Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive326

Move Request Needs to be Closed on Extended Protected Page

I opened up a move discussion at the Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Proposal:_Rename_to_2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_War. As WP:RM states that the WP:RM page is only for controversial moves, and aS prior move discussion made in relation to a different name seemed to have a consensus to rename the page to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, it did not seem to be a controversial move but opened an informal move discussion on the talk page to confirm that that was the case. As I predicted, there is overwhelming support for the proposed name change, but since I opened up the discussion the page has been extended-protected and an administrator is now needed to move the page. If someone could close the discussion and move the page, as there is clearly a consensus for the change, I would appreciate it.XavierGreen (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, While there does seem to be consensus to rename, what to rename to is still up in the air because some advocate "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", and others advocate "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", and there seems to be disagreement over whether it is the second or third war, given the Four-Day War, or if its a continuation of the first war. (Imo, we're having this debate because we're ignoring RS and making our own original research...but whatever). Regardless, discussion is ongoing and I think a close premature. There is no need to rush to rename the page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would just note that virtually all of the editors agree that the title should be changed to include the term "war", of which there are plenty of cited sources to rely on provided in the talk page discussion. Furthermore, if you look at the number of editors advocating for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" They are a small minority of the responding editors, 20% or so, where as the overwhelming majority favor a move to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War."XavierGreen (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § problematic user

 – Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of a copyright problem

An editor has filed a request at DRN in which User:AvThomson disagrees with User:Diannaa and wants to discuss. I assume that DRN is not the place for discussion of a copyright issue. I know most of the dispute resolution forums that are not DRN to send editors to. Where should this dispute be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MCQ? --Jayron32 15:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's for images, not text. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems then. --Jayron32 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, This is not a matter appropriate for DRN. From my understanding, DRN is for content disputes, not questioning copyright issues. This would probably best be discussed at AN/ANI/CP (where it is already listed), although AvThomson is in the wrong, as there is clear close paraphrasing on the effected article. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Moneytrees - Sort of thank you. DRN is for content disputes. Conduct disputes go to WP:ANI or AE. I knew that. I knew that I should tell the filer to go somewhere else; I just wanted to know where else. To tell an editor, "I can't help you, and I don't know who can," is a way of biting a user, and the rule says not to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a hot mess. Can a couple of uninvolved admins please come along and hat / close / archive some of the repetitive requests so that we stand some chance of focusing on the substantive (and valid) questions of exactly how to represent the developing narrative without giving undue weight to speculative claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) Fully agreed. I have been answering and removing edit requests for the last week. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I archived a few that seemed off-topic or repetitive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Speedy Deletion criteria G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

Hi all

I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to post this, it includes the work of admins so it seemed a sensible place. I've recently been involved in a speedy deletion discussion as the creator of the article under criteria G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and I've noticed an issue with the process that seems like it stops people making a decision based on evidence. The criteria states that it includes sufficiently identical copies and excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. However people like me who do not have the rights to see deleted articles have no way of making an assessment whether a previously deleted article is identical or not. As an example, in this nomination 50%+ of the references were not available at the time of deletion so I assume that it is not identical but have no way to tell.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of G4 requests where the inability to see the page is an issue (though, you can sometimes find the page through mirrors, and could ask, rather than taking the liable to be hostile to new editors act of noming for speedy deletion). However, if some of the references post-date the discussion, and deletion was on notability grounds, it should be obvious G4 doesn't apply. If you think a slight rewording might make it clearer, WT:CSD is the place to suggest it. WilyD 12:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)@John Cummings: I have declined the G4 tag. Much of the old version of the article contained quotes criticising the ABD; this version doesn't. The usual procedure for non-admins who can't see the previous version to cross compare is to contest the speedy on the talk page, which you did. If the article is deleted per G4 regardless, and you're not satisfied with the deleting admin's response, then the matter can be raised at deletion review, at which point the old article will usually be restored for evaluation purposes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much both, I wonder if something like (apologies for poor grammar) this criteria should only be used if you have access to the previously deleted version of the article and can make it available on the talk page would help make it clearer? John Cummings (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that's a bad idea - only admins can see the deleted versions, and as the folks deleting the page itself that's all that is necessary; preventing someone from even nominating an article because they cannot see the text is just bad idea, because then you'd only have a few hundred active admins capable of nominating pages. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition, if you want to write an article but find that an article under that title was previously deleted (you will see a deletion log message before you can create the page), many admins will be pleased to send you a copy of the deleted article, as long as it hasn't been deleted because of copyright violations or other reasons we're not allowed to. You can ask the administrator who deleted the page, or anyone listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that the deletion debate was pretty poor, with two !voters saying "Just not notable" and one saying "never heard of them". (By contrast, I have heard of them, because I know that they won't be sending George Monbiot a Christmas card any time soon.) Indeed, I'd almost treat that AfD like a PROD, since no reasonable arguments were made for the old article, which cited The Times, BBC News and the Daily Telegraph even then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, agree - they are fringe loons, but probably notable fringe loons. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone who knows an editor who nominates a lot of pages for G4, I would much rather have them nominate a page and decline it for being different than have garbage in the article space (and no, I'm not referring to this article). A speedy deletion nomination isn't some scarlet letter; it just means that someone (likely who didn't participate in the previous discussion) was concerned that it might be a duplicate. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A speedy deletion nomination is the kind of hostile welcome that drives a lot of new good faith editors off the project. In an era when declining participation is making some stuff more burdensome, recklessly driving away people for no benefit is not a good idea. WilyD 05:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was shocked - shocked! - to see that the article was full of self-serving bullshit drawn from their own websites, with all the criticism missing. I restored the deleted history. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, the version of the article you describe was not how John Cummings left it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"The" at start of a school's name

• Recently I was asked to move page Astley Cooper School to The Astley Cooper School on the grounds that adding the "The" was official school usage. Should such requests be obeyed? Or should the "The" be treated as an advertisory stylization and be ignored? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at WP:THE, convention states that if it meets at least one of two requirements:

1. Definite article would change the meaning, and
2. Definite article is capitalised in running prose

then "The" should (in most cases) appear in the title. #1 definitely isn't the case, and #2 is debatable. At this point I believe we're supposed to fall on WP:COMMONNAME, as this subsection implies:

When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well.

