate using the last digits instead so that would make me 190, and the other IP 163. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed so, and they make a very valid point. WaggersTALK 15:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this would be best resolved on article talk pages rather than here. Strictly speaking (on DS Penske at least) it is 188.143.109.163 who should start the discussion as the one who wants to change long-standing content, but there is nothing stopping WikiCleanerMan from starting the discussion. I have not checked whether anyone has violated WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've had a little look and can see several double reverts across several pages but no instances of more than 3 on the same page. It's reasonable to say that edit warring has taken place even if it stops short of 3RR, but as long as it stops and they start using talk pages I think sanctions would be overkill at this point. WaggersTALK 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

188.143.109.163 has continued to edit-war with other users on the Penske article and has now been given another warning by another editor on IP talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier

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

---

User @Selfstudier deliberately deleting comments and marks off edit request not yet resolved in attempt to obtain consensus on issues raised regarding reliability and verification of sources + overciting.

This is disruptive editing that requires immediate admin intervention. I call for reverting the deletions and other changes done by this user and to consider revoking his editing permissions. EmbeddedReason (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@EmbeddedReason, their post to your talk page explains the removal of your comments from the article talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify the other editor (see banner at top of this page). I have done so for you this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks EmbeddedReason (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletions were done few minutes after comments were added.

Including last deletion of comment addressing this disruptive behaviour of the user

@Schazjmd deleting suggestions trying to obtain consensus to resolve ER - under the pretence they're "speeches" is not an explanation. Marking off the whole issue while users still addressing it is too not beneficial. EmbeddedReason (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is very clear that Selfstudier was correct, and EmbeddedReason was not entitled to make the edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. @EmbeddedReason, that article is subject to an extended confirmed restriction. Per that restriction, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. You are not extended-confirmed yet (it requires 500 edits and 30 days). You can make an edit request on the talk page, but nothing else until you reach extended-confirmed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger@Schazjmd

I'd like to point out that WP:ARBECR amendment was on 11.11.23 (2 weeks ago)

Reading the discussion leading to it, I can't see how anyone would agree the circumstances match those discussed.

Are we implying that instant deletion of constructive comments just for sake of revert is what this policy intended to fix or how its meant to be enforced?

As non-ECR editor I find it highly disruptive and without reason to just blindly erase constructive feedback and discussions just for the sake of "gotcha". Reminding you we're talking about 2 short constructive comments, not what I'd consider 'disruptive editing or talk' EmbeddedReason (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

When you have sufficient experience making constructive edits to Wikipedia in less contentious areas, you will be welcome to come back and contribute to RfCs in this subject area. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an Arbcom decision, it's not something admins or other general editors have any say in. Those are indeed the rules at this time. Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit request was made by me and my comments on it which were insta-deleted are replies to questions.

When several users were reaching agreement that issue demands addressing, Selfstudier decided to block further discussion on the ER, even though not resolved, mark it all off and erase future comments to it!

The aforementioned policy, with its very weirdly timed baked amendment, isn't the issue here.

Schazjmd Phil Bridger

Canterbury Tail

JayBeeEll With respect, hope Wikipedia still isn't China run. EmbeddedReason (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block request

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

---

Hello, this is Scorpions1325, who was previously known as Scorpions13256 requesting an indefinite block on both of my accounts with talk page access revoked and email access disabled. Long story short, I have come to the conclusion that many editors on this site are just as bigoted as the average Trump supporter, and that working with a number of editors is bad for my mental health. I say this as someone who recently left the Republican Party. Furthermore, I have become disillusioned with many of the site's core policies, as I no longer believe that WP:NPOV is as attainable as it was 10 years ago. A group of editors have seized control of a variety of contentious topics, and they will do whatever they can to push their POV, regardless of how out-of-policy their edits are. A test I often use to assess an article is the Joseph Goebbels test that I came up with. Many conservative BLPs are treated less neutrally than Joseph Goebbels, so reality has a liberal bias doesn't work outside of Creationism, Murder of George Floyd, Climate Change Denial, or January 6.

