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	18	0	18
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	10	0	10
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	104	0	104
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 121 sockpuppet investigations
• 11 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 116 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 116 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 20 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

Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
• "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal: 500edits/30days restriction over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101

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

---

Appealing user

SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

an indefinite topic ban from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Threats being made to me

Administrator imposing the sanction

El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[20]

Relevant Links

To make this easier for administrators and to be fully transparent I have compiled all related discussions and links I could think of below. Not all of the threads are flattering. But I am not going to make an effort to bury them. SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning now on sharing this (was not sure if I would earlier), but my early reactions to the ban and my reactions to the first appeal were likely shaped by a time of emotional turmoil I was experience outside of Wikipedia at the time. I was more reactive here than I am proud to have been. SecretName101 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Original ANI discussion
  • A thread on the User talk page of SecretName101 (the appealing user) that preceded this
• Talk-page notice/discussion
• First appeal to Administrators' noticeboard (result: “oppose”)
  • notification by SecretName101 (the appealing user) to El C (the administrator who put in place the topic ban) of this appeal
• Second appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard (result: “no consensus”)
  • notification by SecretName101 (the appealing user) to El C (the administrator who put in place the topic ban) of this appeal
  • Post on Administrators’ noticeboard where I brought to the attention of others that the request was archived without closure
  • Closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests
  • Closure request at Administrator’s noticeboard
• Most recent post (as of appeal being made) on an August 2022 thread on the user page of SecretName101 (appealing user) requesting further clarity and input from several users that objected to their second appeal
• Posts by SecretName101 (appealing user) on the talk page of El C (the administrator that imposed the sanction)]
• Posts by El C (the administrator that imposed the sanction) on the talk page of SecretName101’s (the appealing user)

Statement by SecretName101

On the topic ban and its circumstances

One year ago, this topic ban was imposed upon me. In April 2022, I made my most recent appeal, which resulted in no consensus.

I would like to first apologize for any and all damage for my practice of poor judgement/actions that spurred this topic ban.

I would like to reiterate, as I said in my previous appearance, that,

I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.

I did not create the article which spurred this topic ban with malicious intent. Instead I made stupid and careless decisions, which I acknowledge and have learned from. Regardless of why and how, I still caused regrettable harm.

The seed of the article in question came from seeing that the individual had been the owner of what was described as a notable and successful nightclub. Seeing other things, such as their induction into the Delaware Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, I figured that they would perhaps be just ever-so-barely notable enough to be described on this project.

In creating the article, I had access only to limited resources on the subject that were made available online. That should have been the first deterrent to not start a new article on the individual. The resulting article painted an incomplete picture of the individual due to my access to only limited information. It was stupid to move it from the draft space unreviewed and in the shoddy state that it was in. The information I did find on the subject was largely about negative aspects of their bio, and the article consequentially placed disproportionate emphasis on these aspects. Other bad decisions and misjudgments that I made in editing exacerbated this negative lean.

The draft of the article should have been abandoned until such a time that I or someone else could find sources that would paint a more balanced and complete picture on the individual. If I wanted help in fleshing it out, instead of publishing it and hoping others might help improve it, I should have actively called attention to the draft in discussion areas and requested other users lend a hand in fleshing the article as a more complete and balanced picture. The fact that I did not ask for others to review a shoddy article and advise what to do with it was very stupid.

Since I tend to find myself editing often in the sphere of government and political biographies, I am primarily familiar with the practices of those sorts of articles. Many political bios that I have seen in that sphere either correctly or improperly describe(d) convicted politicians as "convicts", "convicted fraudsters", or similar descriptors in the opening sentences of their articles. Seeing this, I made what others later informed me was a misassumption that this is the regular practice for any biography of a convicted figure.

I also carelessly included a very bad source in the article, however this source was not supportive of negative-leaning information. The negative information on the individual was largely sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. It was factual information. But that information was nevertheless cartoonishly over emphasized, especially considering the length all other aspects of the biography were given.

There was no urgency for this individual to receive any coverage, even if they met the bar of notability. I should certainly not have rushed to have content published. If I could not get it right, I should not have published anything at all. It is even more so the case that an incomplete article on the individual shouldn't have been published, given that his article was presumably low-trafficked enough that others users weren't going to give it needed attention.

Additionally, I see how the negative information flew in the face of the WP:NPF principle that I am now familiar of. I did not practice the needed caution and the information was not principle to their notability.

I have also recognized that the topic that might have been more likely to be worth creating an article on was the nightclub, not the one-time owner. I have zero plans of touching that subject again in any respect, though.

In the past, there have been some users that rejected my appeals because they believed I was lying about the intent of my actions. They've attributed bad faith to my edits, an intent to hurt the subject of the poorly-conceived article, and will not accept anything short of a full signed confession to that being the case. I cannot, in good conscious, give a false confession. My edits were the result of aforementioned poor judgement/misunderstanding and not due to ill intent.

In discussions that preceded the issuing of the topic-ban, I was foolish not to have done an immediate about-face. Instead of admitting what I did wrong, I first hyper focused on confronting incorrect accusations of Mal-intent. I should have denied those once, and focused myself instead on giving recognition to the areas where I did recognize my own fault. I engaged poorly with the editing community in that respect particularly.

I also acknowledge that I did a poor job at numerous moments before my second appeal to the topic ban at recognizing, familiarizing myself with, understanding, and remembering the limits imposed by the topic ban.

I feel that (with the acknowledgement that the edit that brought the ban was indeed a disruption), I am not a characteristically disruptive user, and have put great good faith effort into demonstrating that. The purpose that a topic ban serves is to prevent disruption the project. I'm not a perfect editor, but my editing has been strongly net-positive and done with positive intent. I will be a more careful editor with balancing articles (particularly BLP) going forwards.

On what work I have done since topic ban was put in place

It was suggested that demonstrating good work in this project would be the best means to prove myself during my topic ban, and so I will detail some of the work I have done since my topic ban was put in place.

To somewhat summarize the biggest highlights of my work on Wikipedia since the topic ban:

• Elevated Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson to a “good article”
• Elevated William McAndrew to a “good article” and worked towards elevating it further to a “featured article”
• Created new articles related to a variety of subjects
• Improved three articles that I have nominated to undergo pending “good article” reviews, . There are a good number more articles that I have worked on that I intend prep and nominate for “good article” reviews after the ones for those are completed. A list that I created is currently nominated to undergo a “Featured List” review also.

Below is a more detailed (partial) overview of my work since the topic ban in prose...

____________________________

Since my last appeal, I have done a much more cautious and better job at being mindful of the limits of my topic ban in my editing. I have worked on many appropriate articles/revisions.

In the time since by my previous appeal alone…..

I have continued to improve articles related to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. This has been time-intensive. In this effort I improved Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, which has now become a good article. I had originally created this article after my topic ban was put in place. Among the other Johnson impeachment-related articles I have been giving attention to are Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson, Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson, 1868 impeachment managers investigation, and Command of Army Act, Timeline of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Articles of impeachment adopted against Andrew Johnson. Most of these articles were first created by me in the time after my topic ban was instated.

It is worth noting that, before my editing on the topic of Johnson’s impeachment, some massive details about Johnson’s impeachment were completely missing from the project. More aspects were poorly represented or misrepresented before my editing on this topic.

Outside of that subject, I have also done a lot of other work. I authored the new article Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination. I have also continued to enhance William McAndrew. I have an aim of ultimately elevating this to a “featured article”. I also made some positive and sizable improvements/ additions to Betty Ford. Pretty substantial details about her bio were missing or underexplored. I will also aim to ultimately elevate that article to a “featured article”.

I also improved Benjamin Butler and a number of other articles. I also created the new article Marshall/Goldblatt mansion. I also created other new articles such as John Rutledge Supreme Court nominations, Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview, Sherman Minton Supreme Court nomination, Wiley Rutledge Supreme Court nomination.

I also made a large number of less ambitious edits to hundreds of articles on long-dead American politicians’ and judges. These changes included adding infoboxes, inline citations, better sourcing, corrections, adding missing information, and reorganizing the layout of articles. It also included improving existing infoboxes. While the changes made to most of these articles were often not particularly ambitious individually, it was an immense effort when you cumulate all of those changes together.