Emphasis mine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Ohio State University; they're a prominent example of insisting on the definite article and it's in the lead, but not the article title. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a "case-by-case consensus" issue. Hold a discussion/RFC on whether or not "if it is included by unaffiliated sources" or not, and see where that goes. This doesn't appear like much of an admin issue; admins don't have special power to decide style issues, and this should be decided by a discussion among the interested. --Jayron32 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) This makes me think of "The" Ohio State University. I did go to the site of the school itself and the while school does formally call itself The Astley Cooper School, however local news coverage here does not do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• And see this Google search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Astley+Cooper+School%22+-%22The+Astley+Cooper+School%22 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Goddam pretentious. EEng 20:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory IP masking incoming

Johan (WMF) has indicated that mandatory masking of the IP addresses of anonymous editors is being implemented for all Wikiprojects in the near-mid term (probably sometime in the next year or so), stating that this is an order from the WikiMedia Foundation's Legal Department. Apparently a statement from the Legal Department is forthcoming. As this is likely to hinder anti-vandalism efforts in the near-term, feedback is being requested to make this cause the least amount of disruption possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could IPs be put through some cipher or something so they have a persistent identity? Just a thought. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

IP addresses having a persistent identity is one of the things that is being considered. However if a vandal is rapidly going between ipv6 domains on the same range it becomes much more difficult to track them if the IP is masked, even if the identity of the individual IP address is persistent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain what IP masking actually means? Does that mean, in particular, that we won't be able to look up the contribution history for a particular IP editor? And to tell that two edits were made by the same IP editor? Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed is that the actual IP address itself is not displayed, but the history of edits associated with that IP Address is preserved (at least in the short term). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That is how I read it too, but it could be worth asking Johan or someone to clarify. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked for clarification in the Meta thread, but I am still pretty confused. If what you say above is correct, how would edits by different IPs be visually distinguished in page histories? And also in talk pages, where IP signatures are displayed? Right now we see the actual IP addresses there. What exactly would we see instead? If we see some generic phrase like "Anonymous IP editor", it will not allow to distingish which edits were made by which IP editor and I can't see how individual IP contrib histories can be preserved in this case. Or, is the system going to start assigning the IP ediors its internal identifiers, perhaps enumerating them in order of apperance, something like "Anonymous IP editor 4029", "Anonymous IP editor 4030", etc ? That would at least allow for the history of edits associated with a particular IP to be preserved and displayed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazing. There are security bugs (with legal implications, I would think) that have been sitting unfixed on phabricator for months or years. This is well past any normal responsible disclosure window. It's purely a courtesy that I'm keeping my mouth shut, and the next person who rediscovers the same bugs probably won't be so considerate. But legal instead prioritizes protecting the privacy of those who never asked for it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the 'ol "But it came from Legal! We have to do it now!". There was extreme opposition to this on Meta. SQL^{Query me!} 23:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this going to affect things like looking at all contribs in a range? Natureium (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, I would assume negatively. The only tool I've seen is the new Special:Investigate tool, and it seems to have some severe issues. They really need to spend a LOT more time and energy on tools before they force this thru. That, or maybe force registration if it's that important. SQL^{Query me!} 23:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But a regular editor can't add /64 to the end of an IP and see whether there's more vandalism across the range? Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could use something like Crypto-PAn I guess. That would preserve ranges. I don't think that's the plan, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, then we need to implement a permanent mainspace ban on IPs. Accounts are free. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Pretty much. Like ptwiki does. SQL^{Query me!} 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A quick experiment at pt:A suggests that they have an edit filter set to prevent edits to articles by IPs (anyone not logged in). That's from a Google translate of the page notice while in incognito mode (not logged in). While welcoming everyone is great, keeping good editors is essential and no sane person can deal with LTAs on shifting IPs unless articles are strongly protected or wide IP ranges blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I need to preface this by saying that I don't know if this is still true, but at the time that discussions on the proposal were taking place last year, I distinctly remember that the foundation intended to obscure IP's from CU's, which effectively makes the role completely useless for investigating LTA's with technical evidence. Assuming that my initial impressions of it are still true, I think that this is going to turn into a hilarious clown fiesta very soon, like anything else that the WMF thinks is a good idea. Frankly, I think that Wikimedia projects should let the WMF handle anti-vandalism and LTA issues moving forward without any volunteer assistance whatsoever and see how well that works out. They bought the ticket, so now they get to take the ride. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra, obscuring from CUs would be the wet dream of every spammer and LTA. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• To restate what I've said on meta. I think that this could work. 5-10 years from now, with many carefully developed, mature tools. I think that forcing this thru today, with one half-assed, rushed to production tool is a mistake. SQL^{Query me!} 03:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• There are a lot of details missing (both due to the early stage of development and WP:BEANS), but I don't think this is the end of the world. In a "soft" IP-masking, where admins (and editors with an EFH-like permission) can see IPs, almost nothing will change at a substantial benefit to IP editor privacy. In a "hard" IP-masking, there will be significantly more pages semi-protected, additional need for CheckUser resources, and the potential for blocking sensitive IP addresses. However, as long as IPv6 /64s are still evident, I don't think it will make a major difference to abuse-fighting. Most of the vandals who know how to change their IP address know to register accounts for their vandalism anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's wrong. Wikipedia works at all because users are empowered to do stuff. Most days sees someone asking at ANI for a range block because an editor with no special privilege has seen a problem and taken an effort to work out what is needed to resolve it. If an editor sees three masked IPs mucking around in an article, they would have to ask someone with appropriate privilege (if that will be possible) to investigate. That person, presumably, could not see the IPs in any easy way (like viewing article history where all the IPs could be seen and perhaps copied into a range calculator). Instead, the privileged person would need to click buttons and do who knows what. Far easier to semi-protect the affected articles for six months or whatever it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty weird. There was one of those pop-up questionnaires a few weeks ago asking people to say whether they edited regularly from IP addresses. People who said yes were asked to participate in a 1-hour phone interview with WMF staff. I did one of those interviews and discussed the topic at length. Some privacy-related questions came up but that of revealing IP addresses being an issue was barely touched on, though I mentioned that showing one's IP made a bigger disclosure than editing under a made-up username. I still need to follow up by email with the person I spoke with, so I'll mention this thread in my followup. Hmm. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat doubtful the legal department cared about that questionnaire or the follow up. They probably haven't even heard of it. It's possible the questionnaire was intended to be used by the team working on the Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project until legal intervened. (If legal did rely on that questionnaire, probably their main question would have been how well editors understood the privacy implication of IP editing so once it became clear you did, that would be what they wanted to know.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, in response to my request for more info Johan (WMF) clarified at the Meta page, at least a little bit, what their plans are. He hasid that the do have in mind some sort of a system which will assign (presumably automatically) internal individualized WP aliases to IP editors. As I understood, those aliases will be displayed in page histories and in talk pages, in leiu of signatures of those IPs, and one should be able to view the contrib history for a specific IP alias. But as far as range blocks, that will certainly become much more difficult, at least for anyone who is not an admin. Similarly, if there is persistent sockpuppetry, block evasion, or similar form of disruption that isn't straightforward vandalism (e.g. IPs participating in an AfD and casting similar !votes), it'd be much harder for non-admins to tell if these edits are likely made by the same editor once the IP address is masked. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