This year, I got my OCD under control for the first time since 2013 via Deep Brain Stimulation. My OCD is gone, but my Autism remains. I also recently moved out for the first time. Altogether, these changes made me realize how damaging Wikipedia, reading the news, and social media are to my mental health, and how they prevented me from getting better sooner. My biggest obstacle to living a normal life is Wikipedia, and I feel that completely changing my lifestyle is the only way for this to happen. Nearly all of my family and friends agree with me.

I do not hold any animosity towards most individual editors as a whole. In fact, I came to like most of them. Sorry if I come off as offensive Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions1325  Not done Take a deep breath. Wait 48 hrs before doing anything that you may regret. Then if you still really want to leave, scramble your password, log out and block Wikipedia on your browsers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think I'll regret this. I have been tempted for over a year to do something that will ensure that I am not welcome here ever again so that I won't be able to create another account. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions1325, you've done a lot here as an editor and we appreciate those contributions. You should be proud of your work even if it caused problems for you.

I'm happy your life has gotten better. It sounds like you've done some really hard-to-do personal work - that's something to be proud of, too. The average person is likely to give up before changing.

Your point is well-taken about Wikipedia's liberal bias. I've observed this, too, although I'm not especially conservative myself. It's something we all have to keep working on.

If Ad Orientem can't talk you out of leaving, I hope your future endeavours elsewhere go well. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have reached the point in my life where I can no longer let my childhood Autism (bad responses to stress) dictate what decisions I make from now on. My mood is unstable due to the uncertainty of where my life will go from here, and for the time being, I believe that my existence here is inherently WP:DISRUPTIVE. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't block productive editors and I do not agree that your presence here is inherently disruptive. If that was the case, you'd have been shown the door a long time ago. You're stressed. You're annoyed by the occasional idiocy that we all have to put up with. And you're tired of the left-leaning bias. I get it. It's real. It very nearly drove me off a couple years ago. At the time of my "retirement" I'd have wagered good money that I wasn't coming back. But I came to the conclusion that I can do more good here than by sitting at home collecting stamps or reading books and never sharing anything I learned. Nothing on this side of the Great Divide is perfect. We all have to deal with that fact. How we choose to respond to that reality is one of the things that I believe we will all be judged on one day. Take a long break. You probably need the down time. Come back when you are ready. If you are really ready to move on, no block will be needed. And if you're not, then a block won't keep you away. Any self-requested block can be undone on request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this is also that I am adjusting to a normal lifestyle that I previously never had access to, which the neurologist said could be stressful. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Like I said; take a break. We all need to now and then. Some people do actually burn out and leave. If it really is time, you will know it and any desire to return will simply fade with time. This is not what blocks are for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I also believe in WP:NOTTHERAPY. Over the past few hours I have calmed down, but I have come close to making posts like this no less than 20 times since March. In my opinion, that is the biggest sign that I shouldn't be editing here. I have a busy week, so I wouldn't have edited anyway. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Think about this a little more @Scorpions1325. I'm always willing to talk on or off-wiki. The Night Watch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Name change

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

---

I would like, if possible, to change my username in "14 novembre". Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have already done so. Name change requests are made via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS anyway. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)

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

---

I would like to ask the community to remove the 0RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([34]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([35]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([36]).

I accept the penalty, but as I explained at the time, this second revert was not a deliberate action, nor the result of edit-warring. It simply resulted from my misinterpretation of what a revert is. My previous edit was removed on the grounds of not providing sufficient sources, thinking that it was not making a revert I restored that edit with the addition of new and better sources. At the time I understood it as simply working together on an article, I did not think it could be construed as acting in bad faith. If I thought otherwise, I simply wouldn't have done it. However, I understand that it was my mistake.