I have also made a few edits on transportation-related articles. This has not been the primary area of my focus at the moment, however.

I made many other good edits not summarized here. I have started a number of additional efforts that I am planning to continue.

_______________________

Prior to my earlier appeal (but after the topic ban was put in place), I had also………

• Elevated William McAndrew to a “good article”.

• Worked on improving/expanding 1927 Chicago mayoral election

• Created a variety of new articles, including, Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, Mayoralty of Thomas Menino, Michael Cassius McDonald, 1969 Detroit mayoral election, 1973 Detroit mayoral election, Benjamin Willis (educator), 1927 William Hale Thompson mayoral campaign, Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system, United States House Select Committee on Reconstruction.

Statement by El C (imposing administrator)

As explained here (permalink), I prefer not to participate. El_C 18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, yes, succinct enough (sorry, is that a thing from some thing?), but I didn't get your not an endorsement of the WMF bit. I don't remember there having been a W00MF facet to this, though maybe there was and I just plain forgot. Regardless, it looks like this appeal is going good, which... good. I'm happy most of everyone's happy with SecretName101, to whom I wish success in navigating BLPs and otherwise fulfillment in their editing contributions. El_C 10:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the well wish. I am thankful that there has been an attitude here willing to give me a chance. I will try hard not to mess up this potential second-chance. SecretName101 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also the "not an endorsement of the WMF" appears to be a standard disclaimer that Yngvadottir puts in all of their edit summaries. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement(s) by involved editor(s)

Buffs

My statement at the previous AN stands as I wrote it then (so I guess I'm "involved"): Support as requested People can make mistakes even when banned, however, no one addressed them at the time. Had they done so, it could have been clarified at the time/fixed. To continue to use it now is pointless. It isn't swept under the bridge, but holding on to it for 3+ months just to drop it and then hold against them for over a year...was it really that much of a problem? He has admited msitakes . Give him another chance. We can always block/re-ban if necessary. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir

• Support. I'll put myself here, since although not an admin, I participated in the original discussion and the subsequent appeals. Although this appeal format is daunting, and although SecretName101 is not one of our best writers, including here as well as in articles I looked at before coming to a decision on my position (I'm afraid I couldn't resist making some edits), my concerns are mostly allayed by the tenor of this latest appeal, and I didn't find anything substantive about which to be concerned in my look at their edits. However, if this appeal succeeds, I hope they will think especially hard about BLP content going forward. For what it's worth, I appreciate the decision to notify both past supporters and past opponents of this appeal; I understand Floquenbeam's initial concern, but they also bearded dragons like me. I'm hoping AndyTheGrump and Begoon, who played important roles in previous discussions of SecretName101's edits and, I think, have better skills than I in evaluating editing patterns, will have the time and inclination to post here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

• Unsure, and only responding here because Yngvadottir asked me to. On the positive side, SecretName101 seems finally to understand what the issues were with the biography that started this all. That it took so long to sink in isn't encouraging though, and I'd have to suggest that rather than just avoiding "any pages strictly related to Biden", SecretName101 might do better to avoid biographical content directly or indirectly concerning contemporary US political figures in general. If the topic ban is lifted, any such content is liable to come under particularly close scrutiny, and I can't imagine they will want to go through this again. The community certainly won't, and there would be little prospect of a favourable outcome if the gross errors of judgement that started this all are repeated. Perhaps SecretName101 should ask themselves whether they might be better off avoiding all this, and sticking to less controversial topics, for their own mental well-being? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Begoon

• Comment: Similarly, replying only in response to Yngva's request. I'm not going to support or oppose. I've been extremely unimpressed with SecretName101's previous attempts to firstly justify the behaviour for which they were originally tbanned, and to explain away subsequent tban violations by basically asserting that they did not understand what a tban from BLP, broadly construed, meant. If this was genuine confusion then that's worrying, because the concept is not one that should need explanation - if, instead it was 'wikilawyering' then that's a concern for obvious reasons. However, if the mood of the community is to relax the tban now, because "it's been long enough" and SecretName101 is saying "the right things" then I won't actively oppose that, mostly because, as Andy points out, it is likely that future edits will be under great scrutiny. SecretName101 should, in those circumstances, carefully consider future actions in the areas concerned. Begoon 21:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Involved editor 1

section only to be edited by an involved editor

Involved editor 2

section only to be edited by an involved editor

Discussion among editors about the appeal by SecretName101

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

•  Clerical note: This uses the AE appeal template, but AN appeals have an audience of all uninvolved editors, not just uninvolved admins, so I've combined the "uninvolved editors" and "result of the appeal" sections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for the error. SecretName101 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• It seems you have chosen AN instead of AE due to latter's word limit. I won't read through this, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: In the past appeals I feel that I have been faulted for anything I neglected to say. For example, a user voted against my first appeal because I did not provide a broad overview in my 500 word limit of the work I had done since the sanction was imposed. In my second appeal, several users cited things that they felt I had failed to say. This conditioned me to be more inclusive of details this time around.

  I am sorry to see you are taking the "TLDR" ("Too Long, Didn't Read") approach as a consequence of me making an earnest effort to be more thorough in this appeal.

  I hope others will be more willing to look at my case. SecretName101 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I understand your position, your entire answer could be condensed to a simple "Yes". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: I'm confused as to what you mean. "Yes" to what if you care sharing? SecretName101 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm trying to say that, in a wordy response to a complaint about wordiness, you have confirmed that using WP:AE for the appeal was not an option for you (at least partially) due to its word limit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• @SecretName101: Did you really just canvass 4 people to this discussion because they supported your previous appeal? That's really, really, really unwise. I'm not sure how to fix that now so it doesn't doom your chances, but step one is to stop it until you figure out what step two is. (see below) Step two might be to notify all the people who opposed your previous appeals as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was already in the process of compiling the user names of negative voters and drafting the carefully-worded statement I planned to send them. SecretName101 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, seeing the nature of your new posts to previous opposers, I'll strike that. Either you're doing the right thing and just did it in an unfortunate order, or you're fixing doing the wrong thing. Either way, that resolves my concern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  If I missed anyone (I think I covered everyone) feel free to let them know. I did skip any accounts that were blocked (however, I did lean on informing a retired user rather than skipping them) SecretName101 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just noticed there IS one user who contributed to a past appeals discussion that I accidentally failed to give a notice to. I just contacted them. Want to be transparent about that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just notified one more user who was relevantly involved. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing these restrictions for the same reasons I did so the previous time this came up (noting that they notified me about this discussion, but as they notified previous opposers as well, I'm not concerned about the canvassing aspect here). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support; I would strongly suggest that SecretName101 voluntarily stays away from any BLP relating to the Biden family. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why? If he is editing in a responsible manner, what's the problem? Buffs (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure that I could go as far as granting absolute assurance in perpetuity. But what I can sure you is that I certainly have no immediate plans to focus on any pages strictly related to Biden anytime soon. SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I also would like to express to Black Kite that I very grateful that you, particularly as an editor that was highly critical of my previous two appeals and extremely unconvinced of my sincerity previously, have been willing to approach this with an open-mind. SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I opposed the first appeal, as I thought it was too soon. An additional ten months have gone by. The editor made a big mistake, but their comments above indicate that they understand their error and will avoid such problems going forward. This editor has otherwise been productive. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. SecretName101 has blatantly WP:CANVASSED 13 different users (so far) about this appeal. Check his contribs to usertalk pages since 25 October: [21], The three "uninvolved" support votes so far, and the sole "involved" support vote so far, are all from editors he canvassed. All support votes from the editors he canvassed should be disregarded. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: this has already been addressed above. Do you disagree with Floquenbeam's assessment? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Canvassing is canvassing. Contacting and sweet-talking those who previously opposed you is canvassing just as much as contacting your supporters. This appeal should have been thrown out the minute the canvassing was discovered, and the user should wait at least 6 months before another appeal. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see that as canvassing. Being nice to people is... normal and how we should expect editors to interact? The fact that SN101 reached out to both opposers and supporters indicates to me that they were not intending to canvass. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with Softlander's assessment. WP:CANVAS says Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) are among those who can be notified and The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. The notifications are appropriate under the wording of the behavioral guideline. For what it's worth, I was already aware of this discussion and was in the process of refreshing my memory by reading again the original ANI discussion when I received the message from SecretName101 on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware there was an identically worded notice rule if that is the case. Wikipedia has so many rules and policies even someone who edits for years learns a new one on a regular basis. I thought that acknowledging past votes would be a nice way to make the notice appear more cordial/polite and less robotic. I feel curtness and in-personal messaging too often comes across as impoliteness and ingratitude on this platform and have been making an extra effort in recent months to pepper communications here with niceties. SecretName101 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  wouldn’t those concerns best be taken as a consideration weighed by the closing administrator when determining consensus?