*sigh* Rushing this is a *bad* idea. We've seen what happened to Special:Investigate, and they worked months on that one. We are all familiar with first releases coming from WMF, and rushing one of them is definitely not going to have a good outcome. While we seem to have less and less tools to help us fight vandalism - see what happened to IPCheck, a WMF staffer told its developer not to develop it any further, and now it sits unmaintained - they are heading towards something that would need more of it, and not supplying us with those. At this point, even if I disagree with the reasons why ptwiki did it (it is my home wiki), making registration mandatory is the way to go.
"Oh but it's a hassle and we don't want to drive people away from the projects by doing it" You don't even need an e-mail to register an account here.
"Oh, I know! Let's use cookies to keep the masking" Really? Really? REALLY?! LTAs are a problem since forever, and IP hopping is not a problem for them. Clearing cookies takes less than a minute, which means that now you're simply wanting to give them freedom to do their thing without even letting us properly fight them.
Anyway, I do hope this is better thought out by the WMF before rushing it. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're just going to find out the hard way. The WMF hasn't unveiled any concrete plans yet, so it's best we save our outrage capital for when this does happen. -FASTILY 04:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Or we can require they get an account in order to edit and the problem is solved. In no way does that interfere with our long standing tradition of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Getting an account is fast, free and easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Enforcing registration for mainspace, while allowing masked IP editors to contribute to talk pages would allow people to participate without registering, while protecting article content. Extensive talkpage vandalism seems unlikely.Dialectric (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  This solution is simply not worth the trouble. When the IP editors come here at all, it is overwhelmingly with the goal of editing articles, not talk pages. I never really understood why we don't enforce mandatory registration in order to edit on WP, and it seems to me now that the time has finally come to do that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  and the problem is solved along with many other problems. It's past time to retire this obsolete ideology. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"I never really understood why we don't enforce mandatory registration in order to edit on WP, and it seems to me now that the time has finally come to do that." I have long been against the idea that you should need to register an account for changing "and and" to "and" in an article. However, if a clear change in circumstances means this no longer possible, perhaps we should follow pt-wiki's lead and start the mandatory registration RfC. Can I get a show of hands to see who's interested? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If the masking makes identifying ranges impossible for any user, I'm going to support mandatory registration. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is because if only admins can block / find ranges to block, then it adds a further burden to admins to find which range block is appropriate. If its not admins and is instead CUs, then there is even more of a burden. Normal users often use what range an IP address is in as evidence for SPI. I certainly don't want more things to do at SPI with the number of open cases that there usually is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Add in that there are some disruptive editors that don't register accounts, but just use IP's. Sometimes, the only way to see what articles they've edited is with range searches. Take that away, and it's nigh impossible to find when they've hit a new article. This is going to be a dream for disruptive editors, fringe conspiracy editors. For a couple of regular vandals I watch for, this will make it almost impossible for a non-admin to monitor. Good luck, admins - your workload is going up. Ravensfire (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked in the Meta thread for more info about what kind of a system for assigning individualized aliases to masked IP editors they have in mind. The response from Johan (WMF) indicates that they have not yet considered this question substantively. Personally, I think it extremely unlikely that they will be able to come up with an alias system which will allow for any reasonable substitute for range-blocking and identifying ranges. It's just too difficult to devise and implement such a system in technical terms (and to make it safe from de-scrambling). It is much more likely, IMO, that the IP aliases will be either assigned randomly or numerically/consecuitively, in the order IPs make their first edits on a given wiki or across all wikis. Neither option would make identifying ranges possible. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have previously supported IP-editing, but I definitely support a ban against masked-edits. Not only do I support an RFC, I created the page Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) because this is one of several current Foundation disasters I was considering personally opening RFCs on. However I'd be delighted if someone else steps up to run this RFC - I am feeling extremely mentally-drained by the prospect of opening four or five RFCs that are all of comparable or greater weight as this one. For what it's worth, I suggest this proposal include a clause authorizing an immediate edit-filter against masked-edits if they are deployed without consensus. Alsee (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud, how does masking IP addresses work with the GNU Free Documentation Licence? The edit window says "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Let's suppose in five years' time, Richard Stallman decides to sue a couple of rip-off publishers making print copies of Wikipedia articles for lack of proper attribution, violating the GFDL. "Aha", says rms, "there is no attribution - the author's identity has been censored! GNU are STRONGLY OPPOSED to CENSORSHIP!". What happens then? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the hyperlink or URL to the masked IP address would be enough? From what I understand the masked IP address would still have a contributions page and a talk page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, one key motivation for moving to dual licensing with CC BY-SA is because the GFDL proscribes very specific procedures for creating modifications, including creating a history section where authorship is listed, which were designed with printed books in mind. So providing a pointer to find a list of authors elsewhere isn't actually sufficient to meet the GFDL, for any type of author. (On the other hand, the GFDL wasn't designed to cover documents with many, many authors; it requires "at least five of the principal authors of the Document" to be listed on the title page (and accordingly in the history), so how to apply this to a crowd-sourced document is unclear.) isaacl (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between pseudonymous attribution to an IP address versus some other identifier that is unique to the IP address. (On a side note, the license creator has no standing to sue for copyright violations: only the copyright holder or assignee has standing. So the anonymous editor would have to sue for failing to receive attribution.) isaacl (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Has the Foundation confused Covid-precautions with "how to run a website"? DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment- More idiocy from WMF. Now can we PLEASE require registration to edit? The "any bozo with a computer and an internet connection can edit" idea was already long in the tooth in 2002. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Early details / ideas

• WMF rolled out an idea/proposed details today (which can be found at meta:Talk:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Who_can_access_the_IP_of_an_unregistered_editor?) SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

An idea could be to create three tiers.

1. The vast majority of people who access our wikis would see the IPs fully masked.
2. All admins could see them partially masked (the first three parts of an IP being visible). This could be helpful to see patterns even if they don’t have the new user right. Partially masking them reduces the privacy risk for the unregistered user.
3. The new user right – in addition to checkusers and stewards – would have access to the entire IP.
   — User:Johan (WMF)

If "masked" means "replaced with a unique identifier", this seems borderline reasonable (even 4chan figured out how to do this). If "masked" simply means that every IP address would be made invisible and indistinguishable, I don't see how RC patrol would be remotely possible for non-admins. It would be like trying to keep water out of a boat where only the captain is allowed to plug the holes (although -- don't worry -- everyone is free to suck up the water with a straw and spit it overboard). I would support an RfC to put extreme restrictions on IP mainspace editing if this were the case (disallowing it entirely seems a little cruel, but if it can't be helped, it can't be helped). jp×g 00:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

Have a look on these uploads. There are uploaded under cc-by-sa-4.0. Is it ok to upload OpenStreetMap cc-by-sa-4.0? If so, it is good to export to commons. Is it good to have location map module instead of having images? --AntanO 02:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, freely-licensed images are generally fine, even CC SA 4.0. That said, <mapframe> is available for precisely the same in most cases, and built into many infoboxes in some way, so perhaps Nsenaratna should use those instead. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on c:Template:OpenStreetMap, they should probably be CC BY-SA 2.0. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The uploads should be fixed to use the above template. It specifies CC BY-SA for the Wikipedia editor's 'work', and the ODbL license for that of the OSM contributors. ɱ (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Request access to create article

