Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7631 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

YARFCCR: Regarding Joe Biden's fingers

• I'm sorry to bring yet another close review here. It's because I've been slowly clearing the backlog at ANRFC, and the stuff that had been unclosed for a long time was mostly pretty contentious. Anyway, a few days ago I made this close, and an editor has very politely and respectfully indicated on my talk page that she feels I might have been mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I'll be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, having only read your statement, the discussion here and on your talk page let me suggest that you are, perhaps, too quick to ask for review of your own closes. As neither of the reviews you recently launched attracted much attention may I suggestion that when you think you've done it right it might be appropriate to let the challenging party choose whether to put it up for review or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, though. I've closed a contentious, high-visibility discussion, and if a good faith editor feels I've made a mess of it then I think it's right to ask for more eyes on it. We've got far too many discussion closers who respond to approaches on their talk page like they're infallible.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You know, S Marshall, since people are apparently challenging these closes partly because they're non-admin-closes, we could get rid of that issue; why don't you try again for admin? Our BLP and flagged-revisions policies are rather stable now, so you wouldn't likely get complaints about that like you did last time, and if you're going around making closes and routinely getting sustained when people object, that's a really solid indication that you'd be trustworthy as an admin. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody in 2020 has said they're challenging my closes based on whether I'm a sysop, and least of all Atsme, who I've always found immensely pleasant and respectful. When people challenge my closes it's based on their perception that I've misread the consensus or got something substantive wrong. And if being a sysop would have a chilling effect on those approaches, then maybe the difficult cases shouldn't be closed by sysops.

  The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't do credentialism. Whether you're in a content dispute or a discussion close, you're expected to be approachable, talk to others, be ready to show your working, and submit to the consensus.

  At the time of my RFA, which was eleven years ago, I was still young enough to want to climb ladders. I'm now pushing fifty and I no longer default to ladder-climbing. There is a figure for which I'd go through the week of bullshit and character assassination from the peanut gallery. It's not a small figure. You could start a Gofundme, I suppose?—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, most of the time I see someone challenging a non-admin closure, part or all of the challenge is basically "A non-admin shouldn't have performed this close; it's too contentious". If you're not getting that kind of reaction, that's fine, but not what I was expecting. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, good close, and IMO it's always reasonable to invite review in contentious cases. Guy (help!) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any conscientious close which is not challenged to some degree. Sometimes the challenge brings up good points and is accommodated. Other (often?) times the closer stands by their close. That's all as it should be. If S Marshall is going to continue to close contentious RfCs, and I have seen nothing to suggest they shouldn't, having them regularly bring their closes to RfC, rather than coming from someone truly challenging it, is not a good use of the community's time. Peer review is great but three such peer reviews in just over three weeks strikes me as a bit much. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  You'd get fewer S Marshall close reviews if there were more people going through the RfC close backlog doing the heavy lifting. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is directed specifically at me I'll note that I spent time yesterday on closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! That's a big help, and not just in the labour of closing; it's also making me feel less like King Canute.  :)—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this should be overturned. The close did not take into account the relative strengths of the rationales. For example, arguments for UNDUE were successful countered by arguments made later in the RfC. Also, at least one of the No !votes are actually yes votes. For example, BetsyRMadison argues that if this is included the 2019 allegation of neck touching should be included. The funny thing is the 2019 neck touching allegation is in the lead with detail. This means that BetsyRMadison is not opposed to the penetration is mentioned since the neck touching is. Almost all the No !votes falter to make a good policy based argument. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)\

(comment) To: C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) - You misrepresented my "No, the lead should not include" vote, please try not misrepresenting what I say or how I vote on an RfC in the future. The timestamp of my No vote is: "12:47, 26 April 2020." On that date, at that time here is what the lead looked like, "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Senate staff assistant of Joe Biden, alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office building in 1993. A Biden spokesperson said that the allegation was false." My "No" vote has not changed from when I first voted on the RfC. I am still a firm "No." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly fine close given the circumstances. Not sure why people would think we would put an unproven allegation like that in the lead anyway but there you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha I completely missed this was the specific sexual assault article rather than his bio. God we have some crap tabloid stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The interpretation of the discussion's outcome as "no consensus" was in my view the most reasonable view, and the assertion that this results in a return to the status quo ante is correct. The subsequent analysis of what exactly the status quo ante was is also spot on. There is therefore no reason to reverse this close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse.

It was a good close. Failing that, it was most certainly "good enough" a close.

From a Wikipedia perspective, I believe the close, if it erred, correctly erred on the conservative side, which is to not include details of allegations. This is straight WP:BLP. It is also highly desirable for Wikipedia to keep out of the newspapers, especially on current politics. Wikipedia must not become the source of newspaper information on details of Biden's sexual assault allegation, and there is considerable danger of this with the story going cold, and some people possibly wanting to revive it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, it is false that not mentioning exactly what "sexual assault" means is the more favorable and more conservative option, BLP-wise. The lead should be able to stand as mini-article. If a reader just read the lead section, they would be left to assume that Joe Biden raped her in the "traditional" sense, that he penetrated her with his penis. The allegation is nothing close to that. Reade only alleges that he reached under her close and penetrated her with his finger. Leave that out actually leads to a conclusion that is worse. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The wording in question during the RfC is still present in the body, at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Sexual assault allegation. Should the detail be in the lede? The version under discussion had the lede sentence referenced to five sources, three of which made no mention of this detail, two did. There are a number of style problems here, not content. It is tabloid style to lede with salacious details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you really think the detail belongs in the lede, I suggest that you would do better to focus on a better styled lede than to re-litigate the edits of 23 April 2020. The RfC close does not lock content in stone, but is a stepping stone to move forward from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not tabloid-y to describe the allegation the lead of the article about the allegation. That some "think of the children" argument. There is no other way to say that she alleges he put his finger in her vagina than to come out and just say it. Because that is the allegation, the whole point of the article. However, none of that is relevant to this closure review. The closer still failed to account for the strengths of the arguments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "The RfC close does not lock content in stone", I tried it this way. Let's see how long it takes before someone cites this RfC to revert my new attempt to describe the allegation in clinical terms. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Special:Diff/963893057. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting here that I've partially read through the RFC and the close, and I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of the close, and also with obnoxious conduct some of of the RFC participants that possibly warrants intervention in its own right. It's late here so I'll look again tomorrow and see if I have anything more specific to say. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse your close and SmokeyJoe makes very good points. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, maybe try engaging further on your talk page substantively before bringing the next WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the admin boards. As already mentioned, once a week may be too much. I realize these are contentious closes, but to use myself as an example, sometimes, they simply end like this. El_C 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder whether there should be an RfC review page, analagous to Deletion Review.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. But attempting a substantive discussion with the closer first on their user talk page is an imperative I'd like to see apply to pretty much to any CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pleasantly surprised to see how thoughtful the discussion between yourself and the person on your talk was. Not common you see objections worded so well. I don't think your closure went beyond the scope of the RfC. Respondents, myself included, did not appear to pay particular attention to the specific wording presented in the question, and rather focused on the idea of including further information on the nature of the sexual offence. I believe the scope of your closure correctly addressed the issue. As for scrutiny on whether the decision was correct, I have a bias in the matter, as a respondent, so my opinion would not be particularly helpful. By the way, the reasoning in your non-obvious closures from your RfC close log are a pleasure to read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the kind words regarding my request to S Marshall. A review of his close tells us that he invested a great deal of thought and time into the process and clearly earns our respect and understanding. S Marshall is an excellent editor, and there is no doubt that he wants what is best for the project. We aren't always on the same page, but I would certainly support him in an RfA. My biggest concern over the close was more process-related in that it went beyond the RfC statement which focused only on the graphic details of the assault, not to exclude all mention of it. Another concern I have is NPOV, and the fact that there is no mention of anything related to his controversial behavior in the lead despite it being a high profile controversy that belongs in the lead per our PAGs. The absence of it drew a bit of attention from media per the following examples: Real Clear Politics, The Atlantic, Daily Kos (not reliable but probably read by people who read WP). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Tagging for the RedWarn counter-vandalism tool.

Related links: WP:Tags and Special:Tags

I'm interested on somebody's opinions on the creation of a MediaWiki tag for the RedWarn counter vandalism tool. Other semi-automated tools such as Huggle, WPCleaner, Wikiloop Battlefield, AWB, STiki (R.I.P) and others already use these, and from a debugging and moderation point of view, having a tag would be much more convenient. Mainly, edits made using RedWarn can easily be filtered in Special:RecentChanges and can also be more easily distinguished as semi-automated, especially for those filtering by the existing software defined "rollback" and "undo" tags. In addition, if, in future, an edit filter was wanted to be created as a Wiki-wide basic prevention for use of RedWarn outside of permitted boundaries (i.e. all users must be confirmed to use RW), my interpretation is that this would be easier to create and maintain with a tag as this will be irrespective on the formatting of the edit summary, which may be modified as we work on more updates and if we go forward with the creation of a mobile app. This would also make filtering a users semi-automated edits easier in RfX's as it is possible to hide the "RedWarn" tag.

From a more technical debugging POV, this will allow for easier filtering and occasional automatic monitoring or edits made with RedWarn, helping diagnosing bugs much easier.

AFAIK, a tag can be created by any administrator, however, I'd prefer to establish consensus regarding this first on whether or not it would be appropriate. If this is completely the wrong place to ask, please feel free to close this discussion. Thanks, Ed6767 talk! 20:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I created the tag since this is a really obvious use case, and I don't see any downsides. The appearance and description are at MediaWiki:Tag-RedWarn and MediaWiki:Tag-RedWarn-description respectively. I don't see any edit filters that apply the huggle, STiki, etc tags, so you'll probably need to update your code so that it tags its own edits. I'm not sure how that works, but someone at WP:VPT could probably help you if you don't already know how. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks! I'll get the tag set for the next version, which should be coming within a week. Ed6767 talk! 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about using external CDN

• So, I’m not trying to be grumpy, but I’m personally a bit sick of hearing about RedWarn. It seems to attract users that appear to be young, and threads keep popping up about it, usually for stuff like it being used to mass spam people about itself or stuff like this where an admin created a completely reasonable tag and the creator of the tool seems to be taken aback by it. Edit: misread this thread. Still think this is making a bigger deal than needs to be made
  Basically RedWarn needs to take it down several notches. I can’t think of any script in the 5 years I’ve been active where there’s been so much self-promotion, and that includes things that could arguably be called game changers, like reply-link. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Dunno, I recall a lot of hype around Huggle when it came out... and since it runs on the user's computer, it has so much more potential for wreaking havoc. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Huggle requires you to have rollback permissions, RedWarn doesn't, so the potential havoc isn't really comparable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      • ProcrastinatingReader, Huggle requires rollback permissions because it was blocked wiki-wide until that condition was added, because its use by people who didn't really understand what they were doing was causing disruption. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

        Iridescent, perhaps I wasn't clear wording my point. Huggle requiring rollback permissions is a good thing for that reason. The potential havoc isn't comparable because Huggle requires an admin to approve usage for a user, whilst RedWarn doesn't, which alone provides some level of vetting to ensure users of the tool aren't going to inadvertently cause disruption. At the same time, though I haven't used RW so I can't be sure, it looks to be more like Twinkle than Huggle, so it probably doesn't matter so much that it's available-to-all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