  This opposition vote gives no weight to anything other than a concern of canvassing. No mention or weight is given to the initial sanction, conduct and editing since my last appeal, or anything else.

  I am very bewildered that Softlavender feels a proportionate action to their concerns of canvassing would be a six month extension to an indefinite topic ban that has lasted one year. SecretName101 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of canvassing. He reached out to those previously involved. That does not violate our ethics in any way. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE. I am convinced by the statements that the user understands what they did wrong, and understands how to avoid the same problems. If they return to the same issues, their editing history and prior bans are a matter of record and I expect any future behavior issues will be dealt with swiftly and severely. --Jayron32 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - seeing the pledge that they’re not in a hurry to edit any BLP articles related to the Biden family. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - SecretName101 seems to have gotten the point, and much time has passed. He has earned the opportunity to prove it. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Request close

There seems to be no significant dissent or discussion in the past 72 hours. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Appeal my topic ban from BLPs

I was topic banned from BLPs. I would like to be un-topic-banned. I completely admit that some of my edits on/about 25 September 2021‎ to Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry were unbalanced, cut-and-paste edits; bad encyclopedia-writing up and down. They were made in the heat of the moment and I should not have made them. They will not be repeated should I be unbanned. In the meantime I've:

1. made a mistake
2. made a couple of thousand edits (link slow to open due to age of my account and the number of edits)
3. recieved a (procedural) NPP barnstar (another one, maybe two, likely see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/October_2022)
4. seen some drama on meta (since en.wiki is the only WMF wiki I'm really active on, I'm assuming this was related to something on en.wiki)
5. had an en.wiki BLP I largely wrote nominated for Translation of the Week on meta
6. had a pretty good record of PRODs
7. since it was mentioned at the original ANI thread, I've also used an alt.
8. been contacted off-wiki about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_R._Fieve by someone who appeared to think this was relavent. I don't think it's relavent, but I'm including here for completeness.

Please be aware that there a technical reasons why old twitter content cannot be deleted (only the first 3,200 tweets of each account are accessible via API); all/almost all of my remaining tweets fall into this category.

In addition to my topic ban being lifted, I request that someone fix the copyright issues with Listener letter on science controversy. The initial version of this contains text lifted from one of the above-mentioned BLPs without declaring the source of the copyrighted text. Due to the close link to the previous issues I should probably not touch that right out of the gate. TBH, I'm not sure how that gets fixed either. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: I posted an edit summary to note the copying within Wikipedia, per the instructions at §Repairing insufficient attribution. I think that what you meant is that this copying happened without such a note—more of a licensing than a copyright issue—but if there are also issues with insufficient attribution to copyrighted source, I think you could (cautiously) be more specific without breaking the spirit of the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I think your edit covers my concerns. I'm unaware of any further issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm leary to extend grace in this case; your allocution above seems to focus on the more technical violations involving copy-paste issues; but completely ignore the meat of nearly every person who supported your ban which was that these were essentially attack pages. It's not just "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing"; your whole request seems to be of the "mistakes were made" type. You edited Wikipedia articles specifically to disparage and attack real living people. You wrote things in Wikipedia to maliciously damage the reputation of several people. That's a far worse behavior than being "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing". --Jayron32 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am in general agreement with Jayron32 on this matter. In order to support removing the topic ban, I would expect a much more frank addressing of the indisputable fact that Stuartyeates created a bunch of non-neutral, poorly written BLPs for the purpose of besmirching living people who took the other side in an academic controversy than Stuartyeates's personal opinion. And then he gloated and bragged about his BLP violations off-Wikipedia, bringing this encyclopedia into disrepute. As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Jayron and Cullen have already said everything I would have said about this appeal - no need for me to repeat. Begoon 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Adding, as perhaps a still outstanding issue: At the previous discussion I remarked: "Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though...". Stuart confirms the use of "an alt" above. If the topic ban is maintained then unless any other "alt"(s) is/are linked then I'm not sure how these "multiple Wikipedia accounts" can be monitored for compliance. Unless, of course, "an alt" means, or is supposed to be taken to mean that it is the only one... Begoon 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I have this account. I have User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I have one other recently-active account, I have sent an email to AC about, as per WP:ALTACCN. I have a bunch of inactive accounts like, User:StuartYeates (last edit 2011), User:Stuartyeates (code test) (last edit 2014), User:Stuartyeates_randombot (last edit 2014), and probably others I've forgotten the names of. I have no other recently-active accounts. I am 100% aware that my TBAN applies to all of these and believe my only breach has been the one listed above which was dealt with proactively. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced. The BLP violations and off-wiki behaviour that led to the ban were egregious, which the appeal does not really address. Stuartyeates has not sufficiently explained what kind of BLP material they would edit after the ban is lifted or how they would avoid repeating their mistakes. Politrukki (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) At the time, I argued for leniency, not because I thought Stuartyeates' edits were justified, but because the bad behavior was highly focused on a singular event, and a blanket ban from all BLPs seemed both disproportionate and punitive. I am not sure how to phrase a narrower interdict (a ban from editing BLPs on scholars and academics? from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed?, as a couple people suggested at ANI?), but I continue to think that a response along those lines would be more proportionate to the offense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Many/most of my edits post-TBAN have been assigning new/orphan articles to wikiprojects, which are talk namespace edits. Narrowing the interdict to only apply to article space would allow me to do this for BLPs and BLP-like articles which I've had to avoid. Also a much more black-and-white test than 'controversy'. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrators acting in their personal capacity on private committee evidence