Hello, Please read here, I am not fluent in English but I always tried my best to be effective And I have good activities For example, please check the Kashmar article. Please give me this access because I deserve it, I'm very interested in creating a template And note that I used to only create templates And I had no problem and lost access! Thank you for helping me M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, this appears to be an appeal of this ban. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@M Imtiaz: Yes, thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You have successfully followed your unblock conditions for a number of months. That's good. But in order to have your topic ban lifted, you need to convince us things would go differently if your topic ban was lifted. Please explain in your own words why the topic ban was placed back in August, 2019 and what you would do differently this time. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Hello dear brother, look, I think we should move on from the past, I was blocked due to not being fluent in English and creating a wide range of weak articles, and so on .... But now the situation is different, I can do better and I do not intend to create an article, but I can do well in creating an article as well, Please see the Kashmar article. From zero to one hundred, I worked on it and you see, I worked well and I can still be as good as I am, but I am very interested in creating templates on Wikipedia, which you took my permission from me. And I can do nothing but edit, forgive me, I did not answer completely and accurately because of my lack of mastery of English time, Please see my recent edits, You will see that I am different than before[2][3][4] M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Lolamartinez123

ST47, for erasing true facts on this article. IPBE in these circumstances can be found at China Virus/Chinese Virus

What 45th US president Donald Trump calls coronavirus to promote his own racist agenda against Asian-Americans. Because of Trump hate crime has now increased towards Asian-Americans because of how Trump supporters now think they are all carriers of a contagious virus.
Chink list of ethnic racial slurs. Link to the user’s ignorant behavior

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985088616#movedpara_1_0_rhs

 Done Lolamartinez123 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Lolamartinez123. ST47 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

The above signature (purporting to be from ST47) appears to be invalid.

• Lolamartinez123 (talk · contribs)
• List of ethnic slurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

By way of explanation, the above comments were added in these edits:

• 08:22, 24 October 2020 by Lolamartinez123
• 08:25, 24 October 2020 by Lolamartinez123

The "Done" and "Thank you" might have been copied from the previous section. I then added the heading and text from "The above signature...". Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h (for edit-warring at this very page and for BLP violations), but will not object if another administrator would extend a block for a longer duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In view of this, I reblocked for a week with the talk page access revoked. I currently do not see how we benefit from continued ability of this user to edit Wikipedia and suggest indefinite block or site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I dug a bit deeper, and after seeing a disturbing pattern in their edits, changed the block to indef. My best judgement is that you wouldn't mind. This person doesn't need to be here. They are on a mission of god or something, but that kind of attitude isn't going to work in a collaborative environment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Having had previous run ins with Lolamartinez123 and having come just within a hair of blocking them at the time, I endorse the decision to indef. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, endorse indef I don't recall what prompted me to write THIS and THIS, but it looks to me like user has been cruisin' for a bruisin'. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. Massive NPOV failure in content edits, which is easily into "break glass" territory. Let's see what the user has to say about this as part of their block appeal. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

There's an RfC at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory on whether to remove the word "false" but the lead has changed significantly and at least some of the "remove" votes refer to a part of the onpening para that we no longer call false. I think this needs careful closure.

The OP was basically challenging reversion of this edit based on this version of the article, but it has since changed to this. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wide IP range blocks?

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nisheshbhattarai, a request as been made for a /17 range block, which seems excessive. Is there any specific guidance on the use of wide IP range blocks? WP:RANGE gives some vague guidance, but mostly leaves it up to the individual admin to be careful. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Collateral damage is more important than how wide the IP range is. Some ISPs, especially in non-anglophone countries, have only one or two people on huge IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Being stalked by User:Koncorde

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've noticed it a while ago, whenever I create an article or edit it a lot... Koncorde appears there, reverting and edit warring, and I'm getting sick of it.

I think it's a result of a disagreement we had months ago... but it's not normal. No, it can't be a coincidence that he's on every edit I make.

Innovations in the piano, Concrete piano, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Mifal HaPayis, Cadenza, Cadenza Piano, Sunderland A.F.C. supporters are just a few examples of articles he had never touched before I appeared there, and then suddenly automatically appearing and harassing me.

This is not a coincidence. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it's not a coincidence. You make poor edits that attract attention. I see the attention from any number of venues that I go to. I look at what else you are up to. I see other issues. I respond to them. You revert any feedback or changes because, y'know, you don't understand how BRD works and then descend into a madness of accusing anyone that disagrees with you of edit warring, bullying etc. Anyone can review your edit history and see dozens of instances of you reverting editors that don't believe your additions are right and proper and then descending into the whirlpool of attempting to overpower people with an aggressive battleground mentality. Koncorde (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glucken123 for RAA for deleting my topic on Lincoln Project Page

• The Lincoln Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I keep having my topic deleted on Lincoln Project wiki page by user: Glucken123, he has deleted my topic twice now and is acting in bad faith and attempting to whitewash the Wikipedia page for the Lincoln Project. I did not add any edits to the page but included in the talk page that there are credible sources which state that Lincoln Project inadvertently spread Iranian disinformation about proud boys emailing potential Democrat voters. This user repeatedly deletes my topics without giving any rationale and I would like to request administrator action Pformenti (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restored your talk page section; I don't know if it's worth including in the article, but blindly removing content from a talk page is a little excessive; it's a reasonable question (i.e. not the type of ridiculous rant that would merit blanking). Primefac (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin

I am not sure how much went on at the Farsi wikipedia, but there appears to be some kind of battle ground going on with the Iman Farzin article and the follow-up AfD, with an IP turning up to it's single keep post! I feel maybe it needs a little more monitoring. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be getting a lot worse, :/ Govvy (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like a typical AfD discussion, with feelings running strong. It's certainly not out-of-control. But I'll add it to my Watchlist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ATK Mohun Bagan FC

Is there an admin around who can take a look at ATK Mohun Bagan FC? Apparently the article was redirected to Mohun Bagan A.C. per some prior merge discussion. Looking at the page history this result appears to be contentious with some back and forth reverting going on for quite some time. This seems to have been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Closure of the merger proposal with no resolution at there appears to be an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C.. The page has been protected multiple times over the years due to disruption and is currently indefinitely protected to stop IPs from editing it; a SPA, however, recently showed up, got autoconfirmed, and immediately started to try and recreate the article. I've got know preference either way, but it seems it would be best to let things be resolved throught discussion and see if there's a consensus to restore the article and undo the redirect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I just temporarily blocked one of the edit-warring SPAs. Beyond that, I know very little about the topic, so I'm reluctant to fully protect until someone more familiar with Indian football can help us determine what the stable/closest-to-consensus version is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I also raised protection to ECP since the existing semi-protection didn't stop this. With that, I think the content dispute can be handled by normal editing and discussion, so I don't think full protection is needed yet. If edit-warring continues despite the ECP, full protection should probably be the next step. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

While looking at the RFC I see no consensus to merge the article. The consensus was based on SPA’s !votes. It has been discussed on the admins' noticeboard and nobody opposed the overturn of the merger then. Further discussion on the same regard also shows the consensus is to overturn the merger.–– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor with long-term POV push

I'm here at the advice of Ymblanter, concerning the edits by Kovanja. Kovanja has been making dubious and ideologically driven edits to topics regarding Rus'/Ukrainian/Russian history for years, generally to deny the existence of Ukraine or Belarus before the twentieth century.