      • The issue I was referring to has nothing to do with Wikipedia; running third-party software on your own computer means it has access to everything you do on your computer. A Javascript program only has access to its execution environment within the browser (barring any relevant security vulnerabilities in the browser, of course). isaacl (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• As long as RedWarn retrieves resources from non-WMF-hosted websites, I won't be installing it, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone else either. This represents a privacy and security problem, as it puts your Wikipedia user data in the hands of another website. – bradv🍁 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that, when the content security policy actually gets enforced (phab:tag/contentsecuritypolicy/), this sort of thing will immediately stop working, for exactly these reasons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Amorymeltzer, do we have a corresponding policy on enwiki at the moment, or are we just waiting for the WMF to make this change? – bradv🍁 00:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, not really. You can do basically anything you want in your own javascript page, as long as it complies with TOU, copyright, and all the usual policies (especially automated editing/bot); if you can write it you can run it. Things that break policies have been deleted (MfD, usually) or dealt with otherwise (ArbCom), but there's no "you have to have the entire source published and on-wiki" — indeed, many of our bots do not, and other packaged applications (AWB, Huggle, CC, etc.) are obviously not on-wiki (but are open source). I'm not sure anyone has ever tested the waters by putting something like a third-party tracker, but that'd be an instant delete/ and block in my book. I'm paraphrasing TheDJ who has pointed out that, if mediawiki was created today, there'd be no user scripting ability, just gadgets. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv has just mentioned one issue I have with the software. I'm also not at all impressed that Ed has appointed themselves the guardian of who can and cannot use the tool, if there is to be a blacklist, that page should be editable by all administrators, in keeping with the AWB user list, the spam blacklists and similar pages. I would strongly echo Bradv's comments about the security risk that the tool presents, it is not something that should be considered safe for use. I would suggest Ed makes it explicitly clear that there are potential security, safety and privacy issues involved with the use of the tool. Nick (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nick and Bradv: I’m a bit less aware than some people here about such things, but it seems to me that wikipedia:RedWarn#External_scripts is alluding to the risks the two of you are discussing. It seems to be presented as a selling point rather than a risk, however. If there are substantial risks involved, a plain English explanation somewhere higher up the page seems to be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia has its own Privacy policy, which makes no allowance for incorporating other companies' privacy policies by reference. Have the WMF lawyers reviewed these other policies to ensure they are compliant with ours? – bradv🍁 23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Looking through the policy, I'm not sure this is covered. The policy applies to how the WMF uses and discloses data, but this seems to fall under "Community members" or "Third parties". It's strange that it uses external libraries; I would have thought loading javascript from outside a WMF site would be prohibited. If there's sufficient concern (regardless of the privacy policy), we could add an edit filter which warns users when they add the script to their JS pages so that they are aware their IP address and other information will be transmitted to a third party. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:RedWarn and its WP:REDWARN shortcut imply that the community (indeed, Wikipedia) endorses the tool. IMHO there should no endorsement of a tool that uses off-wiki components. A minor reason is that it involves dependence on something that could disappear one day, or be replaced with malware. The major reason is the privacy issue mentioned above. It appears the external sites are very nice but anything that is not directly controlled on-wiki should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • While I agree that privacy issues should be highlighted, concerns about software not controlled within English Wikipedia apply just as well to tools like Huggle and AutoWikiBrowser, which have their own pages in project space. For better or worse, there is an audience for functionality provided by third-party tools. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  A page having a shortcut link does not imply community endorsement. It's merely there as an easy reference shortcut link. THat's it. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I see the point you're making but there's plenty of stuff within the Wikipedia namespace not endorsed by the community. Practically every other essay initially comes to mind. It might confuse new users, which are more likely to be the target audience of RW, but it's not out of the ordinary or a misuse of the namespace imo. And there's plenty of downloadable tools within the Wikipedia namespace which are effectively entirely off-wiki tools and could be replaced with far more damaging malware, compared to a browser script, at any time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd also like to express my concern about third-party hosting of any Wiki tool components, especially of Javascript, for a tool that appears to have community endorsement. If I were a new users, I would certainly think that a tool in WP space (even just the shortcut) had some sort of significant vetting and community endorsement. Waggie (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I've added some responses regarding these concerns below. Thanks for bringing them up. Ed6767 talk! 01:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• question I too share the sentiments of Tony here wrt promotion as well as Brad's about privacy and an additional concern about need as well as the game aspect of it that I see so many of it's users engaging in, similar to that loathsome semi-off Wiki antivandalism tool that keeps a scoreboard. So can someone explain to me what unique feature this tool offers that any of our other approved countervandalism, welcoming and "help" tools don't? Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, from what I can tell, most users prefer my tool for ease of use and user experience. I've tried to make RW much more user-friendly, including easier icons, more common rollback options (like Huggle) and a semi-automatic warning system where it can show a user's last warning level and select a warning level based on this, however, unlike Huggle, this isn't submitted automatically and a user must manually click "Send Notice" by design. I started working on RW after becoming frustrated with the tediousness of Twinkle and it's user unfriendliness and outdated design, I thought I'd put my skills to use. Closing the gap and adding more features is still in progress, and I have many features still planned to add them up. Each tool has a use and need, but it's down to the community really to determine what this is. On the game note: there will never be a scoreboard or anything like that, but I do think the process of making RCP more enjoyable and less tedious is important to increasing the number of recent changes patrollers. I explained some ideas I had about this in a reply to Enterprisey - but it's important to remember that tools are not toys, and it's important to distinguish them as such. I hope that answers your question? Ed6767 talk! 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanation from Ed6767

@Bradv, Nick, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, and Waggie:, I appreciate these concerns and thank you all for bringing them up. I didn't pick my CDNs without careful thought first - if you are concerned about privacy, you can check exactly what information is being sent to these CDNs over at the console of your browser in the "network" tab. On Chrome and Firefox, all that is ever sent to the CDNs are your referee, in this case, en.wikipedia.org and some standard headers such as your user agent. No cookies, no tokens, and no network requests within that could compromise your Wikipedia user data. If you are concerned about your IP, the use of a VPN can help mask this.

All software imported through the CDNs is open source and is widely used and renown in the web development community. As somebody under who lives under some of the strictest data protection regulations in the world, I wouldn't choose some sketchy company that would likely result in me being potentially sued, fined, jailed, or even consider the idea of compromising hundreds of Wikimedia Global accounts, and consequently causing harm to hundreds of people, hence the use of Google and JSDelivr. Having being a past Google Cloud Platform customer, I am experienced and trust Google's cloud products in the regards of privacy and am satisfied with both their security and data handling, especially as with a CDN, the most sensitive information they are getting is an IP address, which it is important to remember that this is sent with every single request you make online. I am willing to also implement checksums to prevent the issue Johnuniq called out with the CDN content potentially being replaced with malware, which while extremely unlikely, it's a good security measure nonetheless. If the CDN goes offline, sources still exist in the respective git repos, so they can be easily recompiled and uploaded to another CDN.

Here's what I know as a developer, and the person who set up and picked the CDNs regarding this:

1. No tokens, cookies or any data that could compromise your account are ever sent to external CDNs - modern browsers also prevent this from happening.
2. If checksums are implemented, if external scripts are replaced with malware, the web browser would outright refuse to load the external scripts as the checksum would not match.
3. HTTPS is used, so the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks are minimal and are, depending on the situation, on the same level of risk as that of Wikimedia websites. In addition, it is important to distinguish that these attacks are not issues with the CDNs themselves.

In my opinion, from a security point of view, having the chain from our computers to GitLab, then back to our computers, from which we do a final review of the changes, publish, then update the version within the on-wiki file is significantly more secure than directly editing and publishing the script here and can increase testing. Even if a user makes a malicious edit to the GitLab repository, all code is reviewed before manually sending it to the repository, then finally confirming this by updating the version number within redwarn.js on-wiki. And if a bad change is made and published, this won't be applied until the version number is manually updated, and in future, the checksum too.

Regarding the blacklist, Nick, I agree. The current JS blacklist is a bit of a bodge, and I think making me like "the king and overlord" of the tool completely defeats the point of open-source software - it should be down to the administration of the MediaWiki instance itself to control this, and I'd like some input from you guys regarding the best way to handle this, or whether a blacklist would be useful at all over a simple block, or if certain RedWarn features would require a RFP.

TonyBallioni - admittedly, I have been quite liberal in terms of promotion and user intake, which is not ideal and wasn't the greatest idea in the first place. I'll stop completely in that regard now, past the passing mention. Self promotion is of course, self promotion.

Regarding my persistent use of "modern browser", the question may arise, "well what if they're using an older browser?". Simple answer: they can't. My choice to make RedWarn only compatible with newer browsers is by design for both functionality and security reasons. Another question: why can't you put all this stuff on-wiki? I can do that for everything but the fonts. But, then that'll make the whole page at least ~9 MB in size which is simply unfeasible - using separate files allows for easier caching, in fact, your browser may still have the CDN scripts from another website that shares them.

Again, thank you all again for raising your concerns, I appreciate it.

TLDR: No user data is sent to the CDN, and I've made sure of that. There are measures I could also put in place regarding extra security to mitigate the risk of an external script being changed via a checksum. Ed6767 talk! 01:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Ed6767, thanks for the response. However, isn't Google's CDN still getting our IP, user agent, and referrer URL? That would seem to be user data to me. These are all data points that is normally protected quite carefully behind the CU tools. Waggie (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Waggie, those are all sent within any request. There is no easy way to stop this data from being sent, and it's highly unlikely Google stores these logs for long, or even stores them at all, especially if you consider the amount of traffic Google receives. Ed6767 talk! 01:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, but jsdelivr openly says that they track requesters' IPs and do not expunge them after any set period of time. And it says that your data gets forwarded to Cloudflare, Stackpath, Fastly, and Quantil. – bradv🍁 01:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, any website does that. If it didn't hand your IP over, how would the service providers (Cloudflare, Stackpath and Fastly, Quantil is China only, seeing as WP is fully banned there now that's unlikely to apply) know where to send the data back to? I'd love to mask this info, but it's simply impossible. Ed6767 talk! 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, Wikipedia doesn't. It serves as its own CDN, and doesn't load any external resources. You are single-handedly attempting to change that. – bradv🍁 02:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, Wikipedia doesn't? With all due respects, I suggest you read up on how an IP address actually works in relation to the internet. The page on them has a pretty good summary. Wikipedia does collect your IP and user agent, and actually provides them in a more open way in comparison to CDNs as these can be accessed by any trusted volunteer though a simple UI, whereas a CDN manager would have to dig through thousands of log files and millions of requests, not just specific editors. There's nothing new about what I'm doing here really. It's not new, yes Wikipedia has a CDN but it is considerably smaller and far less optimised for JavaScript delivery. If somebody is concerned about this info being collected, they can use a VPN or proxy along with a user-agent switching browser addon. (apologies if I misinterpreted you here) Ed6767 talk! 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Foundation, unlike JSdelivr, do not keep IP or user agent data information indefinitely. The data retention guidelines state that they delete or de-identify information after 90 days. This is why CheckUser checks sometimes come up stale if the last edit was beyond that time frame. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Should also clarify, I have no access to this data at all, and I'm unsure what exactly the security concern of them having this info is, especially as an IP address is sent to every single website you visit, indirectly or directly. It can't be traced back to your user account, your history, or even that it was RedWarn that asked for it, and it's unlikely it can be maliciously used as the data is not public-facing, not to mention the volume of data flowing through these CDNs every second - checkusers have such strict restrictions because the data is not public-facing, and the risk of a checkuser using info maliciously is greater or equal to that of a rogue employee at a CDN, who, before even getting close to this data must also sign NDAs and other privacy agreements, as my understanding from past Google and Cloudflare employees is. Ed6767 talk! 02:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am a checkuser so I'm aware of how IP data gets shared with volunteers. For one thing, it only shares data related to edits, not to reading pages. And the WMF privacy policy specifies the terms on which IP data gets shared with outside parties: We put requirements, such as confidentiality agreements, in place to help ensure that these service providers treat your information consistently with, and no less protective of your privacy than, the principles of this Policy. Have any of these CDN services you are using signed a confidentiality agreement with the WMF? I have. – bradv🍁 02:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, why? Why is that needed? They can't tell who you are, what page you visited or anything like that. Only the domain you're from. en.wikipedia.org - and that's one of the most popular sites on earth. In fact, many browser extensions could already but making requests to these CDNs? Not to mention, with caching a request isn't made every time you load a page. I'm not a lawyer. I am somebody who got sick of using Twinkles horrible interface and put my skills to use to help retain the quality of this encyclopedia, following every practice I have to do and have done with any public-facing web project. I'm willing to make fixes, but what are you even proposing here? Ed6767 talk! 02:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ed6767, what you haven't explained is what advantage there is in hosting this script offwiki. I'm quite concerned by the privacy and security problems mentioned above (and yes, data is being sent to non-WMF servers), but also by the fact that Wikipedia editors can't watchlist the script to ensure it doesn't get compromised. So what are the advantages of this approach? – bradv🍁 01:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, advantages to the approach are faster loading times, less strain on Wikimedia's infrastructure, better caching (i.e. leading to less data usage for those on metered internet connections), flexibility cross-wiki (as there is one standard script to install, which will become very useful when expanding beyond Wikimedia Wikis) and ease of deployment and readability for users and debuggers. If I wanted to host on Wiki at this size, I'd have to minify the entire script, making it unreadable. The script on Wiki can still be watchlisted for version changes, and over at https://www.npmjs.com/package/redwarn-web and https://gitlab.com/redwarn/redwarn-web, a user can see the source and release of each version. Other services can provide email update notifications for NPM packages. Ed6767 talk! 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, I am not convinced by any of these arguments. The WMF manages its own infrastructure to run one of the largest websites in the world, without the help of any external CDN. Cross-wiki scripts are easily implemented between WMF sites (you can fork it for non-WMF sites if you want). Watchlisting the onwiki script (which is not being used) is of little to no use if the CDN or the script itself gets compromised, by you or an outside bad actor. In my opinion, if you expect this script to be used and endorsed by the editing community, it should be hosted on Wikipedia where it is subject to proper community review.