Something highlighted just above by CaptainEek is the fact that arbitrators from "time to time" will act on private evidence emailed to them (assumedly with the express purpose for the committee to investigate) in their personal capacity as admins — I'm all for the reduction of bureaucracy, but this raises a worrying question: how do we (the community) deal with unblock requests of these blocks? Blocks made by the committee are appealable to the committee, CU blocks are appealable to CUs, etc. In this case, the block in question is "normal" (i.e., appealable via a normal unblock request) but based on private evidence only available to arbitrators. No other functionaries have the ability to review these unblock requests, only the committee. That doesn't "feel right" — we should strive to be clear and fair, with as "open" an appeal process as possible. Are we, the administrators of the English Wikipedia, happy with this practice? At the very least, I feel the community deserves the transparency of knowing just how often arbitrators make "normal admin blocks" based off of arbitrator-only private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to this comment, no — I don't believe this can be compared to private evidence emailed directly to an individual functionary. I'm referring to evidence emailed to the committee, at the committee's email address and available to all members of the committee. In these cases, there's an expectation of review and action by the entire committee. This is a fairly clear fact, else the user who emailed the evidence would have just emailed a functionary directly. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm off to bed since it's rather late my time, but I'll note this before I go. If a user emails us, and says "so and so is a troll", that isn't ArbCom business. But it would be a grand waste of time for an Arb to say to them "oh, we don't handle that, go report it at ANI", when instead said Arb could block the troll and also tell the emailer that in the future they should go to ANI. We do stuff like that fairly often because it saves everyone time. All 15 members of the Committee don't need to vote on every single email we get. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you consider being emailed "so and so is a troll" as private evidence, or would their contributions be sufficient to prove that, thus negating the issue of how any other admin/functionary could handle an unblock? I think the answer to that is fairly clear. I entirely agree with any action which reduces bureaucracy and allows our elected arbitrators to focus on the important things, which I hold that on average y'all do very well — this isn't a criticism of any of you, but it was jarring to me to discover this happens, when I'd have thought the easier thing for the committee to do would be to refer "unactionable" (or, more accurately, unactionable by the committee as a whole) evidence back to the community (which, in this case, would be as simple as forwarding an email to the functionary mailing list) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's confidential information it shouldn't be forwarded to the functionaries list given that nda compliance is not necessary to be subscribed (and the list has an archive so such info would be available in the future to people who didn't qualify). In this situation my opinion is if Eek is relying on offwiki evidence it should be a CU block. If the email just drew Eeks attention and all evidence is available on wiki it can be an admin block and the email needn't be mentioned. I agree that either way the block should be clarified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified I of course meant the checkuser mailing list... — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've clarified the block rationale. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it Eek — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The chain of accountability and oversight when it comes to non-public matters is something like individual functionaries < the functionaries < individual arbs < ArbCom < OmbCom < the WMF Board. So no, I don't see anything odd in the fact that other functionaries can't review actions by an arb or arbs; that would be going backwards. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Equally,there is not defined role of "individual arbitrator", it's "member of the arbitration committee acting as a CUOS" does that cover what we are looking at, well, possibly. I'd certainly be very interested in hearing other community member thoughts on how these situations should be handled Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So you agree this was an arbitrator action made in the capacity as an arbitrator? That's perfectly fine and I agree with your assessment that this would be going backwards — this however wasn't marked as an arbitration committee block (there's no such this as an "individual arbitrator block", nor does being an individual arbitrator infer any additional rights etc.) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Being an individual arbitrator does confer additional rights. There are several rights, such as oversight, that arbitrators are automatically given ex officio. This whole discussion seems to be an enormous waste of time per WP:NOT#BURO. Do you really want the whole committee, which is distributed around the world in multiple time zones, to discuss every email even if the action needed is simple and obvious? That would increase their workload enormously. This is a work place, not an exercise in utopian governance. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah I should have clarified — "does not infer additional rights individually above that of a functionary" 🙂 and I'm not sure where I've stated that I'm asking the committee to discuss every single email. I apologize profusely if I've given that impression! I'm hoping this discussion, which is not much more than a pulse-check, will save time and reduce complexity in addressing the concerns around how we as the community deal with these "not really individual actions, not really committee actions". I detest bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy — but neither a desire for clarification nor an appeal to common sense, strike me as that. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, is it utopian governance to want accountability and transparency? To ensure the community can act autonomously as much as possible and not be beholden to a (very overworked) committee to answer all our questions and help us review unblock requests? I don't think it is — I'd just call that the bare minimum expectation of governance. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be eliding "the community" and functionaries here. Of course, ultimately we're all part of the community. But in a governance sense, I think it's a mistake to consider the functionaries as being somehow closer to "the community" than the Arbitration Committee. If anything it's the opposite: ArbCom is an elected body with responsibilities delegated to them by the community, functionaries are appointed officers with responsibilities delegated to them by ArbCom. I can't see how having functionaries review arbitration actions would meaningfully increase openness or transparency; arguably it would lessen it. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we're talking cross-purposes here — review ≠ unblock. Functionaries don't review the actions of ArbCom, nor am I trying to suggest that's the case. I'm speaking solely on the point that an arbitrator, acting as "just" a functionary, depending on private evidence only available in their role as an arbitrator, taking an action not marked as an arbitration committee action, leaves us in an ambiguous situation when it comes to unblock requests. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

On a personal, and mostly unrelated note, there is no "closer" to the community — we are it. I personally dislike any attempts at introducing a feeling of "them and us". I'm a community member with added buttons. ArbCom are community members with added responsibilities. At our core, and key to how Wikipedia works, is a flat hierarchy. I appreciate that is more idealistic than things may be perceived, but we can try and hope.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to be an enormous waste of time per WP:NOT#BURO. +1. JBL (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "this" is – I thought you were asking an abstract question, not asking for comment on a specific action? Worm is right – there really is not such thing as an "individual arb" role. Thinking back to my own time on the committee, while we certainly did things on our own initiative from time to time, we almost always explicitly noted that it was with our admin or CU/OS hats on. Those should not be marked as arbitration actions or treated any differently from regular actions. More rarely, there were non-public matters that were in the remit of ArbCom alone (i.e. not disclosable to other functionaries) but were either not serious enough for a full discussion-and-vote or too urgent to wait for one. A response to that type of thing should be marked as arbitration action, with the understanding that the individual arb is acting with the implicit consensus of the whole committee, which can be reviewed by the rest of the committee if necessary. Doesn't the cover the full range of possibilities? – Joe (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense, thank you for the insight. I think, as I note above, I've been speaking at cross-purposes (and have referred to a specific action as merely a simple example) — where a member of the community has multiple hats, clarification is key. It needlessly complicates things when we're left guessing which hat took the action, especially when this influences how we handle unblocks. This is the reason why checkuser blocks must be marked as such. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I'm always bemused when users subject to arbitration processes start policing the actions of the committee. All these high sounding concerns kind of lose their impact when you reflect that you have conveniently failed to declare your interest while sounding off. Frankly this is thunderingly poor judgement. Even if I'm the only one saying this to your face, if you think no one else viewing these edits isn't thinking the same then you are truly deluded. Are you open to recall? If you are, I'm calling for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think this has anything to do with that case? If you honestly thought that, and wasn't using this as an odd platform to attack me, you'd realise that if I was at all concerned about how this would affect that I obviously wouldn't say anything. Please don't ever call someone with a publicly disclosed condition which can cause actual delusions "delusional" — you don't know what that word really means, and it just comes across as ableist. I'm open to recall (and have listed the process for that for a long time), but frankly this is so clearly some thinly veiled attack, so your words mean very little. Please take some time to reflect on your words, there's no need for such hate. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I could see why people might think there is a connection between someone being critical of the committee while there is a case against them for misuse of advanced permissions. Even while I agree with your points here, it takes some of the punch away. I would also caution against basically calling someone a bigot and then elsewhere declaring they are pushing ableist tropes[22], generally it is not very helpful. I think a better course of action here could of been to ignore the comment. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pushing ableist tropes"? Oh my. There'll be evidence of that, I expect, coming soon. Begoon 16:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See above. I know no one is asking me to explain how calling someone who has publically disclosed a condition which can cause actual delusions "delusional" is ableist — I trust that the community knows how inappropriate that is! 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Public disclosure in what sense? Generally, I think it's a mistake to conflate use of the word 'deluded' as a rhetorical device, intellectually, with its clinical usage vis-à-vis someone who is actually sufferings from delusions as mental health affliction. So, I don't think it makes sense to call it an ableist trope here, in this instance, since the reference concerns a failure to observe machinations, attitudes, etc., on-wiki — rather than anything like paranoid delusions and so on. El_C 16:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your userpage in detail, so I have no idea what you "publically disclose". I only recently glanced at it to find a link to your calvinballesque recall requirements.

Is there a requirement that I, or Spartaz, or anyone else, explore and drill down into all of your "disclosures" in detail before commenting on anything that might involve you?

If so, I'll adjust my behaviour, but it does seem like a quite onerous requirement for each comment one might make in the daily "to and fro". It'll certainly delay a lot of responses, I'd have thought, and complicate the way I thought things worked here. Begoon 16:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you open to recall? If you are, I'm calling for it. sounds really weak when it comes from an admin who is not open to recall, Spartaz. You should add yourself to the category before threatening any other admins with it. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Arbs are elected on the explicit understanding that they'll have access to sensitive offwiki evidence and it's right that we extend them enough trust to do their job. But arbs aren't elected to take unilateral action. The authority figure is the committee, not the individuals who make up the committee.

If an arb sees private evidence, takes immediate interim measures to prevent disruption, and then says to the committee "hey, I've done this, yell if you disagree", then I think that's fine. Most such decisions would be uncontroversial.