• Most recently he's added material on the "foundation of Russian statehood" to Rurikid dynasty and edit warred about it [5], [6]. The edits were notably supported by two tourism websites and other sources that did not support his edits. In talk he explicitly says Ukraine and Belarus were founded only as Soviet Republic with no historical context [7]. A similar edit was made at Kievan Rus', including mis-transliterating Ῥωσία (Rosia) as Rossija, the transliteration of the Russian name for Russia (Россия) [8].
• In September he also edit warred over the origin of borscht, saying Ukraine didn't exist, only little Russians: [9], [10], [11], [12]. This is actually something he's been at for years, see [13], [14], [15], [16].
• If you follow his edits back in time it just goes on and on like this, such as adding completing irrelevant information about Russia and the Rurikids were the same to Ruthenians [17]. He's also tried to add questionable information to Holodomor, arguing it wasn't a genocide [18], [19], [20], saying genocide is a mere presumption and fabrication.
• He's also tried to claim that Russians invented shashlik [21].

It strikes me that this user is probably wp:NOTHERE. I'd appreciate an admin looking into it.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

He's still at it at Rurik dynasty [22]. Also personal attacks [23].--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably worth noting he's been repeatedly blocked from Czech Wikipedia for inserting misleading information, including edit warring on their article on Stalin on the Holomor [24], for which he is currently partially blocked there.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

He's still making similar statements, see his latest salvo [25] No one efer refered to some Belarusians as a minority it was Soviet invention.. Note also his lack of grasp of our sourcing policies: You are keep denysing Rurikid history recorded by Rurikid themselves (this to support his contention that Rus' and Russia are identical). I do not think this is going to get better.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Most recent edits at Kievan Rus' include, once again, sourcing something to the title of a course found on a Finnish website, once again pointlessly adding the Greek name "Ῥωσία(Rosía)", presumably because it is the origin of the modern name of Russia, and adding denigration of Ukraine's claim to ancestry from Kievan Rus' in Wikipedia's voice, namely On the other hand Ukraine claims it's sole legacy of the Kievan Rus through the late 19h century nationalist publication of Mykhailo Hrushevski History of Ukraine-Rus' and it's national revival period, with its perception of principality of Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia which was vassal of the Golden Horde during all it's existence and after extinction of Rurikid Romanovichi bloodline it was fully asborbed by Poland in 13th century. [26] Compare that to what he does for the Russian claim (sourced to a Finnish university's course title): Both Ukraine and Russia consider the Kievan Rus' their ancestor state. Russia claims it's Rus descendancy directly since 13th century, when Novgorodian Rurikid branch tried unite Rus' principalties under principality of Moscow and Vladimir. Later Novgorodian Rurikid branch ruling Grand Duchy of Moscow led Rus' principalties in rebelion against the Golden Horde and won independence under Ivan III of house Rurik who titled himself as Prince of all Rus'. Rurik dynasty later ruled Tsardom of Rus as Tsars of all Rus' until 16th century..--Ermenrich (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

He appears to be editing while logged out in order to continue his edit war, see [27] and [28]. The IP geolocates to the Czech Republic, which is also, based on his use of Czech Wikipedia, Kovanja is based. This IP also shows further edit warring over the issue of "Russian statehood" in the 800s. See, [29], [30], [31]. Also see this problematic, clearly anti-Ukrainian and unsourced edit [32] After pro-European revolution Maidan in 2014 Ukraine become poorest country in Europe with the lowest GDP per capita in Europe.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The user indeed does not look competent in editing at least Eastern European topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block, after review. A TBAN restricted to those topics is just going to end in one anyway. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely per the discussion and my own review. Clearly agenda driven and tendentious, and since the editor doesn't edit outside the topic area, a DS/GS topic ban is not very useful compared to a block. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

References

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Dear administrators. Can a couple of uninvolved administrators without conflict of interest with the subject help with 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict article please? Nagorno Karabakh is currently a zone of ongoing violent ethno-teritorrial conflict since September 27, 2020 and there is heavy edit warring going on in the Wikipedia article that is meant to be a neutral summary rather than a battlefield. Being aware of good faith principle, I do have reasonable doubts about an involved administrator @Rosguill: who appears to be providing unilateral support to one side, perhaps due to national or political conflict of interest. I can see POV/agenda-pushing from two users @Solavirum: and @CuriousGolden: on the same side - edits favoring the other side are labeled as "redundant", "insignificant", "unimportant", "fake" and reverted / erased. WP rules are cited and used unilaterally to silence users on the other side. Many thanks, yours sincerely, Armatura (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH – accusing an admin for providing unilateral support to one side, due to national or political conflict of interest and calling others for agenda-pushing. This request is in itself a full WP:BOOMERANG. Anyways, I'm happy that you appealed here. Your behavior has been getting annoying at best, and your edits were WP:TENDENTIOUS to say the least. edits favoring the other side are labeled as "redundant", "insignificant", "unimportant", "fake" and reverted / erased – first of all, why are there edits favoring a party here? Secondly, you always have to liberty to appeal to the talk page and try to achieve WP:CONSENSUS, which you've been violating since you started editing on the page. WP rules are cited and used unilaterally to silence users on the other side – do I have to comment on this, like even? Clearly a nonargument and ridiculous canvassing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You've reported me and another editor and an administrator because we agreed on things that you didn't? This is a clear violation of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Not to mention the fact that you've been particularly mean to users on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict talk page, violating the WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY several times. An example can be seen here where you're addressing an IP user who did not agree with your request of addition to the article with "Says the unsigned user who does not realise that Wikipedia records IP (which takes a second to geolocate)", possibly threatening to dox them. Here's another example of the user just straight up accusing me with breaking several policies while breaking literally all the mentioned policies in their own single comment, by going on to call the points I've raised about an addition they've requested to add a "just emotions" and accusing me of WP:IJDLI because I didn't agree with their addition. The user is also handing out warns to users without any reasoning. Most recently, he gave me a warning for edit warring out of a sudden after this report. I asked for the reason. Answer? "count the number of your reverts in 2020 Nagorno Karabakh Conflict article within last two days, that should be enough to see the answer to your question". Handing out warns because I reverted a lot? The user couldn't even name at least one revert which broke the rules when asked. These are only some of the many examples of the same user breaking Wikipedia's rules in just one article's talk page. Good day. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Denying multiple reverts violating WP rules does not make them go away, unfortunately, CuriousGolden, as already demonstrated by other users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:CuriousGolden_reported_by_User:%D4%B3%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB%D5%AF_%D4%B1%D5%BE%D5%A1%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6_(Result:_) Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I hadn't read WP:3RR in detail and therefore agreed to stay away from the article for 2 weeks on my own will. Thanks for pointing it out. Now, how about addressing all the other points raised by all 3 editors here which you accused? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: It is very interesting to read that you, as you say, "hadn't read WP:3RR in detail" despite being alerted about edit warring to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April... )). As for your other questions, I already highlighted my concerns, and you have highlighted yours, now let's give the scene to uninvolved editors to comment. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I hadn't understood it properly when reading and have accepted to stay away from an article I had been warned about for 2 weeks on my own will, thank you for pointing out this same irrelevant thing the second time. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been doing my best to uphold Wikipedia's policies and norms, and to ensure that others do the same. The irony here is that by my count, my interventions have supported the Armenian perspective more than the Azerbaijani perspective that I am accused of favoring. Rest assured I have no particular sympathy for either side of the conflict, although at this rate I'm starting to wonder when I get to add myself to the belligerents section of the infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed to reduce space taken up