  Another part of this, which may be related, is that for some reason the marketing of this script has consistently targeted new editors. I am not aware of any experienced editor or administrator using this script and endorsing its use to the community. That, combined with the questionable technical practices, lead me to think that the development of this script is not entirely above board. – bradv🍁 02:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, like I said, 1. I can use a checksum to prevent these changes from passing so a browser will refuse to load a script if the checksum of the file doesn't match. 2. Nothing is stopping malicious changes from happening to on-wiki user scripts. 3. I will not use WMF infrastructure as a Javascript CDN unless completely necessary. My global account gets compromised, the entire thing goes down. Not to mention how MediaWiki is not designed for it. On a side note, what does an experienced editor or administrator using the script has anything to do with these security concerns? Marketing of the script at newer users is mainly because I found many more experienced users are acclimatised to Twinkle, and newer editors may prefer the user-friendliness of RedWarn, especially with its reduced feature set at present as many experienced users become more Twinkle power users. I feel like you're taking these concerns more at face value here. Ed6767 talk! 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  There are many things which prevent malicious changes to user scripts. The only people who can edit user javascript pages are interface administrators or the user themselves. That's a total of 12 people. Mediawiki actually is designed to deliver JavaScript modules, see the mw:ResourceLoader introduced in 2011. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, ResourceLoader doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia a good dedicated CDN. I'm mostly talking in regards to web content delivery, like fonts ext. Its unlikely WMF would host those unless I managed to have a toolforge instance running, which then has its own complications. I'm by "Nothing is stopping malicious changes from happening to on-wiki user scripts", that means as in as bad acting interface admins or compromised accounts. Many popular user scripts have owners without 2FA, and users have no built-in update notifications, which does make it so that there is relatively nothing stopping a change, or anything notifying users of that. Ed6767 talk! 03:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, I agree that new users are more likely to be receptive to changing their Wikipedia workflow. So I am not surprised you've gain more traction with that set. However, I am concerned by the lack of experienced users utilizing the script for two reasons. Experienced users understand some nuances to counter-vandalism that newer users may not have considered. Their breadth of experience would offer feedback for you that newer users will not be able to generate. Equally important is that poorly done recent change patrolling harms the encyclopedia. This is why Rollback is a permission and why Rollback is required for use of Huggle. Speaking for myself, your marketing had intrigued me but the obvious security concerns mean that I have not run the script myself. So I would also personally love for experienced editors to be using it as they may be able to vouch that the script will enhance our recent change patrolling above and beyond what Twinkle can do, given both the security and policy concerns that have been raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ed6767: You may be interested in https://cdnjs.toolforge.org and https://fontcdn.toolforge.org (although it appears they would not address the core problem, which I agree is a bad idea) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pppery, Waggie, and Enterprisey:, thanks for the links - and really, explaining myself at 3 AM probably wasn't the greatest idea in the world, so going forward, I'd love to see if I could use Wikimedia Toolforge to make a dedicated CDN for RedWarn, or extend on an existing CDN project so that RedWarn completely can not lean on these services as I completely understand everyone's concerns (now I'm more awake :p), and I'll immediately get to work on sorting that out. I admit that using these services is totally not ideal and definitely does carry some privacy concerns, especially in terms of the WMF's Privacy Policy. Seeing other CDNs set up on toolforge has definitely been a relief as it means it has been done and it very much is feasible. I'll move RWs code back on-wiki and implement a couple of speed improvements so that the detriment is minor if there is a major one at all once I have the toolforge set up. I will have to use the CDNs in the meantime while I get everything on toolforge sorted out as the approval process can be up to a week long, and if it is denied I'll need to ask another toolforge CDN provider if they'd be willing to host the additional scripts and fonts. This is a much more ideal solution for privacy that will mean that RW would never request anything from non-Wikimedia hosted sites. Thanks, everyone :) Ed6767 talk! 10:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ed6767: Firstly, I can see that you're frustrated with the response you're getting here, which is understandable. I'm sorry for that. It's clear that you're putting a lot of time, effort, and passion into trying to make something that can be very useful to the community. I really respect you for that, and you have my sincere gratitude. A lot of folks on Wikipedia are obviously very sensitive about privacy concerns, and are concerned about even just having IP and useragent passed to a third party (who, as noted above, DOES collect that information and store it without any specification as to when it will be deleted, or what will be done with it). Folks are willing to trust Wikipedia more or less, even with the possibility of compromised admin accounts/etc., because there's at least a level of transparency and accountability here that is ingrained in the community and in policy. I think that folks feel that Google may not have nearly the same level of transparency and accountability, nor the drive that Wikipedia has. Google has corporate motivations that don't necessarily match those of Wikipedia. I think I've summed up things OK. As I'm not a programmer, I don't understand all of the complexity here, but is there a way that these concerns could be better addressed in your project? I would likely support it, if they were. Waggie (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I totally agree with what people are saying above, especially Waggie and Bradv. I would also like to say thank you for the effort you've put into this, and I really hope you stick around - we need more talented JavaScript developers. My main concern is with auditing - at the moment the only way to track changes to the script are to download it every so often. Scripts that are stored on-wiki have their version history tracked just like any other page.
  I am also concerned about having "yet another tool where people can treat WP:RCP like a video game", as I said off-wiki. The user interface of a tool has immense power to shape people's behavior, and I observe a disturbing trend of letting WP:PRESERVE fall by the wayside in favor of offering the limited but clear-cut choice of "revert" or "ignore". I'm not blaming you for that at all, though! I'm just saying it's really important to consider the impact new RCP tools have on community behavior. (P.S. I read the code, for what it's worth, and it looks pretty good! Nice easter egg.) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, regarding the whole RCP like a game point, you bring up a very interesting point. It has become a somewhat frequent issue of inexperienced users running amuck with them. But as of right now, there is a lack of RCP and some changes go unnoticed for a while, and maybe making them more accessible is a key part in getting more users onboard and consequently improving the quality of pages - but it's important to distinguish that these are tools, and tools are not toys. I'd like to see in RedWarn potential encouragement to use CVU and some basic tutorials built-in for more inexperienced users that I'd also like to curate with some CVU volunteers, because when I was starting out I had no clue about any of this, and if more users are beginning to use a tool, maybe starting from the tool level and implementing tutorials into a section of the tool would be useful. If I get a toolforge instance up, I could also potentially set up where a user could request for help from another user regarding a change, and will tell you the result of the action, such as "user decided to rollback because..." followed by a user inputted reason. That may become a useful learning tool, and also help newer editors who are unsure on whether something is against policy or not, or who just need another opinion. But those are just ideas for now, but it'd be interesting how they'd turn out in future. Ed6767 talk! 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, I agree. On my watchlist I see far more unwarranted Huggle rollbacks than unreverted vandalism. Especially concerning to me is the frequent use of huggle to revert good-faith, constructive but unsourced edits. Even more concerning, I've seen rollback used against purely constructive edits by new users who did some minor thing wrong, even when the edit was sourced. I did some RCP antivandalism work way back in 2010, and I know that's an eternity in WP terms, but I recall that rolling back anything other than obvious vandalism was grounds to get rollback revoked. What happened to that? −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  As a note to any Hugglers who may be watching, Huggle does have a "revert assuming good faith" option, which prefixes the edit summary with "Reverted good faith edits by [user]", allows you to enter a custom summary, and also undoes the edit without using the rollback feature. For example: [1]. I don't know if RedWarn has a feature like this, as I don't use the tool, but if not it might be a feature worth considering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, RW does have AGF rollback, but at the moment it just sets a prefix in the rollback reason prompt (i.e. Reverting good-faith edits... ). Ed6767 talk! 23:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I think it might be clearer if the tool reverted the edit rather than rolled it back, though there is an allowance in policy for it: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. I had to look at the policy just now to realize that, though, I was also under the impression that Enterprisey was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

@Barkeep49, Waggie, Bradv, Pppery, Enterprisey, Wugapodes, Nick, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, Amory, Isaacl, and Praxidicae: Thank you all again for raising your concerns regarding the use of external CDNs and privacy. Over the past few hot and admittedly stressful hours, I have fast-tracked this issue due to the privacy concerns and I've moved all external content to Wikimedia controlled servers via Wikimedia Toolforge (redwarn.toolforge.org), meaning that effective immediately RedWarn is completely hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The scripts on the toolforge instance are direct copies from the original source. The main script itself is also now back on Wiki, so changes can be tracked easier for each update. If any more technical user would like to review the changes more precisely, the GitLab is also open for anyone who wishes to analyse the commit history. Thank you all for your feedback. If I have missed any scripts by accident, or have any questions, please let me know. Ed6767 talk! 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, thank you for doing this, and sorry for the disruption this has caused to your workflow. – bradv🍁 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, thanks, and it's no problem. Privacy risks are very serious and given the amount of concern, it did warrant an immediate change. Ed6767 talk! 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, thanks for your responsiveness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth updating what's on GitLab sooner rather than later, also, since that's linked from WP:REDWARN (or linking to the dev branch if that's what's being reflected on-wiki). I saw you removed the warning about external links and was briefly alarmed when I checked the source on GitLab because they're still used there (for example). It wasn't until I came back to this conversation that I went and checked User:Ed6767/redwarn.js. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, sorry about that. I made this change on the release script level at Wikipedia, as modifying the source (what you see on GitLab) would take longer, and I usually like to include patches in as I go through the code while replacing instances of it, but those patches don't always work or carry through with newer changes so I apply direct changes to the script when a change needs to be made immediately, then add them later to the dev branch - so it's unlikely you'll see a change on the release branch until the release of the next version. Hopefully, once I reorganise my workflow there won't be too many of these confusing issues. Ed6767 talk! 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Thanks for all your effort, and like the others, I'm sorry about the amount of trouble you've had to go to. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Line 1248 of Special:PermaLink/964310101 appears to be loading off site content from a personal repository still. As far as the YouTube links, I haven't read the entire code base - is it obvious to users that they will be loading external content prior to following those links? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks for pointing those issues out, just fixed them. I also added a confirmation before opening the external links to Youtube. Ed6767 talk! 13:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Block of User:JohnDoe06.2020

JohnDoe06.2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indefblocked this account per WP:NOTHERE because this account is here, well, not to build an encyclopedia. (Probably it is also a block evasion, but I have no idea who the master could be and I am not going to pursue this any further). If someone feels this is a bad block feel free to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That survey looks hinky. - --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but at a guess I'd say that they would be the same person as User:JOHNDOE, who seems to have a globally locked account and history of socking. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

John Doe is a placeholder name used in some countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I get the impression it's a WMF staffer who's afraid of becoming the point-man for this still-obscenely-unpopular thing, hence the name style. WMF staffers have generally been getting a lot of stick since Framgate due to the perception that they aren't interested in listening to us and talk at us instead of to us, and this rebranding bullshit is more of the same in that vein. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well. If it it's a staffer, then this should be treated as meatpuppetry if nothing else. They can't go around the encyclopedia urging WMF surveys on folks and then pretend to be an "ordinary" editor: are we to be taken for fools? If they want to do WMF work, do it under a WMF account. Otherwise, NOTHERE literally sums it up. ——Serial ^# 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's a WMF staffer: looks to me like canvassing from someone against renaming. "Please take your time and save Wikimedia!" does not strike me as a Wiki(m|p)edia Foundation-approved position. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess this was an LTA user having fun. Highly unlikely (I would even say impossible) this was a staffer.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Closure request