If an arb takes unilateral action that the rest of the committee doesn't know about, then I have concerns.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a long discussion with a sort of diversion in between so I didn't read that carefully but is there some reason these cannot be handled like any other admin's block? While this hasn't been something I've followed that well, as I understand it admin's used to just block based on private evidence emailed to them sometimes without any followup or explanation anywhere. Fairly recently, it's been recognised this is a problem since appeals are very difficult if the admin has disappeared and even if they're just away for a few weeks it still creates an unfortunate situation. So my understanding is efforts are being made to change this requiring that admins give some more information some where to assist appeals. The way I see it, if arbitrators are making blocks as regular admins, then they should also follow this procedure providing whatever documentation is expected of admins to wherever it's expected. If they cannot do so because they need to provide some of details that were sent to them which they can't do given confidentially requirements expected of emails and the differing standards of different lists per Barkeep49, then I would agree this cannot be treated like a normal admin block, it's effectively an arbcom block and while I don't really care how arbcom wants to handle this internally, they need to do so in a way that they accept it's their block. Alternatively, I assume the blocking arbcom member could seek and maybe receive permission to forward the essential details to where it's needed and keep it as an admin block. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your general points. One small correction between normal admin action and arbcom block is a CU block. That is how Eek resolved this particular situation (and to TNT's satisfaction). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right my comment was too limiting. Any blocking procedure can be used provided the norms of that procedure are followed. In some cases it may be given to the WMF to take over when it's something arbcom should not have to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

I'm not an admin, but it seems like there has lately been neglect of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist - requests over the last couple months seem largely to be ignored, archived without comment, and forgotten about (see e.g. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/09 and MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/10). If there is a reason a request is denied (be it policy or a procedural error) it should be clearly stated, if for no other reason than to prevent repeat improper requests. I'm most concerned with links that are, or are effectively, candidates for {{Official website}}. Some more attention paid to the Whitelist requests would be appreciated. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Loureira

The article Loureira has always been about the Portuguese grape variety (more commonly known as Loureiro, though). However in this edit the article has been completely rewritten to be a stub about a Portuguese populated place. It now appears there is no article about the grape variety on en-wp (or at least I could not find it).

I guess both the grape variety and the Portuguese parish are valid subjects for articles, so how can this be sorted out? There is Loureiro (grape) which is currently a redirect to Loureira. Perhaps the article on the grape variety can be placed there? (It is more commonly known as Loureiro than Loureira, see e.g. [23].) -- 2001:16B8:1EFF:A000:7547:1D22:5D04:FE35 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I split the history out to Loureiro (grape). If someone has a better title, feel free to move the page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thank you! -- 2001:16B8:1EFF:A000:7547:1D22:5D04:FE35 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal How on earth did that editor manage to create that page in article space using the content translation tool? It is supposed to be disabled on this site for editors who aren't extendedconfirmed, see Wikipedia:Content translation tool. Is Special:Abusefilter/782 Broken? 192.76.8.80 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The line old_size == 0 would prevent the filter from matching that edit, since this wasn't a new article. The access to Special:ContentTranslation is restricted to logged-in users as far as I can tell, although why the tool allows overwriting an existing article...I have no idea. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has happened, either. [24] Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that CXT was restricted to extended confirmed editors (and indeed, that is what the landing page says). If an editor with basically zero edits can overwrite an article using it, that's a significant problem. I would suggest that Filter 782 is extended to stop that happening. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it to block overwriting existing articles. I think technically any logged-in user can use Special:ContentTranslation—the 'extendedconfirmed' requirement is enforced through the edit filter.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I will just observe that, although this happened with the Content Translation Tool, accidental hijacking (and occasional intentional hijacking) of an article due to a shared name also happens with ordinary editing, and editors should be alert to it. In this case, thank you, User:Reaper Eternal, for resolving it. I agree that a hatnote is the solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User talk:121.58.222.107

After warning to using vandalism. Please see Special:Contributions/121.58.222.107. 2603:8001:3C03:234A:1526:AC59:10EF:C491 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320 / User:RespectCE

• PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• RespectCE (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

The user RespectCE is a blocking evasion see. This user writes in articles related to Ukraine, but has been found hateful to Ukraine on the Metawiki. I think the contributions should be carefully reviewed. WikiBayer (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the same user. Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree they look quite similar behaviorally. {{checkuser requested}} to confirm and look for sleepers, given that this account was created prior to Planespotter's unban request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked but awaiting tags. Sleeper check didn't turn up anything useful. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. Wow, don't remember the last time I saw someone request an unban while already getting away with sockpuppetry.  Tagged, deleted 28 articles that miraculously had no substantive edits from others (and only accidentally tagged rather than deleting 4 times! progress...).

@MurielMary: Up to you whether we keep Yevdokiya Grekhova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). @Kerri9494: Up to you whether we keep Heather Artinian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (The presumed answer here is "yes", so no need to respond if you don't want to.)

Will leave the files for the bots to sort out. Redirects, template, and category all seem fine to leave up, but anyone can G5-tag if they want (bearing in mind that templates and categories need to be unlinked before they can be G5-tagged). Also, my standard disclaimer when G5ing: I am almost always willing to restore a G5'd page to draftspace or userspace, if requested by a user in good standing with experience in the relevant topic area who is willing to take full responsibility for its contents before publishing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the author's behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Chaikof was pretty disturbing. I definitely should have brought it up at WP:ANI then, but figured simply deleting the article would be enough. I'd recommend deletion of every article they've made, since it appears they've been attacking people in multiple locations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: The only remaining articles are the two G5-ineligible ones I mentioned above. I haven't looked closely enough to see if either would be worth AfDing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, UTRS appeal #64764 is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

For everyone's context: I am going to edit Wikipedia one way or another. I can't stop, followed by a confession to the socking and then several massive walls of text. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Freddie Mercury singing) (Don't stop me now) // Yes, I'm havin' a good time // I don't want to stop at all -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime : accusations me of hate speech and ableism

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

---

It appears that TheresNoTime is offended by my use of a rhetorical device in a comment above and has responded by accusing me of hate speech and ableism. They removed my request for recall from their talk page [25] and banned me from posting in their talk page. While I obviously regret that my comment has triggered this reaction and would have found a different form of words had I know how they would take it, I am appalled that they have accused me of hate speech. I do not believe this outrageous personal attack should be allowed to stand but cannot raise this on his talk page. Could an uninvolved admin please address this and counsel TNT about appropriate standards of behaviour and discourse. Shockingly we appear to need to remind a steward about fundamental like NPA and AGF. Thanks. I gave pinged in lieu of the required notification given my ban from his talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

But you did engage in ablism and a personal attack when you said if you think no one else viewing these edits isn't thinking the same then you are truly deluded [26]. It's not a rhetorical device to say you are truly deluded to another editor. Had I not wanted to draw attention to this, as it largely had gone unnoticed, I would be asking for you to consider the personal attack you made per WP:ADMINCOND.

Also it's pretty clear that per their signature TheresNoTime uses they/them pronouns, not he/him. Could you fix that please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when has this not been a valid rhetorical device. Admittedly it's 35 years since I went to a school but on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned and it's a damned site less offensive then accusing me of hate speech. I gave corrected pronouns, I checked TNTs page but couldn't see a statement and missed it in the signature. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the pronouns. In future when referring to the pronouns of an unknown editor, I find it easiest to use the {{they}} template and its derivatives, as it uses whatever pronouns the editor has set in their preferences page.

on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned It's called ableism. In this case it stems from the usage of the word to refer to people who have delusions. If you've not encountered it before, perhaps you may wish to seek out a modern equality and diversity training program. If you want a thorough but not exhaustive list of various ableist words, this blog entry is pretty comprehensive for both the words and why the words are problematic.

less offensive then accusing me of hate speech You've used ableist language to attack another editor, whether unintentional or not. TNT's response both here and on their talk page is rather polite and measured in the circumstances. Perhaps instead of causing more heat in this circumstance, you should use it to reflect on the language you feel is appropriate to use, despite it correctly being pointed out as an issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, "delusional" is deprecatory twitter-speak used by people with opposing viewpoints. It's plainly insulting language, so that's truly not a word we should be using on Wikipedia regardless of how offending it is. But "delusion" stems from the actual mental illness Delusional Disorder, so wouldn't you find using that term a bit (very) insensitive? I mean, obviously you don't, but maybe you should. Thanks! —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