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Date 27 September 2020 (2020-09-27) – present (3 years, 7 months, 1 week and 4 days) Location Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Armenia–Azerbaijan border Status Ongoing Territorial changes Azerbaijan states they have control of 4 cities, 4 settlements, 165 villages and the disputed area's border with Iran Belligerents Azerbaijan Syrian mercenaries Supported by: Turkey Artsakh Armenia Armenian diaspora volunteers Rosguill Supported by: Wikipedia policy Strength Unknown regular military 2,050 Syrian fighters Equipment: Unknown number of tanks and armored vehicles Unknown number of Bayraktar TB2 Unknown number of IAI Harop Unknown number of Orbiter 1K TRG-300 guided MLRS BM-30 Smerch MLRS Various artillery Unknown regular military Equipment: Unknown number of tanks and armored vehicles including T-72 tanks Scud-B and OTR-21 Tochka tactical ballistic missiles Various MLRS Various types of anti-tank guided missiles Various anti-aircraft missiles Various artillery 1 Equipment: Administrator tools

What does WikiBlame do?

My understanding is that it, and its alternative, Blame, are designed to identify who added given content to an article. I don’t see that they accomplish that very well, if at all. Am I missing something here? soibangla (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone asks what does WikiBlame do but no-one asks how does WikiBlame do. 😔 TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't tried WikiBlame, but the Who Wrote That? browser extension is wonderful for identifying who wrote the content, when, and what else they wrote. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, cool, thank you. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have tried it (I am on Chrome) - it appears to be quicker to use than WikiBlame. Slick!— Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying this out and it looks awesome! Shame it only works on articles (for now). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I agree, I'm looking forward to it becoming more full-featured (like working in infobox and tables). It would be fantastic if it worked on any wp page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Nice! S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

What is the current state of things as regards pro- and anti-Israel user boxes (search for Israel here)? Do they really have anything to do with editing Wikipedia? I guess I can see it being useful for people to essentially declare a potential COI or POV when others are evaluating their edits, but this one, for example, strikes me as over-the-top. (I'm decidedly anti-drama; this has been in my stack a few days before deciding to mention it.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• This question is probably best for a deletion discussion or village pump RFC. I believe there was a group of editors drafting an RfC on how to handle political userboxen recently, but I haven't been following the latest userbox war. Perhaps one of them will chime in here with more information. To answer the broad question, they could be useful for finding editors interested in improving content relating to the Levant, but like the example you point out, they may stray from that purpose. In sum, there's no specific guidance beyond WP:UBCR and WP:UPNOT at the moment, so if you think something violates those policies, nominate it at WP:MFD. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Most userboxes have nothing 'to do with editing Wikipedia', but they're a popular ornament nonetheless. The particular UBX here should be taken to MfD. However, what may concern this board is that the user currently has Israel: Is a terrorist country that keeps killing my country for no reason. Hopefully they all get kicked out plastered on the bottom of their userpage under 'least favorites'. AmandaNP you rev-delled a bunch of material from the userpage in the past few hours, is it relevant here or just related to privacy? (Redacted). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have no additional comment to make nor any relevant input for this thread. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing own mass message sender right

Trivial removal. I stepped down as a Board member of the Hong Kong User Group, thus the right is no longer needed to mass-send any messages of the User Group.

However, I would hope the shells I created remain intact. Just something trivial, but nonetheless. I am still doing education programmes so I'll retain my eventcoordinator right.--1233 ( T / C） 08:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Something weird is going on with PumpkinEditore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 1030 PTZ Camera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as other accounts that the former may be a sockpuppet of. Can someone investigate? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Other admins have now issued some blocks per the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. Is there anything more to do? EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Disgruntled blocked editor

User talk:Robertleyva2002 speaks for itself. I will leave it to the best judgement of the first admin that sees this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Yanked talk page access. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 30

I put a closed small tag on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Bilga Khatun in the list, but it didn't work, and the rest of the ones under that are all in small text. So I don't know what went wrong. Govvy (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a cache issue I think. Try purging the page: [33] GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cache issue? Looks fine to me. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Took a while, but it's back to normal, unless I did fix it and it took a while to see the update, I don't know. Govvy (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what happened. Sometimes when you fix a page that's transcluded into another page (like fixing an individual AfD entry that's transcluded into the list for that day) it takes a moment for the update to propagate through. Purging the page fixes it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

k, if that happens again, need to remember the cache bit. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by LordRogalDorn