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

---

A closure is requested for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 10#Thomas_Demery, which is overdue for closure by more than a week. All of the usual suspects are involved and cannot perform the close. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC is that-a-way. I'm not sure using AN to jump the que is appropriate. El_C 10:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, colour me someone who forgot ANRFC existed. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Stifle. El_C 10:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And to save any more clicks and bytes, it has been closed now. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Closing. El_C 12:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP with bot like edits - Should the edits be kept or removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.9.128.236 Should the edits be removed or kept 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) 1.Ayana, probably. Unreported bot, odd edits without good reason provided and many have already been reverted. Ed6767 talk! 12:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits don't look at all like a bot - only a small number of edits at a time, only one or two edits per minute often followed by gaps of more than a minute, occasionally not putting an edit summary, lack of consistency etc. Also is there consensus for all biography articles to have an infobox? The edit summaries may be wrong but it's probably just selecting one that they had recently used that isn't what they intended rather than anything malicious. And if this was mistaken for a bot, why was logged in editing also blocked? Peter James (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You'd do good to read WP:BOTCOMM, it's not the mass-editing that's problematic, it's the fact that the edit summaries are unrelated at times, they don't respond to queries and a lot of their edits are disruptive, combined with the fact that multiple edits are made per minute and then you see how it's an issue. Logged-in editing was blocked because there's a chance it's a logged-in editor using it for WP:GHBH editing, new users would not be able to make rapid edits without the necessary know-how. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The message they haven't responded to was at 11:56; their last edit was at 11:43. They have usually responded previously, and their edits go back more than a year; it's likely that they have used another IP address or account before then, but this doesn't look like a logged-in editor. Also the edit summaries are sometimes unrelated, but your template for the first block and settings for the second also look unrelated to the reasons for the blocks - sometimes people just use the wrong summary. Peter James (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't respond to any queries or messages, they just add an infobox or make random edits to their talk page (see talk page history), hence there's a clear reason for a CIR block and revoking TPA. Just because you think this doesn't look like a logged-in editor does not mean that's the case, not saying my hypothesis is the truth but certainly has a better basis. [S]ometimes people just use the wrong summary is not justifiable excuse when mass-editing, hope that explains it, I've blocked atleast a couple hundred accounts, so trust me I get the gist. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#RfC: Fox News

Due to close later this week. Could probably use a “panel closure” (more than one person) from uninvolved admins. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If admins want to collaborate on a close, that's welcome of course, but it may not be what happens in this case. El_C 19:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but getting it to happen is a whole other matter. But who knows, maybe this time it'll happen. El_C 19:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would just add that it would probably be best if admins participating in such a closing were individuals previously having minimal involvement in topics of U.S. politics, just to avoid any assertion of bias. BD2412 T 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to help close as part of a panel if that's the way this is going. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify given the various calls to have non-American editors hold down the panel, I am American but generally do not edit American politics articles. While it would be good to have some non-American perspectives, I'm not sure that having exclusively non-Americans weigh is necessarily desirable (I could see that playing poorly to the external audience per Sdkb's comment below) or feasible given that a handful of non-American editors have already declined. That having been said, I'm willing to comply with whatever we feel is appropriate regarding the composition of a panel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to see a non-US experienced editor (or editors) with minimal involvement in US politics close this, but that's a hard find - a multiple member panel is better in that case to avoid assertions of bias. I don't know too many non-US editors though, maybe ToBeFree, if they are willing? --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fifty thousand words. Sorry, I can't evaluate that in any reasonable amount of time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good lord, I saw the subheadings but didn't realize it was that long. Guess I found my next book. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed quite messy, Primefac if you're willing. :) @Lee Vilenski and K6ka: if either of you want something fun. That's about all on my closer list, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Happy to help, but anyone expecting a swift close here is incredibly mistaken. It's a HUGE debate! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps don't make this panel exclusive to admins. There are some very experienced non-admin closers (S_Marshall comes to mind, and he's non-US), and I think including non-admins may be a good idea to avoid controversy. Also agree with the comment BD made about participating admins having minimal involvement in topics of US politics (and related issues). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have contributed to that debate as an editor and therefore can't touch it.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, you people are really in love with bureaucracy, aren't you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No sane uninvolved admin would close this on their own without help.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we tend to underestimate what a qualified closer is eventually willing to do. Many daunting closes end-up, after an above average delay perhaps, getting closed by a single closer. People step-up. This is not a comment about the wisdom (or not) of a panel close in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How does a panel close constitute "bureaucracy"? I guess "you people are really in love with collaboration, aren't you?" doesn't have the same ring to it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Panel closes aren't bulletproof but (at least IMO) do have more of an effect of "settling" a discussion (at least for a while) than a single closer. It also makes it harder to make ad hominem claims about the closer. It's been largely effective in the times I've seen it employed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to be on a panel. I'm American. Other than writing The Lincoln Project, I've mostly stayed out of politics on the wiki. I agree that having at least some (if not majority) non-American representation on the panel would be good. Perhaps Sandstein, Hut 8.5, or Jo-Jo_Eumerus, all of whom I know from my WP:DRV work, strike me as excellent admins, and I believe are all in Europe. If we ended up with two Americans, I'd suggest picks from across the political spectrum (I'll self-identify as left-wing, with a generally low opinion of Fox News). I've done one panel close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You probably should not have pre-stated your opinion of the source in question while volunteering. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, Surely it's better to declare that then to keep it hidden? I anybody feels I can't do a fair close, I'm happy for somebody else to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree with Sdkb's point below that the reason to use a panel is not so much quality control, as perception control. Given that, I'll withdraw my name from consideration. And I'm also thinking having the panel made up of all non-US editors would be a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to decline. I don't fancy trying to sort through 100 pages of discussion on a highly contentious subject, not counting everything else that's linked to. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I can join the panel (I am not from the US, not involved in the US politics, have not looked at the discussion, and hopefully I am experienced enough), but it will be slow (next to my full-time job I am also involved now into some Wikimedia-related activities which take my time and have a priority). Obviously no problem if there are other people willing to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I have disclosed my real-life identity (or at least it is easy to trace), and I do not want to get more serious threats than I am already getting, which probably means I should not be part of the closing panel.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I !voted in the RfC, but I want to share a few thoughts here regarding process:

1. Yes, the close should be done by a panel. While I think it's perfectly possible that a single dedicated editor might be able to read the discussion and make an informed judgement, no matter what the outcome/how solid their reasoning I would expect them to be immediately challenged, whereas a panel close offers some chance of delivering some finality. So a panel is needed not for ensuring the close be done well, but for ensuring (as best we can) the perception that it has been done well.
2. I think we may be underestimating the amount of external media attention this close may garner — Hemiauchenia is the only one who has brought it up so far that I've seen, but this is the sort of thing that I could easily see being featured on Fox News' nightly programming, so we need to be ready to explain our decisions not just to an internal audience but to an external one. Having 2 million viewers descend on us is not something I'm sure we're prepared for — we're used to covering culture wars but not so used to being the center of one ourselves. To prepare, I echo Guy Macon's suggestion that the RfC be moved to a subpage, which could be protected if needed (if that happens, we should have a banner ready to direct the angry canvassed mob to a sub-subpage where they can vent, so that they don't end up doing it everywhere else on Wikipedia). The closers might even want to write out a separate page for explaining the decision to external audiences that starts with the basics about what a RS is and how consensus works before getting to the decision. Also, there is an increased possibility of threats of harm here, especially if the closers are editors who disclose their real identity, so we should proactively make sure that our processes there are solid (this isn't overreacting — it's what's happened to most people I know who have been spotlighted on Fox).
3. I'm seeing a lot of editors decline above due to the expected workload, which has the potential to set up an unfortunate dynamic where those most committed to thoroughness step aside, whereas those who might be more tempted to skim volunteer. I generally trust that people know the following, but just to state it clearly, please don't let that happen — joining the close means you're committing to reading the full discussion, and you should not volunteer if that's not something you're willing to do.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think there should be no opining on the RfC itself in this discussion. Let's limit ourselves to organizing a panel close, or just have a single admin close it. Whichever. El_C 02:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  El C, absolutely agreed. Enforcing the meta-ness of meta discussions is a perpetual challenge. I'm going to collapse the small bit above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• RoySmith, thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence. I'm not sure whether I want to be part of such a panel, but if I were, I'd propose the following methodology:
  • In a spreadsheet, each closer assesses each opinion based on how much weight it should carry in the light of Wikipedia policies (e.g., from 0 for pure votes or political rants to 2 for well-reasoned arguments that discuss applicable reliable sources). The three sets of weights are then averaged.
  • The closers also jointly assign each opinion to one or more of the options being discussed. E.g., an opinion such as "first choice 1, second choice 2" could see 75% of the opinion's weight assigned to 1 and 25% to 2.
  • Based on this, the spreadsheet will produce a graph showing the distribution of weighted (and unweighted) opinions across options, which is then used by the closers to assess rough consensus.
  • Because the options reflect escalating degrees of strictness, closers should try to determine the strictest or most lenient option that, together with every stricter or (as the case may be) more lenient option, has the support of, say, two thirds of weighted opinions. It's likely that any such option would approximate community consensus.

Any thoughts on this approach? It would come with the benefit of transparency via the spreadsheet. Sandstein 10:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I'm not a big fan of playing numbers with RfCs (they are always about ascertaining consensus after all), a statistical approach to RSN might be in order; the 1-4 scale seems to suggest so, albeit it not fitting with the concept of CONSENSUS as we currently have it. Either way, this could be a valuable metric for validation maybe? There's some drawbacks immediately visible: such as multiple options for different things, fractional answers (I saw one iirc) and lastly, comments with no indicated number. Will they be assessed as "NaN" or coerced to a value, is there a correct approach for the same, all of this is a pretty grey area. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A potential issue with this scoring is that it seems to imply value in repetition of work. I did not include links to sources in my comment because it would be largely linking to material that other people already did (nevermind the countless times I and others have linked to them in past discussions). Do I have do go back and add a bunch of links already well discussed there to have my !vote count? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - for panel considerations, I wanted to mention User:Atsme/Banners#The Closer's Barnstar which was inspired by Serial Number 54129. I looked to see what UTPs were linked to File:Closing-door.gif, and following are the recipients of the recognition so far: SilkTork, El C, JBW, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and mazca. Other excellent versatile closers who come to mind, Emir of Wikipedia, GRuban and Nyttend. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. Sorry, if it is true that someone or other once decided I had made a good close of something or other and gave me a "barnstar", then I am glad to have been of service, but closing the monstrosity that is involved in this case is way outside the limits of what I am willing to undertake. JBW (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni comes to mind too, but judging by the message on his talk page I'd suspect he might say he doesn't have the time for this currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  As I recall, Tony doesn't believe that a panel of closers is advantageous over a single closer. isaacl (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  No one else thinks that one of the discussion's vocal participants suggesting closers is problematic? I'm not impugning the integrity of the suggested closers but if one of them participates in the panel and it's closed in favor of this person who suggested that person, it could taint the close. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. I've had a quick look (not read thoroughly and digested yet, but I got the gist) and would be OK with closing this or being part of a panel. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, I am unable to commit to this undertaking at the moment. Thanks for thinking of me, though, Atsme. Added: I say this with some regret, as I have never participated in a panel close before, so that could have been interesting. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: In addition to summarizing the community's consensus, please address the question of the scholarly consensus on the matter. Many sources have been cited throughout the discussion, and they present a more or less unified view on the core issues; whether the community follows or diverges from that view is an important question in and of itself, and so it would be useful to summarize it as part of the closing note. François Robere (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

*In my opinion, it should just be closed as "no consensus". The community doesn't yet know what to do with it. It would be hard to get a definitive ruling. New comments are still being added everyday, but we aren't moving towards any clear consensus.Talrolande (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Talrolande, I suspect the recent evidence of fake pictures may have nudged it over the line into consensus, but who knows. Guy (help!) 15:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) I suggest flipping a coin. Then run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Ahh, but who will judge the coin? And, who will bell the cat? O3000 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC) I hope there's RFCs being held for CNN & MSNBC news, of this nature as well. As much as Fox is pro-Republican, CNN & MSNBC are pro-Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC) And how is that relevant here? Don't relitigate the RfC here, start the RfC at the appropriate noticeboard if you want to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC) At least with CNN, that's laughable. They routinely let right-wing, left-wing, and conspiracy theorist nutjobs have time to equally spout crap. CNN is pro-ratings over anything else. That's why I haven't taken them seriously since the 90s. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC) HandThatFeeds, appears CNN took the "never bite the hand that feeds you" metaphor quite literally ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Just one note for the closers: the RfC is concerned with the actual news programs on Fox, which are listed at WP:FOXNEWS. Be on the lookout for !votes and discussion that conflate the news programs with the talk show pundits (e.g. Carlson and Hannity), which is not what the RfC is about. JOEBRO64 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Though one could address both, or simply reject the distinction; both cases should be counted. François Robere (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC) No. And again, let's not use this thread to relitigate the RfC, that's not what it's for, let the closers do their job. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC) The RfC states: Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) (emphasis mine) JOEBRO64 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, plus "signup sheet"