And yes, it is ableist, which seems to be a main point of contention here. Forgot to mention that in my original post —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t assume what I think please, I have said multiple times that I am upset by the unjustified accusation of hate speech Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, it's about what you said. That's the important thing here, because nobody could actually know your thoughts just by looking at words on a screen. I'm of the belief that having said some discriminatory things doesn't make a whole person discriminatory. But it's still wrong to say those things, and yes in this case what you said was ableist, whether you meant it that way or not. Sorry —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like both of you are acting sub-optimally, but each is convinced the other is acting more sub-optimally. Wouldn't the rational solution be that both of you just stop talking to/about each other, starting now, and then no one else has to wade thru yet another clash of personalities? (Based on a historical evaluation of previous similar suggestions, the odds of a rational solution occurring naturally on WP are approximately 24%, and fall significantly lower every time either person mentions the other person after the initial suggestion. But, it isn't zero, so I'll still give it a shot.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • why should anyone expect me to just accept a false claim of using hate speech. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    Where exactly did TNT accuse you of "hate speech"? Or are you suggesting that "ableist trope" is synonymous with "hate speech"? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    The phrase used was Please take some time to reflect on your words, there's no need for such hate. which PackManEng immediately below took to mean I was being accused of bigotry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    And you're continuing to call TNT "he" after being informed that their pronouns are "they/them". Why are you doing that? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    Already fixed and I'm very angry and upset so my typing is getting ahead of my proofing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    I think it would be beneficial for you to take a break from this for a bit. Tempers running high never helps a discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    it would be easier to do so if people stopped attacking me for not understanding another person's pain while doubling down on mine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    In that case, it would be wise to step away for a bit. I've spoken up in your defense below as I feel that many of the comments here leave something to be desired, but I'm not convinced that TNT intended to explicitly accuse you of hate speech (certainly, the word 'hate' was inflammatory regardless of its intended meaning). If I suffered from a condition that caused me to experience delusions, I'd probably react angrily if I was arguing with someone and they implied that I was delusional. However, upon further reflection, I'd realize that they probably weren't actually referring to my medical condition. Hopefully TNT will eventually arrive at that same conclusion, but for now I don't think there is much to be gained here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    you are undoubtedly correct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm likely not winning any friends by saying this, but FWIW: Spartaz, please, don't escalate this any further. I assume, as should everyone watching this, that you didn't know about any medical condition TNT has, and that your language was, as you say, a rhetorical device; one I've used on occasion. Even so, knowing what you do now, I think it ought to be obvious that rhetorical device would be hurtful to someone in TNT's position. And their reaction should be understandable, at the very least. Besides, I genuinely struggle to see how anything TNT brought up above requires escalation to recall. Surely you ought to discuss things with her before going there? TNT, I don't know if you're watching this; but if you are, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to assume, as I did, that Spartaz didn't know of your condition, and was using a phrase that, directed at another person, would generally mean "you are gravely mistaken". I have nothing but respect for both of you: I don't believe anyone gains by escalating this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not going to stand still and just leave an unjustified accusation of using hate speech unchallenged. I would happily let it go If the accusation were withdrawn but I’m damned if I’m going to just accept such a slur without defending myself against it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

So instead you've come to AN to try and sanction the person you derogatorily insulted? (and, fwiw, who you misgendered as well) I hope this results in a WP:BOOMERANG. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your words were hurtful, even if unintentionally so. I've asked TNT to accept that no ableism was intended, but I'm asking you to try to understand why you got the reaction you did. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I don't entirely get it as the term in my British ears is mildly rhetorical and in no way equates to hate speech. The latter of which, I associate with antisemitism, fascistic nationalism or homophobia and is possibly the worst thing you can accuse an aging lefty of. It's a disgusting slur. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Spartaz, ablism is a form of hate speech. Disability, which includes both physical and mental health, is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It is punching down on a minority, in the same way that antisemitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or ageism is. I'm telling you as another British person, regardless of whether or not it was unintentional, what you've said is problematic and has been perceived to be problematic. The correct response when you are informed of this should be to apologise, and not to double down by saying it's a "false claim", or trying to deflect based on your age.

I urge you to please reflect on this. Because regardless of your original intent, you are currently making things worse by refusing to acknowledge the problem that multiple editors have now tried to inform you about. This is not helping. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, as another British person I find that a ridiculous overreaction. Accusing someone of "hate speach" in this context is far more offensive and unaccepatble. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Spartaz acknowledged in the very first post in this thread that he should have chosen his words differently. What's not helpful is the fact that so many of you are either oblivious or indifferent to how deeply Spartaz was hurt by TNT's words. This is a very delicate situation to resolve as both editors acted in substandard fashion. Let's stop hammering Spartaz over word choice that he already admitting regretting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

All TNT did was say Spartaz was using an ableist trope, which is true whether he meant it that way or not. And that's not deserving of an apology; I seriously hope TNT ignores this. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the comment I first wrote but you are being one eyed and ridiculous. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a little more to it than that. TNT's use of the word 'hate' in this comment is what seems to have set Spartaz off. I think both editors have overreacted by reading more than what was intended into one another's words. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

they took it as hate, and were well within their right to do so. An apology is in order to TNT, not from them —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really. 'Delusion' was a poor word choice. 'Hate' was a poor word choice. Neither of them rose to the level of AN thread, but here we are. And I'm not interested in telling other people when to apologize to each other; that usually doesn't end well. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not either, but that seems to be the intention of this thread. If anything, TNT wants to not engage with Spartaz, hence the removal on their talk page —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Thankfully, it seems that tempers have cooled for the time being. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And I've said above that I understand the sense in which you used it, and that it does not equate with ableism in a traditional lexicon, let alone with hate speech (I would draw a clear distinction between ableism and hate speech, mind you, but that's somewhat besides the point). However, TNT has made it public that they struggle with a medical disorder that sometimes causes delusions. In context, therefore, your comment sounds like you're telling TNT they cannot believe the evidence of their eyes, rather than just saying they're mistaken. Under the circumstances, I think a sharp response was understandable, and merits empathy. I think DMacks says it better than I do below, so unless you'd like further clarification I think I'm going to step away now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly I missed the part where TNT made their struggles public. Clearly I would have chosen different language had I been aware of it but it's ridiculous to behave as if I or any other editor should be expected to behave with any deep knowledge of another editor pontificating on a public noticeboard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not personally holding you to that expectation, and I have clearly asked TNT above to reconsider that expectation themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here believes Spartaz was referencing an actual mental illness. Still, that phrasing (especially in an unsubstantial hate-post) is very odd. It's akin to calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid, in my opinion. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid is just "odd" to you? What year is this? Suppose it's fine to call things we don't like "gay" too? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Odd in a very negative way. I guess the emphasis wasn't clear because of the plain text, but it was meant very negatively. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If that is directed at me you actually don't know what I meant by the term I used Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My usage of the word "odd" was meant very negatively. That statement had nothing to do with you —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a generational gap here as the term I used when I grew up had the meaning of "deceiving yourself" and certainly I never grew up with it having any kind of mental health association. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone "deluded" for holdng an absurd opinion is mild (albeit arguably to some ears regretable). Accusing some of hate speech isn't and is a gross and serious overreaction. I'm with Spartaz on this. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as time progresses, so does the lexicon. Ten years ago people threw around "faggot" like it's "fuck," but people got informed and stopped doing it, and now the same trend is happening with neurovariance, mental disorders, and more. From your comments here it seems to me you didn't intend to offend, and this whole AN/I thread is a mountain out of a molehill. I recommend that apologies are exchanged, everyone ditches the AN/I thread, and we all go on our merry way. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 22:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above about exactly how offensive I find being accused of using hate speech is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but I understand not thinking of deluded as an ableist word. It continues to be used in the common meaning of having been duped, or believing something incorrect. It's also still commonly used as a word for convincing someone of something incorrect. The medical disorder was named using a word that already existed because it was descriptive of the disorder, rather than the other way around. Even googling "deluded ableism" returns a large number of sources on ableism that user the term deluded. It should have been said in a less personal attacky way, but I think it's pretty clear it wasn't used as ableist language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm at the younger end of millennials and I have virtually only ever heard "deluded" being used as a moderate indictment of someone's beliefs. No chance I would have interpreted it as an ableist slur. I can see how someone who has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder might feel it was personal...but it is also nowhere near calling someone "autistic". A search of the DSM Library for "deluded" returns just 266 results, with under 10% of those in publications after 2000, and of those, over half are on history of psychiatry or philosophy rather than clinical research. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether you intended it to be hurtful or not, and I assume you didn't, the fact is that it can be and in this case does seem to be. You didn't know that it was? Fine. In former times it wasn't and that's how you learned it? Fine. You didn't mean offense? Fine. But it's time to recognize that now many do find it offensive, and in particular the person to whom you referred. So now you have a chance to learn from this. You now know you made a mistake, you can appologize and move on, better-positioned to avoid offending people with whom you need to collaborate. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is TNT not expected to apologise for accusing me of hate speech or should I just accept that unchallenged? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Folks, I do find calling someone delusional to be aggressive and rude. I'd never heard anyone describe it as hate speech or ableist but with a web search, I am seeing some do consider it ableist. But jumping to accusing someone of hate speech for using the word is just wrong and I do think an apology is called for. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who called anyone delusional? The word in question was 'deluded' which means one has been fooled or misled. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Suggested apology Levivich (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2022 (