I have since tried to continue editing Wikipedia without making reverts. Basically, it seems to me that given my entire editing history since March of this year, I have proven myself to be a user who tries to avoid conflicts, and if they arise resolve them on the talk page. I understand that the issue of the revert on Povilas Plechavičius casts a shadow over my track record. But given that it was an isolated incident I hope it doesn't completely cross it out. Marcelus (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: At this point I understand a revert as any restoration of previously deleted content, even if this restoration is intended to create a third version of the content, it is still understood as a revert. As in the example I gave, my mistake was that I took into account the context of the previous deletion (i.e. undermining the sources), now I understand that the context does not matter at all. What matters is the mere fact of restoring the previously removed content.

@Grandpallama, that is correct, everything is in the discussion I linked.

@Canterbury Tail, I invite you to browse through my edits, mainly from March 2023. Initially, I planned to let go of editing because I found it impossible with 0RR. But then I decided to prove that I can edit within the rules. Therefore, in the list of my edits, you can see a much greater engagement on t/p since then. Even on Talk:Povilas Plechavičius and the related Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force you will notice that I tried to discuss my propositions of the articles and reach a consensus. Hence my mistake of misinterpreting the situation and trying to restore the content with new sources. However this was the only such situation, in my opinion, it should not invalidate several months of hard work, long discussions, and searching for sources. Marcelus (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: could you point out in which articles I removed "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian"? Because I can't think of a single instance of that. I only sometimes insisted on taking into account the Polishness of some characters with mixed self-identification. But not by replacing the word "Lithuanian" but by using phrases like "Polish-Lithuanian" or "Polish and Lithuanian" and so on. Even in this example you gave in your 2022 report, you can see the opposite: I didn't want to remove "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian," but rather keep the latter form, which I feel much better describes the identity of Antoni Mackiewicz/Antanas Mackevičius. Marcelus (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: these categories were changed over a year ago from Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. This was a misguided move that the nominator himself backed out of. A situation arose that we have categories for 18th-century Lithuanian and 18th-century Polish-Lithuanian people, but no category for 18-century Polish people! I have since tried to reverse this, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation. Something you present as my obsession with "nationality," or the drive to "polonize" everything, is simply a concern that there should be categories for Polish people in the 18th century.

Contrary to what you say, I did not propose to remove the "Lithuanian" part, I only proposed to restore the "Polish" categories and make the "Polish-Lithuanian" categories parent categories of the "Polish" and "Lithuanian" categories. So no "Lithuanian" was never to be dropped. It's all in the discussion you linked: Proposed solution: create a separate category tree for Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, leaving Polish people category tree untouched and I'm advocating restoring previous state of affairs and creating Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation as a parent category for both. Marcelus (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing thread, for unknown reason to me Marcelus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, @HJ Mitchell; can I expect any sort of conclusive decision here any time soon? Marcelus (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors (Marcelus)

• You've failed to notify Callanecc, but I'll do that for you. I've also separated uninvolved and involved editors, as that distinction matters for appeals of AE actions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: I waived normal AE appeal rules on my block, in exchange for a 0RR and Marcelus agreeing to mentorship by you. Do you have an opinion on this appeal? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I was somewhat surprised that at the beginning Marcelus did not seem to understand the concept of a revert well, despite being a moderately experienced editor. I think his understanding is better now, but is it good enough? 1RR would allow us to test it; that said, I'd hate to see him fail this test and get blocked again. But I do not see an alternative, really. If Marcelus says they have learned the lesson(s), well, they are responsbile for their actions and their learning. And we should AGF that editors are trying to honestly improve.As such, I'd support reducing the 0RR (which I consider very tricky) to more regular 1RR and seeing how this goes. In general, surviving 0RR is harder and than 1RR, so I hope things will work out. All that said, I'd caution Marcelus to avoid reverting or ping me on talk page before any revert for double checking, particularly if they made another edit to that article in the prior 24h. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry about that Marcelus (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I was the user who reported Marcelus to AE for breaking his then 1RR. At this moment I would advice Marcelus to wait longer, preferably 6 or so months before appealing again. It's just too soon at this point. #prodraxis ^connect 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• I am involved because I filed this 3RR report from July 2022 against this user, from which moment it seems that they have been accumulating more and more edit-warring sanctions. From their contributions, I see that all they are editing is Central-Eastern Europe topics, with a focus on Lithuania and Poland and some of their edits, including to categories, being removals of "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian" as soon as August - the reason their first partial ban was introduced in the first place.