So far it looks like the following individuals have said they would help with a close:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• SilkTork
• Hobit (maybe, see below)

One more makes five, which (as an odd number) makes for good discussion. I know the RFC doesn't formally end until 7 July, but if a fifth doesn't volunteer by then I suppose I can step back and let the above trio deal with it. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since SilkTork withdrew (see below), for now we have:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• Primefac

If everyone is fine with that, I suggest let's wrap this up? --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a good panel (it's not a problem if you join and it makes 4), seems like the issue of getting people to close is resolved. Good work on annoying asking people for this, folks! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What prcedents do we have for five person closes? Personally If we're going to be at three, and as an excercise is something beyond authority lending I think three is the right number, I would suggest that either Rosguill or Lee step out in favor of having Primefac and SilkTork as crats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Barkeep49's suggestion - 2 crats and coin toss for one of the other 2 volunteers. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Crats are good closers. As I said above, the fact that one of them was suggested by a vocal participant in the discussion is a little worrying from an optics point of view. I'm not saying that the closers will not act with integrity! Only that the situation opens the close up to be questioned. Is there someone with a different view in the discussion who could "sign off" on the choice? @QEDK:? @JzG:? Or someone else? 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, not me, I have a distinct view on Fox. I don't want to get involved. Guy (help!) 08:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No precedent is required, and Primefac simply listed the first three editors to agree to be part of the panel, which is how it's done. If Primefac wants, we can still have 4 closers, it's not a big deal, no point to have anyone step down - at a later juncture, one of them can still back out without having the entire thing fall apart. I don't think the "crats are better closers" really applies here since RfAs and RfCs are completely different beasts. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked about precedent because I think we need to be careful about panel closes. A panel is, in my view, appropriate here, heck there's a reason I said two of the closers should be crats. But we need to be careful about when we do panels and it would be a bad thing if the expectation became a five person panel. We have already seen an abundance of RfC challenges recently for one person closes, we don't need more or for them to expand in rare panel closes. So my question about precedent remains - if we've done this a few times before without slipping down the slope I'm less adamant about 3 vs 5 than if we're in uncharted or relatively territory. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, did you forget to login? It shows you've only made 2 edits, both in this discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've closed in a 3-person panel and 3 people seem to be a commonly acceptable panel size for community-wide RfCs (also seen 3+ but rarely). Panel closes are more common when contentious, I've seen a lot of big RfCs which are closed by one person, and that's most RfCs, whether "big" or not. Count I'm fine with, but 'cratship is not a suitable measure of RfC-closing experience (and not one we can speculate) since it's hard to quantify a user right as basis for a skill. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme No, I didn't forget to log in. I've made these two (now three) edits, but I've been watching the rfc discussion and this one. You've been very vocal over there at the rfc and now you're suggesting closers for it without disclosing that you've posted in that discussion rather a lot. I think that looks bad and I think that those optics could taint the close. The rfc discussion is important and likely to gain attention outside Wikipedia and I think it's important that the optics look good. JzG and QEDK I wasn't suggesting that you close the discussion. I was suggesting that, to improve the optics of vocal participant Atsme putting forward closer suggestions, you "approve" Atsme's choice. If you and others don't think that's necessary, that's great. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, IP 2607. For future reference, the bulk of my suggestions weren't actually arrived at by me specifically picking them. I simply pointed to what others thought of them based on them being recipients of the closer barnstar. I did specifically suggest 3 other editors who were not recipients of the closer barnstar, but they were simply suggestions to broaden the pool. I'm in no way involved in making the final decision regarding who comprises the panel so it should have no bearing on whether or not I participated in the RfC, which is a bit of a stretch, but there's nothing wrong with covering all the bases. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who replied, JzG was. As for "signing off", I don't think it's required because all the panel members are a) uninvolved with the RfC and, b) uninvolved with the topic area. That's all that's required (and I think it's a good panel, as I said before). --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, WP:DAILYMAIL was a 5-member close, though I don't think I've seen any others with that many (I've been on a few 3-person panels). Responding to another comment somewhere above, 3 or 5 is traditionally seen as better than 4 because it means there are no "ties" in opinions (made that mistake with a 2-person close once). Primefac (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• If a fifth is needed and it can wait at least until the weekend, I can be that 5th. I'm American, fairly moderate in my politics, and read a lot of US and international news. I've closed a fair number of contentious debates. I have looked over the discussion and feel it's something I can read and address. I'm a bit more concerned about finding consensus among 5 people and *that* taking a ton of time, but I'm willing to put in that time if needed. I have no problem with it being a close by 3 people however and am only stepping forward because right now we seem to have 4. If someone else is found to be a 5th, I'm more than happy to step back--I've got plenty of other things to do... Hobit (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  The RFC doesn't end until next week, so I'll put you down as a "maybe". Primefac (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised that three panel members had already stepped forward before I was pinged. I'll withdraw - there's no need to over-complicate this with having four or five closers. SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Kirk edit history

The edit history for Michael Kirk is nearly entirely deleted. In particular it is deleted from page creation in 2009 to 2017 with a 2017 edit stating it was removing copyrighted material and reverting back to the version on May 15, 2014. Yet everything from creation to May 15, 2014 is deleted. I have never seen such a censored and purged Wikipedia edit history.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) DonkeyPunchResin, according to the page logs, all of the edits were copyright violations of his PBS biography and had to be revision deleted. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 thanks for the reply. That explanation doesn’t make sense to me as the 2017 edit states that due to copyright violations they were reverting back to the May 15, 2014 of the page. Thus, the May 15, 2014 version was not a copyright violation and all prior edits were probably not copyright vios either.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DonkeyPunchResin, I was able to find that particular revision elsewhere, and it appears to largely be a copyvio of these three sources, so the revdel was correct. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the revision you found elsewhere?DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No, linking to a copyvio is not allowed, per WP:LINKVIO. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit of 2017 doesn’t say that the page was reverted to the May 15, 2014 version, it says that ‘This version is based on revision 608622953 dated 00:50, May 15, 2014’, in other words, it was rewritten to comply with copyright. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've examined the very first revision. It cites this as its only source, and it's a close paraphrase of it. So yes, it looks to me to have been a copyright violation all the way from then. DonkeyPunchResin, it's always worth asking an admin to check for you before crying "censorship". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So one edit had a pretty close paraphrase of the source used to start the page ... ok. It still doesn’t explain why the May 15, 2014 version is censored (or deleted ... whatever) when that was the version reverted to after the copyright versions were deleted. And, ostensibly, some of the edits before that would not have been copyright vios and in fact nothing states they are copyright vios. Everything prior to May 15, 2014, is deleted with no reason given. And by censored I meant ... well just what I wrote. I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It has already been pointed out above that the article was not reverted to this version. This is simply a matter of complying with copyright law, not censorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the May 15, 2014 version was not reverted to, and every revision that is now rev-deleted (before, after, and including that one) contains copyright violations. And re "I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd": If you think something is very odd, just ask in a civil manner rather than throwing around snide accusations of censorship. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC close request for WT:MoS discussion

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

---

Would someone please close this RfC, about the use of "was" vs. "is" to describe defunct periodical publications? A short discussion at the end made it apparent that there is not enough agreement on the outcome to avoid a formal close. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Request

Hi, Please remove PCR from my account. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of recent RfC closure (Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities)

Several editors - including me - have expressed surprise and disagreement with S Marshall's recent closure of this RfC. There has been discussion on S Marshall's User Talk page and the WikiProject's Talk page. I am requesting a review of this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I welcome community scrutiny and if I closed that wrongly, then I'm happy to be overturned here. My close stands on three feet, and my close should only be allowed to stand if all three of them are correct.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

In the light of the feedback I got last time, I've honestly done my best to defend the close on my talk page :-\.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well-reasoned close. If you want it overturned, you're going to need another RfC with more participants I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place where we discuss how wrong the close was or is the discussion already linked above sufficient? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's the place where we look at the close and see if it's reasonable, which IMO it is. FWIW, I think almost all subjective rankings are UNDUE in leads, as the close notes - that applies to "List of 100 best X" lists, annual rankings and the rest. Objective facts are different: graduate employment rate, for example, or the percentage of graduates from a law school who get a job in the law, those are not subjective. My old school is objectively one of the oldest in the world, but any judgment of its academic ranking is likely to be highly subjective. Guy (help!) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to with a RfC that had five of the fifteen participating editors in favor of omitting all mention of this kind of information in the lede of these articles no matter how well supported by exceptionally high quality sources and thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. If you genuinely believe that then you should have participated in the RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I would have participated if I had known it was going on. Guy (help!) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was widely advertised; I personally placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Wikipedia Talk:Neutral point of view. And of course it was also listed with all other RfCs in the places where they're listed e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. ElKevbo (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, didn't say it wasn't. I did not see it though. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It really does feel like non-admin closures get far more scrutiny and pushback than admin closures no matter how reasoned or well-explained the closure is.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or what they do but I would be doing the same thing if an administrator had closed this discussion using the same rationale that has been used. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, of course, since you "lost", but it's a plainly well-reasoned close. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking that it be reviewed because it's poorly reasoned. Accusing me of a being a poor loser is a personal attack and you should retract it with an apology. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't read that as a personal attack at all. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's not an attack, it's completely normal for people to kvetch about a close that goes against them. Guy (help!) 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a well-reasoned and reasonable close, based on the stated policies. Could it have been closed differently? Given the low turnout and the less-than-perfect clarity of some relevant policies, yes, someone else could have closed it differently - I'd probably be torn between closing it as option 1 and option 2 myself (though I'd need more time to finally decide). As the decision was so close, I don't think we should rule out a second RfC. If someone decides to start one, I'd suggest some wider (and obviously non-canvassing) publicity would help attract more contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a suitable close to me. Certainly not a clear one, and definitely not an easy close. It for sure is not wide enough off the mark for it to be reopened, but a second RfC isn't a problem either. Closer did a good job in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lowly non-administrator here, just asking for advice: do you think it might be better to have a simpler "should they be included at all" RfC or "should they be restricted at all" RfC first, and then a secondary RfC second to decide what restrictions/inclusions should be the default consensus, or better to have a similar RfC again just with wider input? Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't say the subject especially interests me, and i probably wouldn't have participated, even had i known about the RfC. That being said, i think S Marshall did a very good job with the close. The reasoning is solid, all three feet are firm and make the whole thing stable, and his defence/explanation here and on his talk page is clear, simple, and easy to follow. The close should be upheld; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• In order to get into the weeds here, I decided to do my own review of the RfC and see where I differed from S Marshall. I think S Marshall got this pretty much right on with one exception: I think there was weak support for P3 and not P1, but I also think that the rest of the reasoning was correct, and that the fact I think there was weak support for P3 actually doesn't change anything about what S Marshall's conclusion of the rule was. Concluding rankings and "prestigious" should not be used to describe schools in the ledes of articles, but describing a school as "Oxbridge" or "Russell Group" or "Ivy League" or by one of its associations reflects the discussion. In any case, a quick search of the word "prestigious" shows it's often used in articles about academics, or about groups of universities - IE Business School was the first one to come up, and that clearly needs editing. Good close overall. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Close is reasonable. I agree with Sporting Flyer about P3 though. From S Marshall's statement, it seems like this is borderline no consensus; essentially, we should be cautious in describing prestige and err on the side of saying too little. I think in practice that will be closer to P3 than P1. It's not worth overturning since it's an accurate close, but I would recommend a second RfC (probably advertised at WP:CENT) which is more open ended than a straw poll. The other two options only focused on citations but neglected a lot of other editorial considerations, and using Marshall's close as a starting point to discuss what is acceptable is probably a better use of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with overturning to no consensus. I don't think there will be much of a difference and would still recommend a second RfC, but others seem to think overturning to no consensus is better which is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would overturn. The NOT argument is made only by the closer. The reason this is bad is not just because it is an interpretation of just one editor, the closer, so can't be anything like a consensus application, but on the merits it is unsupported except by the closer's ipsa dixit (closers are not suppose to make arguments). The discussing editors, if they had discussed NOT, could point to Encyclopedia Britannica which for Harvard says 'prestigious' in its lead,[2] and its Oxford entry, says 'great' in its lead [3]. It's thus entirely dubious -- and should have been discussed in the discussion and not by the single closer -- that those words are NOT encyclopedic in a university encyclopedia article lead. This is especially so, in light of the discussion that did occur that a lead is suppose to orient the reader, distinguishing the subject per WP:LEAD (distinguishing does often call for an adjective or two), and editors in the discussion did rely on LEAD, contra the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. P2 and P3 are much more similar to each other than P1; I don't see supporters of either of them who listed P1 as their second choice. I see 4 !votes in favor of P1, and 11 against, or only 27% support. In order to find a consensus in favor of something with such a skewed percentage against, the opposing side has to be completely without merit, which is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Now, the fact that the arguments presented by P1 supporters are on average stronger is, however, a reason to not declare consensus in favor of the side with 73% of the !vote. Therefore I think "no consensus" is the best outcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I weighted each vote (and discarded one P3 vote) since some users picked multiple options and weighted their preferences, and P3 came out slightly ahead. I wouldn't call it a 73-27% vote, especially with three options. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I participated in the RfC, my reading of the consensus is that we should overturn the close. It was (as is true of all of S Marshall's closes) thoroughly considered, but it had two significant issues. Copying my previous comment on them:

First, [the closer] writes that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather concerned by point 2 of S Marshall's three legs - in an AfD that would raise serious eyebrows, where we prefer closers who see non-applicable arguments participate rather than super-closing on those grounds. I'd always assumed that that held true for RfC closes as well. Were some clear policy not subject to local exceptions violated by all the reasoning I could a NC being warranted, but that isn't the instance here. It's absolutely well considered, but I'd say it's valid, not sound. Weak overturn, pending possible change if individuals think my reasoning is the case with RfCs too Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is absolutely key. Nobody in the debate mentioned WP:NOT, and without that, we've got no prohibition on promotional or advocacy editing. I interpolated it. If I was wrong then my close must be overturned.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close and thank S Marshall for their work. The reason they get attention here is that they are stepping up and closing difficult RfCs—thanks. Re the RfC issue, in six months another RfC with some realistic examples might be considered—it's all very well to imagine a perfect world where a very reliable source says X is the greatest and that gets copied to the lead, but the implications of that need to be considered in examples. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn I find two problems with this close and believe it should be overturned. First, he claims “no consensus on the numbers alone” and proceeds to ignore the numbers. But if you actually tally the comments, as I just now did: (correcting my tally since I missed one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC))

• 14 15 people commented.
• P1 was preferred by 3 4 (one unclear), opposed by 8 (several strongly), 3 did not state
• P2 was preferred by 6 (several qualified with a hedge about sources/wording), second choice for 2, opposed by 2 3 (one weak, one unclear), 4 did not state
• P3 was preferred by 6, second choice for 4, 1 2 (one strong), 3 did not state

It is impossible to see how this discussion could be closed in favor of P1. I would have interpreted it as a choice between P2 and P3, exact wording to be determined by discussion - with P1 having been soundly rejected by a majority of commenters.

Second, he notes that people mentioned NPOV and did not bring up NOT - but then raises NOT and PEA himself as arguments. In effect he was casting a supervote.

He comments on the paucity of contributions. That should not surprise anyone given that WikiProject:Higher Education is not a high profile site or on many people’s watchlist. Reopening it now after the rest of Wikipedia has been made aware of it should give a more reliable result. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Could you please explain more clearly how you reached the conclusion that there was a "weak consensus in favor of P1", when a majority of the commenters (8 out of 14) specifically opposed P1? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, with pleasure.
  I began by looking at the debate at a superficial level and totting up the number of editors in favour of each position, so as to give myself a benchmark. I found that on the numbers, there was no consensus.
  I then proceeded to read the history and background of the debate, so as to understand what was going on. The conclusions I reached were:
  1) The history is remarkably complex and detailed, but I needed to understand all the contributing editors as suitably responsible and experienced Wikipedians; and
  2) A key triggering incident was when editors decided it would be appropriate to allow Harvard University to describe itself as "prestigious" in the lead of its Wikipedia article (a decision apparently based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica's wording); and
  3) Although the debate was certainly begun in good faith and on the basis of what the drafters believed was in Wikipedia's best interests, it nevertheless represented an attempt by a WikiProject to establish a separate ruleset for articles within its own purview. Specifically, it was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising.
  I then found myself in an unusual position because none of the editors involved had invoked WP:NOT. Nobody at all had bluelinked it, and I initially wavered about whether it would be right to apply a policy that nobody bluelinked in the debate. I then consulted WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to see if it contained any guidance about what to do. I found: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. I raised an eyebrow, and then moved on to the final paragraph which states: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests.
  Now, I've got a longstanding view on IAR from spending so many years reviewing consensus-related decisions at DRV, and it's this: I think that a local consensus to ignore the rules can't be implied. I think that it's OK to IAR if the rule in question has been brought up in the debate, considered by the participants, and explicitly rejected as inapplicable or inappropriate; but it's not OK to IAR silently.
  Then I reflected on Wikipedia's attitude to promotional language in articles. I noted that Wikipedia is very attractive to those who want to use our encyclopaedia to market their products or promote their business, and Wikipedians have had to become highly sensitive to promotion. We tend to take a very hard line on it. I decided that the consensus against any form of promotional language is very old and very strong indeed. Taking those factors into consideration, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that even if the debate participants were oblivious to WP:NOT, it still applied to them. I recognized that this was a potentially controversial thing for me to decide, and therefore I needed to say explicitly in the close that I had made that decision.
  I have reflected on it long and hard since, and I still feel it was the right choice.
  Once I had given myself those directions I re-weighted the votes, and here is where I depart hard from the thought process that you and King of Hearts have displayed here. I understand from what you and King of Hearts have posted that you feel that I as a closer can weigh the votes, but the acceptable range of weights I can give is constrained: in other words, as closer, I'm not allowed to give a vote from a good faith Wikipedian a weight of 0, or 0.001. The acceptable range might be, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5.
  On this point, I simply disagree with you. I think it's possible for a contribution to a debate to be not just diminished, but totally blown out of the water, by subsequent contribution. So for example, in a deletion debate, if Editor A says: "Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources", and then Editor B links a long string of reliable sources that cover the subject, then the weight I would give to Editor A is not 0.5, or 0.3, but zero.
  In the light of this, I gave DGG's contribution to that debate a very high weighting indeed, because it introduced a lot of considerations that previous editors had not reflected on and which were not refuted by anyone else. I think that you and King of Hearts would view the weighting I gave to that contribution as inappropriately high and not within my reach as closer, but on the matter of how much weight is permissible, I respectfully disagree with you.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

totting up the number of editors in favour of each position So in other words, in your initial evaluation of the discussion you looked only at supports - and ignored opposes? I suggest that is an approach you should change from now on. Oppose !votes are every bit as significant as support !votes, sometimes more so. In the future please try to get a sense of what each person is actually SAYING with their comment. As you can see, I tally several types of !vote: "support", "second choice" or "acceptable", "oppose", and “did not state a clear position". That approach clearly shows that very few people supported P1 and a majority opposed it. By tallying only supports, then embarking on your own analysis of policy, you completely missed the clear consensus AGAINST P1. For that matter, even the bare “support” tally of 3 for P1, 6 for P2, and 6 for P3 should have indicated that this was not an inconclusive discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I have refrained from commenting here, however, I have to object to your statement that the RFC was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (a policy you yourself have referenced many times in this discussion) "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers." Thus, discussing a school's reputation -- positive or negative -- cannot violate WP's rules concerning advertisement and promotion provided the information is verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Calidum 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. I start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers and proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Calidum, it is my position that WP:SUBJECTIVE does not apply to universities or institutes of higher learning. When I read it, I can see a rule that with all due respect is clearly meant to apply to creative and artistic works. Although I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing that you use to contend that it stretches to universities, I see that as quite mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If your interpretation were correct that that portion of subjective I've quoted applies only to creative works (despite the sentence beginning "more generally") countless articles across Wikipedia would need to be scrubbed to adhere to it. Antonin Scalia, for instance, is clearly not a work of art, yet we note "he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century,[9] and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history." Nor could we call Sandy Koufax "one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history" and "one of the outstanding Jewish athletes in American sports." And forget about calling Charles Darwin "one of the most influential figures in human history." Calidum 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regret, I have to agree with overturn to no consensus here. That was a masterpiece of a closing statement and a genuinely noble attempt to wring a consensus out of a discussion; but I just don't think that discussion reached a consensus. While I really get the reasoning used, there is a limit to how one can weight votes, and P1 was explicitly objected to by quite a lot of participants. While I probably agree with P1 personally, if I was going to try and pull a consensus out of that discussion I probably would have leant towards P2 as the explicit compromise position, but I think I might have felt slightly off doing even that. I'm also on record previously as generally objecting to closers pulling out new arguments and policies in closes; as reasonable as S Marshall's genuinely were here, it almost always ends up smelling a bit like a supervote. Really great points were made in the close, but this feels like a discussion that needs more participation. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I think it was a damn fine closing giving a clear rationale, better than most, that actually had policy grounds, and hope S Marshall keeps up the good work. However, one of the "legs" is in dispute. We are to close discussions (when it is needed) by "careful analysis of the discussion". At issue is if an editor (or Admin) can "interpolate". If this is allowed can it be done in such a way to not give the appearance of a super vote. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy and the closer should not personally select which is the better policy. In between these two there can be some confusion: those that flatly contradict established policy but this becomes more clear with: The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. This indicates that if it is not brought up it cannot be used even if clear policies and guidelines appear to be justifiable for use. King of Hearts brought up a good point but "IF" comments in a minority of "consensus" are stronger, 'using policy backing', then consensus on a local or project level cannot trump policy or the more broad community consensus. In other words it can't change policy as that would be the wrong place. Even WP:IGNORE (that was not brought up) cannot be assumed and must have clear consensus if contested. Again, there is confusion as noted in the next section (Policy) that states: As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. There are three named instances that are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus., so apparently some "interpolating" is allowed but narrowly defined. It is my opinion that these two sections need some work. Until then we have to go with what we have until it is changed. -- Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural Overturn by reason of vague instructions leading to confusion, and because contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing. The discussion should be continued for more clarity now and for future discussions. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. In this like in everything else, Wikipedian guidelines are vague. They're like scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of mutually contradictory rules and guidelines, you can find support for any position. It's true that you can view Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus as directly contradicting WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS if you like, but I think that's the wrong way to understand it. You follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus to see if a consensus emerges, and if one doesn't, then thats when you move to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's the only way I can reconcile the two, anyway. I think it would be a serious mistake to clarify them any further, because when you codify the consensus-reaching process in too much detail, you're also handing an instruction manual to bad faith actors about how to game the system.
  When you say "contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing", I'm afraid I differ from you very strongly. I think that while the discussion here hasn't yet reached a conclusion on whether I was right on this particular matter, it does demonstrate a clear consensus that I may appropriately close difficult discussions: in other words, the community rejects your credentialism on this point.
  To my eyes, the other consensus that clearly emerges is that the outcome should be neither an overturn nor an endorsement but a relisting for a more widely-advertised discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of my AfD close

In the course of closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 19#2020 Formula One pre-season testing, I discovered that a 2nd AfD was running concurrently with the DRV of the first one. I administratively closed the 2nd AfD. Not surprisingly, my action there has been questioned. I request a review of my own actions; was I correct in closing the 2nd AfD?. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the closure of the AFD was well meant but borne out of overconcern. The DRV was technicalyy still open, but had clearly run its course. No active discussion was taking place anymore. Therefore the second AFD could have been allowed to continue, per WP:NOTAGAIN.Tvx1 15:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unequivocal yes you were correct from my end, even though I was somewhat involved as a DRV participant and then an AfD pinger. WP:RENOM states Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them. There's no formal rule against it, but I don't think I've ever seen an article sent to a second AfD while a DRV is running. I know we're not overly process-orientated, but that seems basic, and the comments at the second AfD were either "yes, delete" or a dig-in-the-heels why-are-we-doing-this-again. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Those that were agreeing with the nomination were not simply stating "yes, delete". They were actually builiding a proper case with proper guideline or policy based arguments. The few that actually stated keep during the second AFD did not bring any such argument. They did not do anyhting to demonstrate the merit of the article. Note that durinf the DRV many of its contributors mentioned the weakness of the keep arguments presented during the first AFD as well.Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well regardless of the DRV it isn't appropriate to send an article to AfD less than a week after the previous one closed, with no new arguments. WP:RENOM suggests waiting for a much longer period, a month or two. Funnily enough the second AfD was turning into a fight about process instead of the discussion of the article's merits that we actually want, so it would have been of limited value anyway. I get that the people who supported deleting this the first time round weren't happy with the outcome of the first AfD, but the way to deal with that is not to keep rerunning discussions until they come up with the "correct" result. Hut 8.5 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the process wasn't perfect. But if you put the generall process aside for a moment and approach this specific case with common sense, you'll see that there was a clear preference to delete this article. The DRV, while technically still open, had run its course and was no longer actually active. Thus I question how Wikipedia is helped in any way here by blocking the deletion of this article purely on procedural grounds, even though the community's preference is clear, and thus postponing the inevitable by a month or two?Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, a result which was just endorsed at DRV. So no, there is no clear preference to delete the article. Hut 8.5 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Over the two AFD's there is. And multiple participants in the DRV noted the clear weakness of the keep arguments in the first AFD.Tvx1 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly the right decision, but why are we reviewing an AfD close on AN?—S Marshall T/C 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was an administrative action I believe. It was not actually an assessment of the discussion.Tvx1 11:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Outing?