Can someone please explain to me what any of this has to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is not used for creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia. Levivich (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be much ado about political correctness and feelings. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Trying to undermine one group's opinion with buzzwordy phrases doesn't really work when the other party escalated the situation and created the thread —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• No way can ableism be normally construed as a hate speech in everyday conversation, but in a collaborative environment such as WP where plenty of users look under every rock to see if they can find an excuse to complain about being insulted, it does more harm to our environment than the occasional use of centuries old colloquialisms. Indeed, insist enough and what you find under the rocks can get the nicest people sanctioned and the same complaint will ruin an admin’s Wiki career and enthusiasm to continue working as a volunteer in Wikipedia’s minefield.

There’s an excellent BBC article about it. The very last paragraph leaves us all with food for thought. I’m an old Brit and I finished high school getting n for sixty years ago; I’m also a professional linguist, but it would be hard to make me stop to think before I say things that were perfect culturally acceptable 60 years ago. When I'm writing speeches I naturally take more care.

This is all a blowback from a recent Arbcom case and I think it’s time to simply end this thread and leave TheresNoTime alone - they are worth more than ten of any of us. We all have better things to do with our keyboard time, and the thread is falling largely on 'deaf' ears - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ironically as a screen reader user, I didn't initially notice the apostrophes around the word "def" in the previous message (as I have it set up not to read out such punctuation unless I request it to do so), so I was about to ask whether the last few words were intentional. I'm not at all phased by ablist language though; I'm happy to turn a blind eye to it, as are most people in my little corner of the blind community ... for us there are bigger fish to fry. But I can't claim to speak for all blind/visually impaired people let alone all people with disabilities and I understand that many people take ablist language a lot more seriously than I do. Graham87 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to drop all language that is ablist, as much is well-integrated into our popular vernacular. But the best policy is to, when offense is taken, at the very least apologize for causing offense. And another crux to note here is that the term was used for personal disparagement, regardless of any ablist implications. SecretName101 (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Spartaz, any way you look at it your comment was a personal attack, and therefore against Wikipedia policy. I don't think it merited an ANI thread so you could try to have the last word and get back at someone who gave as good as they got and then banned you from their talkpage. Let's all go back to abiding by Wikipedia policy and discussing edits, not editors; content, not people. This is easily avoided by never using the word "you", and commenting only on points, not people. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it's usually seen by others as coming from a state of weakness anyway. It does take discipline to avoid remarks about people, but it is a discipline that should be cultivated in a collaborative project that has a policy against personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Basically, If I inadvertantly use a phrase that offends someone I am at fault but when their angry response ssed a term that I find truly offensive then I'm supposed to suck it? That's fair and equal and not at all unjust or ridiculous. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Here are your three consecutive edits: an unprovoked personal attack and threat on an AN thread [27], followed by an even stronger personal attack {and an insistence on resignation} on usertalk [28], followed, when preempted by TNT's well-warranted removal of your TP attack, by opening this ANI thread [29] even after TNT had twice explained on the AN thread their issue with the specific personal attack used. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Spartaz it’s obvious that you started it by jumping into an incredibly benign thread with an extremely disproportionate level of hostility, and started a completely pointless flame war, which you are now continuing. Don’t go looking for drama and maybe you won’t find any.

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - Spartaz has retired. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Some people just can't bring themselves to say, "Sorry for the foregoing. I really lost it there." That's all it would take. If such is not forthcoming after they calm themselves, might an IBAN be in order? SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Knowing when to walk away (when to fold 'em) is a huge part of avoiding PAs. It's another skill, a discipline. Just let the whole thing go, and either avoid wiki for a few days or focus on some other part of the 'pedia. I think all it would take here is just to withdraw the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this. I suppose little use in continuing this thread. SecretName101 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure if it is useful to the conversation or not, but I will point out that the blog entry mentioned earlier by Sideswipe9th does include the notation "Note that only some of the words on this page are actually slurs. Many of the words and phrases on this page are not generally considered slurs, and in fact, may not actually be hurtful, upsetting, retraumatizing, or offensive to many disabled people. They are simply considered ableist."
  That noted, I agree with the essence of VersaceSpace comment (echoed by others) that it was defamatory. Regardless of any debate about whether or not the application of the term "deluded" was an offensive application, it was certainly aggressive and disparaging towards another editor.
  I am no angel, and have certainly have had my share of moments on this site where I put a wrongly aggressive a front up. That being said, I would discourage Spartaz from taking such a tone. The same sort of message could instead have been conveyed writing something like "I am confident that other editors viewing these edits are thinking the same thing". SecretName101 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to provide my thoughts as an uninvolved editor, being that I have not participated at AN in the past (I did at ANI, once, to report a legal threat) nor do I have an active working relationship with any editor here. It is my hope that this may be beneficial for people who have gotten invested here as I see a lot of people I respect participating. This is not intended to spark further heated debate. I welcome any uninvolved administrator to counsel me for having done this if they feel it appropriate.

Two wrongs do not equal a right, even if both wrongs are of different severities. Spartaz acknowledged he would have used different terminology had he known how it would effect TNT. I do not find that his questioning of whether what he said was ableism or hate speech to be unbecoming or disrespectful here. Wikipedia is a diverse community, and this includes those who hold a minority view. Generally, we should not in our pursuit of assigning appropriate weight disrespect the view with lesser weight. So long as Spartaz does not continue to make such statements without care on the English Wikipedia, he is free to continue to hold his own personal beliefs relating to the broad usage of "deluded", and I find no evidence that Spartaz would partake in such behavior.

Should Spartaz have acknowledged and apologized for his unacceptable behavior unrelated to the usage of "deluded"? Yes. Should he have explicitly apologized for how his statement was reasonably interpreted rather than focusing on stating it was not his intent? Yes. I believe he should still endeavor to do both these things should he decide to return to active editing. That said, I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread. I would assert that this is not a typical case of WP:BOOMERANG. It is standard for the behavior of all parties to be reviewed. That is even more necessary here, as this thread involves 2 editors with many years of tenure and who have advanced permissions. I also respect TNT's work quite a lot. But having said that, the accusation that Spartaz was pushing ableist tropes ([30]) rises beyond being dropped in my view. Making an ableist statement, which I do not see any commenting editors above assert was done intentionally (which is necessary to point out, as if it were intentional the accusation may have credence), and pushing ableist tropes are not equivalent. The latter implies advocacy, which has not yet been demonstrated. Spartaz, I believe, was reasonable in requesting some form of acknowledgement of error by TNT even though their error is not nearly as severe. I feel that this nuance was not communicated sufficiently or is currently not accepted by the community, for which if the latter is true I shall concede to the majority but disagree. —Sirdog (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, in that Spartaz started a ridiculous unprovoked fight immediately calling for a longterm admin/steward/etc. to be recalled or resign. He immediately took the fight to the innocent party's talk page, attacking in even stronger tones. All TNT did was figuratively tell him to buzz off, using words that were sharp but not literally intended to indict Spartaz any more than Spartaz's word "deluded" was literally intended to medically diagnose TNT. It was a knee-jerk self-defense reaction to multiple ridiculous uncalled-for personal and professional attacks. In terms of I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread, clearly he hasn't, since in his last post he instead re-justified his own untenable position and stormed out, clearing his talk page and retiring from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post since this isn't my fight and I don't know much about the backdrop. However, at some point it seems like, intentional or not, this is weaponizing victimhood. It looks like Spartaz's usage was in line with the dictionary definition, "believing something that is not true." That definition doesn't say anything about metal issues. If this is an issue then we need to scrub articles of references that say "X was deluded in thinking Trump won the 2020 election". Springee (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard the word "deluded" used in a way that suggests mental illness. Rather, it suggests that the person was taken in by hype, propaganda, or their own wishful thinking. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you think the person who briefly expressed offense at what can only be described as an insult is the one weaponizing victimhood, not the person who in response started a noticeboard thread and rattled off over a dozen comments instead of apologizing, or, hell, simply moving on? ––FormalDude (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