Editor has withdrawn the request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user LordRogalDorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of Eastern Europe, imposed at [[34]], logged at [[35]]. Administrator imposing the sanction EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator Diff of the notification - [[36]]. Statement by LordRogalDorn I understand what I did wrong, and I intend to avoid making the same mistakes again. I understand the reason I was topic banned is because I broke Wikipedia's policy in multiple ways: engaged in an edit war, in heated discussion with personal attacks that had little to do with the subject at hand and insisted on primary sources. None of that was right, the reason I broke Wikipedia's policy was not because of WP:NOTHERE as it was assumed, but because I was new to Wikipedia (still am) and didn't know Wikipedia's policy better, I should have known it, but I didn't. I should have asked on the Teahouse what I didn't know, and when I had a conflict I should have asked other more experienced users how to deal with it, rather than engage in back & forth exchanges that don't lead anywhere and edit war. I should have read more into Wikipedia's policy. I didn't know there were other means to mediate the dispute, but now I know. I will try to avoid conflicts from now on, work with others and have productive discussions. Should conflict happen, I will not engnage in an edit war anymore, I will simply talk on the talk page with civility, if we cannot reach an agreement on the talk page I will make a post either at RFC or a relevant noticeboard and respect their decision. Concerning the accusation of WP:NOTHERE, assuming I broke Wikipedia's policy out of trolling or something similar, I believe the fact that everything I added was sourced (although some sources I used, primary ones, are not allowed on Wikipedia, I didn't know that, I know this now) and nothing I added was a troll edit is evidence enough this is not the case. The reason I got banned is because I didn't know how to work with other users in case of conflict and I didn't know Wikipedia's policy well enough, not because I was trying to destroy the articles. This is not the case anymore, I understand Wikipedia's policy now, I understand that when I doubt I should ask first, I will not do the things mentioned above again, I have learned my lesson. I know how to solve issues now. I know which Wikipedia policies I broke now and promise I won't do it again. I know Wikipedia works mainly on scholarly secondary sources. I will not edit war again, but talk it through with civility, if that doesn't work RFC or relevant noticeboard. I understand the pragmatic reason behind my topic ban is to make sure unnecessary conflict is avoided and that my contribution to Wikipedia is overall positive. My methods were wrong because I didn't know the policy, but I was trying to be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Now that I know the policy, I won't do the same mistakes again, I know better. Statement by EdJohnston Soon after arriving on Wikipedia, User:LordRogalDorn got into a long-running dispute with User:KIENGIR about the relative Hungarian and Romanian populations of certain areas of present-day Romania during the 1930s and 1940s. (LordRogalDorn filed at AN3 about a week after creating his account). It seemed to me that neither party was able to follow the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The behavior of LordRogalDorn did catch my attention more because it appeared that his only interest in editing Wikipedia was to bring this one article more in line with his views. (Though I know little of the background, the area they were talking about, Transylvania, has been in dispute between Hungarians and Romanians for hundreds of years). Since LordRogalDorn began editing on 4 September, his user name has appeared in Wikipedia space about 100 times. (Wikipedia space is where admin discussions and dispute resolution often occur). The articles that LordRogalDorn appeared to be mostly interested in appeared to be: Hungarian irredentism (topic of the first AN3 complaint) Origin of the Romanians (topic of the second AN3 complaint), and History of Transylvania. If you have the patience for a lot of reading, you can look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do?. The two 3RR complaints were: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive416#User:KIENGIR reported by User:LordRogalDorn (Result: Alerts) (13 September) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive418#User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Topic ban) (30 October) It's usually not a good beginning for anyone to get into hot disputes on nationalist topics within two weeks of their arrival on Wikipedia. In his first edit summary at History of Transylvania on 8 September, LordRogalDorn claimed he was 'removing bias'. According to him, it seemed that the existing text was too pro-Hungarian. As I stated when issuing his topic ban from WP:ARBEE, I would not lift the ban myself until "your editing outside this domain gives examples of you working successfully with others on difficult topics". EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by LordRogalDorn The block was imposed earlier this month, and LordRogalDorn appears to have made exactly one mainspace edit since then. I'd like to see constructive editing in some other area for at least a month before even considering any appeal based on a claim that the editor has learned his lesson. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC) To be clear, the recommended 6 months is a good idea. In the current circumstance I didn't even make it through the whole wall-of-text. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC) At diff LRD stated they were willing to work with a mentor, but I see no evidence they have attempted to do so. I'm not stating they haven't changed or at least had an epiphany, but I see no evidence of it (log). I think a good way forward would be for LRD to find a mentor per the above and create a history of productively editiing and experience building for six months to demonstrate WP:HERE, then request the tban be reviewed at that time. (disclaimer: I was involved in the ANI/EW threads, but not involved in the dispute.)   // Timothy :: talk  22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Note: Here are two of the threads for reference: ANI and EWNB @Boing! said Zebedee, I understand, I would like to withdraw the appeal. What is the procedure for withdrawing it? LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by LordRogalDorn This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. A topic ban for an effectively single-topic editor, being appealed just eight days after imposition, and with only one mainspace edit since being banned? Nope. That's way too soon, and does not show the necessary evidence of being able to edit collaboratively outside the problematic area. @LordRogalDorn:, I suggest you withdraw this appeal, and work in some other topic area for the next few months before making a fresh appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC) The topic ban was imposed with the recommendation: "It might be reasonable to review this ban in six months if subsequent editing shows that LordRogalDorn can work patiently with others to reach consensus on difficult topics". I support that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC) @LordRogalDorn: Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC) I also suggest the OP come back in six months. The topic ban was imposed last week and they have made one mainspace edit since. Go and edit some topics unrelated to Eastern Europe (the vast majority of the encyclopedia, in other words) and prove that you can engage constructively with other people, and then appeal the topic ban. Claims that you have changed are more effective when they are backed up with evidence. On the other hand if it turns out you can't engage constructively with other people in other topics either you will likely be blocked indefinitely. I should point out that the user has made several edits to talk pages since the ban was imposed which seem to be continuing the dispute which led to the ban in the first place, e.g. [37] [38] [39]. These edits were made in the (mistaken) belief that the topic ban doesn't apply to talk pages, so they haven't resulted in a block, but they do suggest that lifting the topic ban would just result in the same dispute being continued. Hut 8.5 09:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Password reset emails not sending?

Hi, I hope this is the correct forum. I'm trying to change the password after receiving a breach notification yesterday in iOS. Nothing ever arrives from wikipedia.org, but I can send and receive to other domains. Can someone look at the outgoing mail logs? My admin account has had the same linked email since 2006. Whophd (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add: The old password stopped working at the same time, so I am worried about the breach being real. I'm surviving here on browser tokens. Whophd (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just sent e-mail to myself using the e-mail user function, and it arrived to my mailbox.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Whophd/Ymblanter?? Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that wasn't me, that was someone else just making sure it worked for them. Understandably weird though. My reset is complete and I've switched to a better email with 2FA. Whophd (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT and include the details from your talk, although I don't think your email address should be included. Also say what an iOS breach notification is, and what makes you think the old password stopped working. Do you have "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided" enabled (that is, with a tick) in Special:Preferences? Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RESOLVED: I talked to the sysadmin who saw some logs coming in from Wikipedia.org. They were going to another address for which an old redirect alias had broken. I think I need to wait out the timeout now. Thanks very much for your time though, and sorry about that. Still a mystery how the old password is in my password manager on multiple devices (and I memorise it) and it stopped being accepted this week. I have checked for sockpuppet activity and found none. iOS gives data breach notifications in iOS 14: https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-14/features/ Do we leave this notice up or may I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whophd (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: I note that this user is claiming to be an administrator on their user page. But, as far as I can tell, the user has never been an admin, or even held any advanced permissions whatsoever. Their UserRights log is completely empty. Unless the account has been renamed or something was done from Meta, this appears to be a false claim. Unfortunately I cannot edit the page due to an abuse filter. 192.196.218.202 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've inquired on the user's talk. Tiderolls 12:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think I was an admin and I believe I made an error with some template editing experimentation in 2016. Secure password is now in place. Whophd (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User Cyphoidlonic