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

---

What do we think of [4]? I would say this may step over the line of what may be reasonably inferred from a username. Guy (help!) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It can't really be said transposing one letter is obfuscating their identity on wiki. Unless they think everyone else are idiots, especially when you have an obvious potential COI to anyone who is familiar with the topic. If Hon Salo started editing on star wars articles we wouldn't say 'Nope not a notorious smuggler at all...' Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

this seems like clear outing to me. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information says, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. The user does not seem to have voluntarily posted those things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: @JzG: Information related to this is now suppressed per the oversight policy. In the future, if you see attempted outing, please refer the matter to the oversight team either via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Please do not post the issue on WP:AN, as that may inadvertently draw more attention to the privacy-sensitive matter (c.f. Streisand effect). Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, if I was sure, I'd have done that in the first place, as I usually do. Guy (help!) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I would recommend even when you're unsure, send it to oversight anyway—the worst that will happen is we say, "Thanks for reporting, but we don't think this crosses the line." Please don't feel it's a waste of our time. Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, sure, but it was definitely marginal this time. Guy (help!) 23:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the point is there's never a good reason to have a discussion about an actual case. If the edits aren't eligible for suppression then there's no point discussing their eligibility for suppression. If the edits are eligible for suppression, you've partly defeated the purpose by letting everyone know of these juicy details which have no business being on Wikipedia. I mean heck, there's a good chance in most cases posting about it here will mean more people will have seen what is suppressed then would have ever seen it if no one had bothered to say anything even ask for suppression. Even if you're asked for oversight and were rejected and you disagree, it would be better to engage either privately with the person who rejected your request, some other oversighter, or arbcom. Likewise if something was suppressed but you disagree you still shouldn't be discussing these concerns publicly. Discuss privately. If they reverse the oversight then maybe you can discuss publicly if there's still a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Graywalls Edits bias concern

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

---

I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52

I have notified User:Graywalls of this thread. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Maryphillips1952_on_article_Horacio_Gutiérrez which you were notified, and are invited to participate in and I shared the concerns I have with regard to the article. That post is basically a request for others to evaluate for neutral point of view. Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:ANI? The user Maryphillips 1952 complained about this issue on my talk page. The racism clam is very sketchy and really unnecessary.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, I started the discussion over there instead of continuing back-and-forth editing any further within the article for other editors to evaluate the statement "considered one of the greatest pianist" in reference to sources presented. This was before they opened the case on ANI. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, This board is also WP:AN, for administrator discussions; I meant shouldn't this be on ANI instead? Yes NPOV is a good place to discuss it, as it seems like a content dispute. On the other hand, Maryphillips1952's promotional long term editing on this subject may be something for ANI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, that's a valid point, but seeing I already started the discussion over there before all, so perhaps starting another one elsewhere would be viewed as WP:FORUMSHOP Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:maryphillips1952, I would say that it is your edits that stop this reading like a biography, but like an advertisement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Maryphilips1952's assertion that "He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years).", I am not seeing that being said within in the prose, as of May 20, 2019, so I am not understanding why they're saying it has been vetted by other editors and has been there for years. [May 20, 2019 revision] Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

just to skip to the end of this time-wasting, see this post at COIN. The user has a very obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Then it's a good thing the article was changed. Can't you see the difference between a neutral encyclopedia article and a promotional blurb, which that was and seems to be what you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 appeal

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From user talk:Catflap08:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so.

I would note:

• Email and talk page access was withdrawn in June 2019 due to allegations of abuse.
• Most of the complaints were probably by Hijiri88, now indeffed for violation of an IBAN.
• I think the last appeal; was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306 § Site ban appeal from Catflap08
• I lost the will; to live about halfway though this lot.

Catflap08 posted an unblock request which I declined procedurally because I think that, given the extensive past history, it's a heavy lift for a single admin. Guy (help!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the SiteBan
• Okay, I've read the modern stuff and the key bits of the original causes. I have not read every dispute. If we have someone active on de-wiki who could take a look there, that would be appreciated. Post-ban abuse is always concerning. However, I'm interested if there's an indication of major issues with any other editors in the past 2 years or so? If Catflap's primary difficulties were not being able to play nice with Hijiri88 that's concerning, but perhaps makes me more inclined to extend a chance with a risk factor now absent. TBAN should probably remain, with at least 6 months before it can be appealed to ARBCOM (I suppose it could be viewed as community 6 month TBAN that then lapses, leaving just the ARBCOM one). I'm not sure why catflap says "approved by a majority of fellow editors", but if we want a "create only be AfC" that seems reasonable. Willing to consider, but pending various bits of information. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have always felt that the ArbCom restriction from way back when was a bit unfair to Catflap, but there was little to be done about it, and the behavior that led to the block (linked above by Nosebagbear) was very unfortunate. But that was three years ago. I support letting Catflap back in. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Back when he was active, most of the problems were related to Hijiri88, I was involved with more of those issues than I care to recall. I want to be clear in stating that I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance, including Catflap, but it comes with a great deal of hesitation. Blocks are cheap but drama is expensive. While I don't remember all the details (and not willing to drag up the old discussions to refresh my memory), what sticks out most was how Catflap could be a parasite with administrative time. Do I think Catflap is a net positive? Barely, and sometimes, no. Still, if I apply the same principles here that I apply with other editors, then I'm 51% for lifting the community ban that is in place. And obviously this would be a last chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I've always thought interaction bans shouldn't become unappealable just because the other person has left Wikipedia. On the other hand, the admin actions leading to Hijiri88's indef block while individually defensible collectively amount to a rather cruel persecution and so I think a UTRS request in six months or so is both likely and has a good chance of success. And if these two editors then start screaming at each other again it'll be yet more needless drama. I'm with Dennis Brown on this one. 51% support. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like some comment from Catflap08 on their use of email Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed? to try and communicate with Hijiri88. While I believe they stopped when asked [5], I question the first email in 2017 and then even more so the one in 2018 which was after the one in 2017 had been responded to and as I understand it concerned edits to the English Wikipedia when they were long site banned at that point. While I understand that Catflap08 may not have been happy with Hijiri88 mentioning them, and IMO Hijiri88 did have a tendency to mention long blocked or banned editors a bit too much, ultimately when your site banned you've mostly lost the right to complain about it. Except perhaps if you feel those editors clearly violate some policy and guideline in which case it would be better to approach an admin or arbcom about that. Complaining to the person who made the comments who you had a long contentious history with when you weren't banned doesn't seem to be a good idea. BTW, in case there's some confusion, I believe the last email was in November 2018. Hijiri88 suggested that Catflap08 may have been using other accounts to email them, but there didn't seem to be good evidence for this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?. Also was Catflap08 really still following Hijiri88's activities here in June 2019, when Catflap08 had been long banned? These sequence of edits do seem a little weird [6] [7], and Catflap08's previous response was shall we say, less than ideal [8]. (The fact that Catflap08 was aware Hijiri88 mentioned them less so since they may have simply not turned off pings for en Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?.) I'm not really sure why Hijiri88 noticed what Catflap08 was up to on the German Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another place and time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 response

Transcluded from User talk:Catflap08/ANI:

FriendlyRiverOtter appeal, please lift COVID ban before July 8, no real offense

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 —> Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

I’ve successfully edited COVID articles since mid-March. And not a single case of, ‘Oh, I’m going to self-righteously do it anyway.’ Nope, not one.

Nay an edit war to be found.

The whole issue stems from Talk pages. Frankly, I think the problem is that I responded to admins as if we were equal citizens. At least half a dozen different admins made a statement to the effect, ‘not getting the message’ or ‘need to send a message’ or similar. Wow. Watch even one mob movie and that’s a common refrain, as if a clear inferior is not picking up on a hierarchy.

So, the standard is that one must immediately kowtow to an admin?

I hope not, but it sure looks that way. My responses are easily above a threshold of politeness and civility. From my long sports site experience, if someone makes a reasoned argument, I try to make a response in turn, time permitting. I don’t even stack responses to one person when I think of new things. I think it’s just the fact that I made responses at all.

Several people implied that I tend to write long. That one I can take to heart (sports site vice!). I even closed an RfC well before 30 days as a show of good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=prev&oldid=960776478
It wasn’t going anywhere, but it does illustrate that you can work with me.

But about a handful of admins wanted to squelch the very content of what I was saying, which is keeping with the header of MEDRS stating “common sense” and “occasional exceptions” and in keeping with our 5th Pillar, that we might want to consider also using primary sources for a new disease like COVID-19 and how we might do so.

So, it’s the content of the speech itself . . .

Well, first off, I think we’d owe an apology to the Chinese government, for all they’ve done is to follow the very human norm in place for generations and generations — hey, if it’s troublesome speech, we’re going to squelch it down. This new-fangled approach of trying mightily to draw a distinction between speech and conduct, well, we still don’t really know how it’s going to fully play out. But I think we should try it here in Wiki.

I might also use the analogy of religion, that if I were a Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, etc, I think I could still make positive edits on articles on religion. And/or if I was in a workplace, I could certainly hold in my mind, how I think things should go and the idea that such is currently a minority position.

And maybe it takes a sports site person to say, Hey, you folks are at risk of losing good editors. And an additional thing regarding this business of ‘need to send a message,’ it’s one admin talking to another admin about an editor in the third person, when that editor is right there. And you could just ask them, hey, what do you see the problem as, and what do you see an interim improvement as?

The missed opportunity might be coaching up editors to the B+ level. And usually, a large amount of B+ work handily beats a small amount of A work.

On June 4, I offered:
“So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960714376

And I was making constructive COVID edits right until hours of the ban coming down: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=961461726

I ask that the ban please be lifted.