After my initial post I thought, I probably should go back and say, calling someone deluded is almost always not going to be viewed as civil. I'm only commenting on the ableist part. Since you and I have had editorial disagreements (but not uncivil disagreements) I will pick on you ( :D ). If you said I was delusional for wanting some content in an article it would be reasonable for me to be offended that you called me delusional. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to suggest you are some type of "-ist" for using "ableist" language. Springee (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Request to ban IP User

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

---

I'm requesting for IP User: 112.211.70.39 be banned because they keep vandalising Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway, Tarlac–Pangasinan–La Union Expressway and Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria and unrevert the rollback that I and ClueBot did. Check Special:Contributions/112.211.70.39 ― Dulcetia 06:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Where to go for a history merge?

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

---

Is AN the right place to request a history merge? It's somewhat controversial and I feel weird going to an individual admin. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

{{histmerge}} if it's easy, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge if it's not. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find that somehow... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Block User:Almustee

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

---

Almustyy (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
Almustee (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

User:Almustee is a sockpuppet of User:Almustyy, and should be blocked indefinitely. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This has already been answered on the SPI case by MarioGom and DatGuy. I don't there is anything else to be done here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Request of opening a page for Over The Top SEO (OTT)

Hi,

I'm trying to open a page for Over The Top SEO (OTT) and have been referred to the administration notice board.

Can somebody this page for me please and I'll update it.

Many thanks,

Michal Michalyogev (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Michalyogev I don't see where you've been asked to come here, but I gather you are associated with this company. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures; disclosing a paid relationship with a topic is a Terms of Use requirement. You may create drafts via Articles for Creation if the topic is a notable business as Wikipedia defines it and it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are not press releases, interviews, or annoucements of routine business activities. The vast majority of businesses do not merit articles, and creating one is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia even without a COI. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@331dot: It's a blacklisted title, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit directs would-be article creators here. This discussion may be relevant, too. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WindTempos Thanks, I haven't dealt much with the blacklist. That makes sense now. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the blacklist entry was added in 2017 by MER-C -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

• 
  • Isabelle Belato
  • Whpq
• 
• 
  • Atama
  • Astronautics~enwiki
  • Athaenara
  • Eddie891
  • GraemeL
  • Marianocecowski
  • Natalya
  • Pratyeka
  • SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes

• TheresNoTime
• Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

• 
  • Blablubbs
  • Firefly
• Joe Roe

Oversight changes

• DGG

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Based on comments at WP:THQ (diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1119332857) I suspect account Damnester is compromised and the current user of the account is planning maliciousness. I have not notified them or pinged them, since if it is not the account owner posting, I wasn't sure that was sensible. This is my first AN post and first time reporting a compromised account, apologies if I am not doing it right. RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

AN or AN/I are good. I've asked in IRC for the IPv6 to be blocked for the compromise as well, but so as to not duplicate effort, 2600:1008:B122:A2F9:50CF:8FFF:FE1D:C838 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the compromiser. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Reaper Eternal. Locked by AntiCompositeNumber. I gave the IP /64 72 hours. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:Even if you don't want to ping the user, you still should have linked to the user. This could have been done either by use of Template:Noping or by saving the edit as you did and then going back and linking in a separate edit. Animal lover |666| 07:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to link to the user. There's sufficient information given for anybody who is competent to be able to find the user account. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWEC-FM

Can any admin close the discussion already? It has been over a week since it was relisted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently AFD closures are slightly backlogged to 21 October listings. I am sure someone will get to your AFD soon. For future reference, if a closure is long overdue (I'm talking a week or more past the expected closing date), WP:ANRFC is the place to be. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Involved at the AfD) The most recent comment was today, so beyond the backlog, I wouldn't be surprised if closers give it more time to make sure the discussion is actually over before closing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup may be needed

I just CU-blocked SMBMovieFan. Unfortunately they managed to rack up 700+ edits in their 3 week tenure. They have edited extensively in project space and participated in a number of discussions; I'm hoping a handful of editors would be willing to check through their edits to note the socking in discussions and/or strike their comments when appropriate as I'm about to log off for the day. I'll do what I can in te next 20 minutes or so, but extra eyes on their contribs would be appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo, I'm cleaning up too. Can this discussion be closed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Smartphones? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: That's been deleted by Liz. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Stifle, I wrote that message when it was still blue :) — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Terracon

SmokeyJoe and I both requested undeletion of American engineering company Terracon at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 and WP:REFUND. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

REFUND is not the correct venue to undelete articles deleted via discussion. You have the DRV ongoing. No need for AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done a temp undelete - see my comment at the DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

MJL promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that MJL (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding their successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § MJL promoted to full clerk

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:

• For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
• For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
• For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
• For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
• The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

Sockpuppets and watch list

Second time I come across a sockpuppet editing a slew of articles that they've edited before... of course this is not out of the norm.....but in this case they're simply reverting edits. My question is do administrators have the ability to see a watchlist. As in can admins tell/see if a watchlist has been copied pasted from one watchlist to a new users watchlist? And if so is this method used in an investigation...and if not would this not be a good idea? Moxy- 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one is able to look at another user's watchlist. I don't even like looking at my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct. I assume sysadmins could do some kind of DB dump, but that's well beyond our capabilities as volunteers. Also, there's no reason to assume they're using a watchlist in the new account the first place - maybe they're using the blocked account's watchlist, or maybe they just keep a bunch of tabs open...who knows. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have access to both accounts, you can use the "Edit Raw Watchlist" function to copy and paste a watchlist from one account to the other. But it's just a straight text copy and paste, and presumably leaves no record in any logs. 82.17.168.217 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

From Help:Watchlist: No user, not even administrators, can tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. However, developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. Animal lover |666| 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

unabele to add legitimate to a article

I have tried to legitimate info to a article to a page for a broadcast,how ever noone has bothered to check out the provided info submitted,this is unacceptable for wikiprdia,but I am accused of edit war according to the reverts made on KTVV-LD Othelum (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page to seek consensus for your changes. If unable to resolve the dispute, seek dispute resolution. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Othelum: I don't think KTTV-LD can sustain its own article, so I listed the redirect at RfD. RAN1 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Disclosure

I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing this. I'll reiterate what I said some time ago at Wikipedia talk:List of paid editing companies § Move firm to "Never blocked"?. I don't think off-wiki training or consulting requires any disclosure, although I think some level of disclosure is desirable, especially coming from an admin. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with the Article creation at scale RfC

KrakatoaKatie, TheSandDoctor, and I have begun working on the RfC close. For Question 2, I've generated a google docs spreadsheet to help me tabulate the responses. I'm looking for a volunteer who I can deputize to proofread it for me, just to verify that I've transcribed all the data correctly. You don't need to be an admin, just somebody who didn't participate in the RfC and is willing to slog through a big pile of numbers to check them for accuracy. In return, you will earn the thanks of the committee and the right to display this handsome deputy's badge on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

PS, drop me an email if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And we have a winner. Thank you to Firefangledfeathers for stepping up. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

However it comes out, thanks to all four of you for donating your time and sanity to the project. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)