I understand that this topic is a very heated one and there is a lot of fighting about who belongs to whom (for example, I heard one Polish doctor of history say that the Belarusian state media were spinning such a narrative of Adam Mickiewicz that he was "a Belarusian poet writing about Lithuania in Polish" - which kinda demonstrates the fixation some have about nationality in Central-Eastern Europe).

I would suggest, as a trial, let Marcelus edit areas outside Central-Eastern Europe without restrictions for now and see if they are fine. European football (I see they actively edit about Legia Warsaw)? Fine for me. History of Italy? OK. Maybe they want to translate an article or two about non-Central European countries? Great. There are a couple of great articles in Polish whose English equivalents are not so great. If they get along pretty well in that process, I think that we can loosen restrictions on Central-Eastern Europe based on good prior record or, if few people intervene in the process, great job on article creation/expansion.

I sadly see little reason to loosen them now. Sometimes you just need a break from what bothers you, and I suggest Marcelus take one for now. Giving them some rope in this case will probably be a not-so-good idea: If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever (emphasis mine). But there are other areas where you will be more helpful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, I was referring to, among other things, your changes to categories on 19 and 20 August of this year where the effect was that you changed "Polish-Lithuanian painters" to "Polish painters". It appears you were reverted after that, because at later dates you started this discussion, also proposing that the "Lithuanian" part be dropped. What I'm saying is that from my vantage point it looks like too much preoccupation about nationalities while what you could do instead was all sorts of things that could have been much more productive.

You are within your rights to edit in the topic area since you aren't TBANNED, and you are within your rights to propose changes to categories, but I strongly suggest that you consider editing in other areas so that other editors have a record to compare to (e.g. "yeah, I see that they kind of like editing much in these areas and he may be a PITA sometimes, but I saw his brilliant work in, say, 19th century history of Canada and court cases of the High Court of Australia, so I think that he will likely be as productive in other areas, including Eastern Europe").

'Cause you know, from your record I think that if you are given another chance and you will still be getting complaints against you at ANI/AN/AE/3RR the next thing they will discuss here is a TBAN. Are you sure you want it? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors (Marcelus)

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, contentious topics sanctions may be overturned by "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN".