And whether it’s lifted or not, I plan to continue as a good citizen, primarily working on my edits, but occasionally and constructively talking about what I see as systemic problems or issues. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's going to expire in 9 days, why waste an AN thrashing on 9 days? @Guerillero: who implemented the tban. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 9 days is 9 days, and with COVID heating up, I find myself itching to get back. In addition, if some admins are worried about their fellow guild of admins coming on too strong and driving off good editors, mine’s probably a pretty good case to look at. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say pay the $2 (i.e. wait the 9 days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if you withdraw this now, you can go back to the article in 9, closer to 8 now, days. If you leave this open, I'd say there is a 50/50 shot the tban would be extended. Cut your losses please. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. A long rambling message is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given that this appeal seems to consist of attacking everyone who had a part in the sanction, no. And if you continue to agitate for the use of non-MEDRS sources for Covid articles when the ban expires, expect a longer one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and I must add that you're being a little selective when you quote yourself as saying "So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?". Your actual subsequent agreement was "I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!)". The "one month (and probably longer!)" weasel clause means your actual commitment expires at the same time as your block, and so is meaningless. This appeal is almost a textbook example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There were two statements I made — the above one in my original post, and a second about seven hours later in which I also stated I had closed and archived my RfC, as well as the part which you quote, as well as my plans to continue positive edits in the articles themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960781261
And I did make positive COVID edits in our articles for several more days until the ban was imposed, such this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=961297979
about schools in Italy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any encouragement to extend the ban (we have a bad habit of doing that to appeals that don't really warrant them, poorly written as it is). However you attack a wide group of admins (with the likelihood it's them, not you, going down the bigger the pool), and fail to show clear, succinct, evidence that it's warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: thank you for taking a moderate position, and I know I have not made things easy for you. Yes, I have rather put myself in a box. If you could suggest a resolution which preserves respect on all sides, I’d probably be open to that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact: I was one of the editors who called for a topic ban, and I am not an admin. And the opening statement doesn't fill me with confidence about what will happen when the ban is lifted, because FriendlyRiverOtter is still arguing that the words "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" mean that WP:MEDRS can be ignored in the one article where it is the most important, because there's so much misinformation and premature information flying around in this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: why would MEDRS regarding Coronavirus be more important than MEDRS regarding heart attack or stroke, for example? (And people have delayed going to the emergency room with these symptoms precisely because of a fear of Coronavirus.) And I don’t think I’ve said, can ignore MEDRS. I think I’ve said, because of the header, carefully and judiciously . . and there’s a big difference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered that question in my last sentence. The word "because" is a big clue that a reason follows. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• File this under the list of "Things you really don't want to say to have your TBAN lifted". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a chance you made a mistake in your comment? Did you actually intend to ask for your topic ban to be extended rather than lifted? Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a WP:HELLNO for rationales like this? There ought to be one.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Quite possibly the worst appeal I have ever seen. This actually argues for an extension, not a lifting of the ban. Guy (help!) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I speak for myself, and also for fellow editors who have been driven off. And I’m making the rational criticism that in the absence of conduct issues, an edit ought not be banned for speech. And even more specifically, when admins use the mob-movie language of ‘send a message’ or ‘not getting a message’ or similar, there is probably a rush to judgment and/or rush to punishment.
In fact, I’d like to go back six months on the Incidents archives and see how common an issue this is. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, fill your boots, just don't expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if it's filtered through the set of assumptions we see at the top of this section. Guy (help!) 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Need to extend the TBAN Attacking other users while not addressing one's own behavior? Brilliant! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Given the response above mine, user is here to "right great wrongs"? Perhaps a TBAN is not sufficient. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: if I were criticizing the actions of one particular admin, that gets tricky. But if I’m talking about a common practice, as I am, that’s not an attack. Or let me ask you. What would you accept as a constructive way to put forward rational criticism of the system? (and I did acknowledge the fault of sometimes writing long.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (6 month COVID ban) Friendly River Otter

Given the foregoing, propose extending TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to 6 months from the close of this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support (second choice). Guy (help!) 15:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice behind the proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if the indefinite ban proposed below doesn't go through. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only as a second option if the indefinite TBAN is not implemented. Grandpallama (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - All you had to do was wait a little over a week and the TBAN would have expired. If you are willing to stir drama right now, then I doubt it will be different when you return to editing the topic area. Darkknight2149 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (second choice) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Before anyone responds to the above proposal, I propose extending the TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to indefinite, appealable in six months here at AN. We've had far too much disruption from those who won't listen to the way the Community has mandated these articles be sourced, and it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). Guy (help!) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The diatribes above clarify that this editor has no intention of following consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. The level of past disruption and the promise here of future disruption should not be ignored. Grandpallama (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the appeal shows very clearly that the editor doesn't understand the issues which lead to the ban. You can be disruptive without edit warring or being uncivil. Dealing with situations like this is a timesink for the type of editor we want to keep around. Hut 8.5 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. Part of having a block or a banned removed , from what I'm reading , is having the banned individual show an understanding of why this happened, at the bare minimum and I don't see that at all. Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think this was a thinly veiled attempt to continue to push their cause under the guise of a request to lift their ban early. Seems way too convenient. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't even say thinly veiled. I'd say this was as blatant as it gets.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!'s rationale. I've looked at the other talk page posts the user has made since the ban, as well as their meandering reasonings above, and it is the same kind of disruption all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only cause I’m supporting right now is anti-bullying. Which I recognize immediately from my sports site background (although this is much more gentile and I thank you!) Yep, 10+ persons responding to thoughtful and rational criticism, and basically saying, this person’s no good, get rid of them, that’s bullying.
My main point is that when we jump to “need to send a message,” we jump almost all of the way to a pro-punishment position. And I maintain that that’s a pretty valid point.
By the way, this is why many persons in Third World countries don’t stand up for their legal rights. Because if they insist on rights they technically have, the system will up the ante.
So, we at Wikipedia believe in a democratic model, a de-centralized model. We believe the consensus process is a great way to have more discussion with better listening . . . . . except when it counts and then we don’t. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FriendlyRiverOtter please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY regarding your assertion that the community believes in a democratic model. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are oppressed as if you are living in the Third World, and we are all bullies. Keep it up, and I predict someone will become exasperated enough to propose that banning you simply from a topic isn't enough. Grandpallama (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Geez Louise, you brought this on yourself with an unnecessary and bellicose appeal of a sanction that was going to expire in mere moments. You could have sat back, kept your mouth shut, and it would all be over, but no, you had to mount your soapbox and speak up for all "oppressed" editors everywhere - what a complete crock! Keep up this mode of behavior and, sooner or later, you'll be site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not bullying, it's the community enforcing the sourcing requirements mandated by consensus for Covid-19 articles. And it's not "thoughtful and rational criticism" that led to where we are now, it's your belligerent, soapboxing, refusal to accept that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with proposal 1 as second choice. Miniapolis 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) - The "appeal" really only makes sense when interpreted as a battleground tactic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support – "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them...." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support FriendlyRiverOtter displays a range of attitudes which tend to cause disruption on Wikipedia: self-righteousness, lack of understanding and self-awareness, a desire to attack others, long self-indulgent speeches, a total lack of clue, and an outspoken negative attitude toward admins - any one of those would be a cause for concern, but a combination of all of them is rather worrying. Given the circumstances I agree that FriendlyRiverOtter needs to show some understanding of why they were topic banned before lifting the ban. SilkTork (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: “desire to attack”? I said that this business of “need to send message” is both common and a rush to judgment. It’s certainly not an attack on any particular member. In fact, I’d said bringing up a common practice is at times really helpful for a group.
And “self-righteousness.” Checkmate. That’s the kind of thing, once raised, that anything I say is taken simply as evidence.
Would recent good edits on 2028 Summer Olympics help? I thought the most likely resolution would have been, Okay, you’ve had your say, so be it, yeah, what you bring up might be an issue, we’ll take it under advisement. And outside chance that I’ll help someone else down the road. But, um, . . . obviously not! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Best option for a case where no evidence of understanding the problem is seen. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Jerm

Hello, I would like to have my user rights removed as I will be retiring from Wikipedia in a few days from now, thank you. Jerm (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions over the years and enjoy your retirement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jerm (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirrors

Are mirrors of Wikipedia supposed to include material from Wikipedia space? I thought they were limited to mainspace articles and talk pages. I ask because of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing at WP:REUSE or the WMF's TOU seems to limit what content can be reused as long as the licenses are followed properly for the reuse. --Masem (t) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

They are as long as they attribute us. Unfortunately, most people who run mirrors/copy from wikipedia into their blogspot don't attribute us, so time is wasted when searching for copyvios. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That site is a copyright violation of us, since I can't find where they attribute. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that site is likely a Meta:Live mirrors based on how quickly it updates. As others have said, sites are free to republish any content copyrighted by our editors contributed here, provided they comply with the licence terms which require (I'm simplifying here) attribution of the contributors (not of wikipedia itself) but also that the licence is listed in an appropriate manner. That site doesn't appear to comply with either requirement, as it says "© 2020 WordDisk" at the bottom with no mention of either the GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 licence, one of which they will need to comply with, nor can I see any list of contributors or way to find one. Any contributor of copyrighted content could ask them to comply with their licence terms of they wanted to, and take further action if they failed to. The foundation could theoretically care because of the live mirror issue, but I think they've don't because the amount of network traffic tends to be small as these sites are all obscure. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk)

• I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Template editor

I propose that The Rambling Man (TRM) be granted the template editor user right. His raising of many issues at WP:MPE shows that he has a need for the right. TRM is a former admin, who lost his admin privileges about 4 years ago due to an ARBCOM case. It is for this reason that I feel that any granting of advanced permissions needs to be done with the consensus of the community at large. I believe that granting the user right to TRM will result in a reduction of workload at MPE and ITNC, as TRM will be able to make productive edits in those areas which he currently cannot do. I believe that he will not abuse the user right if granted it. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers. And if any admin is available now, there are a few issues I noted two days ago which are currently live on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: please, no half measures, restore the administration rights also. ——Serial ^# 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added the flag, since it does not require a vote and is clearly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, as I feared, this doesn't mean I can address the errors on the main page as we speak. Perhaps an admin could help with that please? And Serial Number 54129, thanks!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: As much as I appreciate TRM's contributions to MP and otherwise, all main page elements are cascade-protected, so TPE is pointless. (the correct measure is in what SN said) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't do what Serial Number 54129 suggested. So The Rambling Man will just have to run for admin again. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure how well that would go, but there'd be a support from me - if there's anyone who needs the admin tools for the volunteer work they've chosen to do (and do so thoroughly well), it's TRM. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This is why we needed WP:Main page editor. Wouldn’t have had to put TRM through the RfA bunfight. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• As PK3 notes, this is why Valereee and I proposed creating the WP:Main page editor group: TRM is among those who needs this userright. No objections to him receiving template editor, but it doesn't address any of the main page issues; in fact in this use case, it wouldn't help at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

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

---

Is there a policy regarding the UK not being necessary in location field for companies, organisations etc. and that the constituent nation i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is sufficient?

For example I changed the location on Deltic Group from:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK Edit link: [9]

Subsequently user User:IceWelder removed the UK from the location from their edit:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England Edit link: [10]

There a few other articles where this has happened: Rockstar North, Denki. Rather than get into an edit war I instigated a discussion about it and we couldn't come to an agreement on this point. I suggested it might be best to get advice/help from the Administator noticeboards. Discussion link: [11]

Conversely, the user User:Beagel has insisted that United Kingdom be added in full for the Vattenfall UK article in their edit summaries: [12] and [13]

|| location =London, England, United Kingdom

So its all a bit confusing!

I've edited quite a number of articles in the format |location = Place, Nation, UK without any issues.

Some clarification on this would be most welcome. Angryskies (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, you want advice from WT:MOS, not an administrative noticeboard, as no administrative action is required. This can be closed now. All the best! ——Serial ^# 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll post over there, thanks! Angryskies (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Angryskies  :) ——Serial ^# 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

TikTok vandalism

I am trying to take a wikibreak, but there is one thing I need to share and request before I do. I've set up edit filter 1071 (hist · log) to track the pages being vandalised by the malicious followers of that TikTok person. It's averaging around 2 edits per hour, with multiple vandals every time a new video is released. It will not be effective in 'disallow' mode. If you have access to private filters, as all admins do, please watch this filter. For other users, if you watch edit filter logs, please keep an eye out for this one. I've been basically semi-protecting any article being edited for a couple of weeks, and blocking many of the users involved (though the latter is probably optional). If admins and EFHs don't watch the filter then it might have to be turned into a public filter, which I'd rather not do, however feel free to decide to do that anyway because it will probably still mostly work. Have fun. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz I'm not sure why an anti-TikTok Troll edit filter should be private. SO when I look at the AbuseLog, what am I going to see? Just a visible FIlter 1071 or a TIkTok vandalism filter description? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You would see the name of the filter which is TikTok vandalism. It's a fair question about whether it's private and I've been on the fence about it while it was being actively monitored. The reasons for it being private are mainly tactical. However, it does rely on a certain level of ahem unsophistication, so I've now made it public, which anyone is again welcome to change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello!

I would like to create a page for the South Korean variety show House on Wheels but, when I try to, I am redirected to the "Permission error" page with the following message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Is there a reason this page should not be created? Thanks! - Seokgjin (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Long story, not that interesting. Here, I got you started: House on Wheels. Happy editing! El_C 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

There are threads started in May 2020 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which need to be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about normal, actually. If anything, it is an improvement due to a flurry of activity lately. El_C 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)