Can you, as completely as possible, describe what your current understanding of a revert is? BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's part of the definition, though not the full definition; the full definition of a revert is that any action that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them some final rope - 0RR is very onerous, and if they violate 1RR again with the justification "I wasn't aware it was a revert" I think it would be justified to just block them for WP:CIR, as if they still don't understand it after this point they never will. I am a little concerned by the broader context, but not enough to oppose this appeal. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just speaking more generally, perhaps part of the problem is exactly the fact that our definition of what a revert is is convoluted, overly bureaucratic, lawyer-speak, run-on sentence upon run-on sentence, written in as confusing way as possible and you need a graduate degree, four years work experience and three reference letters before you can wrap your head around it? I understand very well that the reason it’s that way is because people try to endlessly find ways to WP:GAME it, so with every innovative excuse something new gets added and tweaked in the definition, but at the same time, the nature of the beast suggests that if someone says “sorry, I just didn’t understood what Wikipedia’s definition of revert is” then leniency and understanding is called for? Volunteer Marek 06:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Important detail left out--you were actually blocked on September 15, as a result of a 1RR violation. That block was only downgraded to a 0RR restriction because another editor offered to mentor you, and the enforcing admins accepted that in lieu of a block and removed the block on September 27. Grandpallama (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So you've been blocked for edit warring 3 times now. Why would we believe that this time you'll never do it again? Sorry but it's hard to accept. I think you should go 6 months on your current restrictions before requesting an alteration in the terms, the community is already being lenient. Canterbury Tail talk 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think BilledMammal has it right, a move back to 1RR seems reasonable given the nature of prior violation. I looked at the original case and I feel the sanctions were probably a bit more than would be expected/needed in that situation, so I'm inclined to cut them some rope... Hobit (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd advocate reducing the restriction to 0RR on pages within the scope of WP:ARBEE only, and 1RR everywhere else.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Looking back, my feeling in the AE thread, based on HJ Mitchell's initial proposal, was that we were reinstating the ARBEE 1RR, not site-wide. Maybe Callanecc can clarify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh... I understood Callanecc's restriction as meaning 0RR everywhere.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's only within the Eastern Europe topic area. The wording of the sanction on Marcelus' talk page is Indefinite 0RR restriction in the Eastern Europe topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then I'd agree with BilledMammal.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Like others I'm happy to overlook last month's incident as a good faith misunderstanding. User:Volunteer Marek makes a good point about Wikipedia's definition of a revert being somewhat different to what most people would understand the term to mean. Let's loosen it to 1RR again. WaggersTALK 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• I too inherently dislike an 0RR restriction. Yes, even in a topic area such as Eastern Europe -- in fact, probably even more so, due to the heightened probability of gamesmanship occurring in that area. To me, with the definition of a "revert" indeed being as nebulous as it is (as Volunteer Marek points out), as well as the inherent desire for editors to after all edit an encyclopedia, such a restriction essentially is lying in wait for the editor to get caught breaking it, whether purposefully or accidentally. 1RR is more reasonable. For one thing, it allows an editor to check through an uninvolved third party as to whether the revert they just carried out is indeed a revert. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd support changing the 0RR to 1RR, simply because 0RR restrictions severely hamper editing (almost any edit to existing text could be argued be a revert) and doesn't provide that much of advantage over 1RR. Galobtter (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Support a minor change that won't make much of a difference to anyone except Marcelus, per the principles of WP:ROPE, let's enact and finally archive this thread. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Motion to close

Hi, administratively involved, but putting this in a separate subhead for attention, since this thread has now been archived without action twice. Unarchiving at Marcelus' request. The "clear consensus" standard for AE appeals is a high one, but personally I think that this can be closed at this point as "consensus to downgrade to 1RR, with understanding that further violations may lead to an indefinite block"—a caveat originating with BilledMammal and endorsed by Hobit and S Marshall, and not opposed by anyone else supporting a downgrade. Of course, again, I'm involved here, but that's my read of things. At this point any close would be welcome, either on those terms or otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Abuse of processs by Wikipedia administrators regarding Andrew5 and Long Island based IP addresses interested in weather and baseball

(1) WeatherWriter claims that any user who edits weather and baseball in the same day is andrew5. LOL. That means users aren’t allowed to have the same interest. (That also makes users like @ChessEric: socks of andrew5, and an SPI should be opened up. (2) Yamla is now not even hearing cases of IP addreeses who are blocked, a deep violation of WP:ADMINCOND. (3) It seems highly likely WeatherWriter WP:PAID admins to block these accounts, a major violation of the TOU to get admins to agree with him.

JUSTICE FOR LI IPS! 96.57.76.226 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was paid by WeatherWriter to report you all those times. United States Man (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Above comment was made by blatant impersonator United States Stan. I think the sock drawer might need cleaning out. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

IP, you are required to notify WeatherWriter of this discussion. I have done so for you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is honestly one of the greatest things I have seen this month. It is absolutely hilarious that coincidentally, all the WP:DUCK evidences (i.e. weather/sports edits on the same day) somehow all come from this one area in New York. The checkusers notice that as well. Very much abusive. You know. Well, if one wanted to investigate this further, maybe the Wiki Foundation could run an academic study to see how so many people in this one county in New York want to edit Wikipedia, more specifically, weather and sports articles. That would be one of the greatest academic studies in history, since it seems all these Andrew5 related IP addresses, which are all from this one area in New York, keep evading a single ban on Wikipedia and continuously want to edit weather and sport articles. I may have found my doctorial thesis now! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh great, another New York Dunkin Donuts customer. I'm collecting those. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)