I consider Cyphoidlonic to be a bit too close to my user name, especially considering they have edited an article I have watchlisted, here. Their name feels non-coincidentally derivative and quickly scrolling through that edit history, I find it a bit difficult to distinguish between their edits and mine. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you think so, the proper procedure is:

1. Leave a message on his/her talk page. {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}} is a good message for this purpose. If he/she answers, continue the discussion.
2. If he/she doesn't answer, or if the discussion doesn't lead to a resolution you can accept, take it to WP:RFCN. 217.132.248.209 (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• More info: May be related to sock operator Jaymarturner74 as they have intersections with me at Oggy and the Cockroaches and here where they also intersect with Cyphoidlonic. I blocked a couple of the Jaymarturner socks, so this could be a payback situation. Jaymar appears to like Indian cartoons and international ones as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought, too, but it doesn't seem to be him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @NinjaRobotPirate: Any way you can intervene here, even if it's not Jaymar? I find it difficult to assume this is a coincidence. It's not like the fragment "cyphoid" is a common word in the English lexicon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I doubt it's a coincidence, but I'm not really familiar enough with username policy enforcement to say with certainty whether that's a violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't see the issue here :/ Cyphoidgun2149 04:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay to use Wikimedia Foundation projects for self promotion?

I just have stumbled upon something very interesting. Moheen, an editor with 9K edits and 7 years of service have created a creator page on commons and a Wikidata entry for himself, as well as two categories on commons dedicated to himself (one about him and one about his work), both featuring an infobox about his Wikidata entry and lengthy person profile about himself. A quick google search shows that he has dozens of such self promotional items across many prominent sites.

Can someone use Wikimedia Foundation projects for self promotion? If yes, then I would like to do the same. If no, then where do I post a notice about this? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 15:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: This would need to be dealt by those communities themselves, i.e. Commons and Wikidata. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there no centralized system for a multiple-project wide problem? That's funny. I guess Wikimedia doesn't care about many of its problems. If that's the case then it certainly should not be some editor's (in this case mine) personal problem. Maybe this is how we nurture stuff like the Essjay controversy. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 17:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your last analogy makes sense. In any case, Meta-Wiki is another option. The English Wikipedia is not the correct venue to triage this. Killiondude (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Note that when openining a WP:AN thread about a particular user, you are required to notify that user about that fact at their user talk page using a notification template avaible for copy-paste at the top of this page, see the instructions there. So far you have failed to follow this notification requirement. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is neither a complain nor a report. This is an attempt to seek information. All I asked is (a) "where do I post a notice about this?" and (b) "Is there no centralized system for a multiple-project wide problem?". I do understand that this is not a place to report such a case (though without a description of the case it may be difficult to explain what I seek).

If I wanted to report, I should have gone to ANI, isn't it? That is exactly why I am here and not at ANI. Teahouse is for beginners toothaches. Village Pump is for specific topics (and a supplementary board). My very specific question is not within the scope of any other board I can see.

With the knowledge about the project gathered here, I also expected to find better directions. From what I have seen so far, I may have been wrong at that. Going project by project and notifying the reported party everytime are pretty basic directions (by the way, I think I slightly resent that bolding, quite unnecessary). Do you think I would get better directions at Commons or Meta? If so, where there? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 20:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You "understand" completely incorrectly. Your entire thread deals with your concerns about the conduct of one specific editor, User:Moheen. The instructions at the top of this page clearly say that in this situation: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. This is an absolute requirement, with no exceptions. You have failed to do that, even after being told about this requirement. I left a note at User talk:Moheen myself, notifying him of this thread, since you have refused to do so yourself. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Most people on English Wikipedia, including admins, only have knowledge about English Wikipedia. If the issue only applies to Commons and Wikidata then it would be better to ask in those places, but if it's a wider issue then, as Killiondude said, then Meta is the place to ask. Nobody is trying to fob you off, but people are simply pointing out that nobody here has any jurisdiction over other projects, so you need to go to them if you think something should be done. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nsk92 for notifying the user (though I don't see where I refused to do so). A bigger thanks to Phil Bridger for actually answering my question. Meta it is then. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 03:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: you were specifically reminded of the requirement that is in both the header and edit notice that you must notify, yet you persisted in arguing that you didn't have to even though this thread was clearly about one editor who linked to multiple times in you ropening comment. Whether you want to count this as refusal, it's definitely not a good look for someone claiming some other editor is a problem since it's such a basic and simple requirement and you've articulated no good reasons why you couldn't do so. (E.g. you're using some accessibility software and find it difficult.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not that you refused to notify this editor, but simply that you did not do so. It is a very simple requirement that people should tell another editor when they are referred to personally, by name, here. Please follow it in future. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Short answer, IMHO, META would be the best venue for cross-wiki TOS violations. Also, presenting information to the WMF via WP:OTRS may be an option I've seen used. (left out a crinkle; caused a wrinkle)--Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Follow up, that is definitely a Commons question, and yes, Commons users seem encouraged to create profiles of that nature. Something to do with Commons:Structured data. {Makes me go cross-eyed}. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the two editors in question, User:Aditya Kabir and User:Moheen have been involved in a bit of an edit war and a content dispute of some sort at Nurul Alam Atique. Apart from the page history log, there are exchanges at the talk page of the article and at User talk:Moheen regarding that. I have a feeling that the current WP:AN thread originates from that dispute. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic level of WP:AGF. You could also mention that I have a history of fighting other editors as I have been blocked for 48 hours for something like it. I like the way someone might avoid the question asked, go on about some violation that brought zero harm and then start investigating the asking party. I am really sorry to have asked the question. I got some directions anyways. In the process, I think, I lost interest in the case, generously helped by the beurocracy, hostility and self-righteneousness of editors who have the power to discipline and punish their fellow editors. Thanks everyone, and sorry for all the inconvenience. This can stop now. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 00:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, please. First of all, when you complain about another editor at WP:AN or WP:ANI or any other noticeboard, if you are currently involved in a conflict or a dispute with that editor, you need to mention that fact. Second, the notification requirement that several users in this thread have told you about is not just some pro forma bureacratic thing. It is a substantive requirement that exists for good reasons and it is one of the very few instances where any requirement on Wikipedia uses the word "must" instead of "should" in its phrasing. No do your protestations about "zero harm" and "If I understand correctly, this is neither a complain nor a report. This is an attempt to seek information" hold water. You didn't just ask an abstract question here. You used a specific editor with specific links and diffs concerning that editor, and stated that that editor uses WMF projects for self promotion. Such accusations can damage the reputation of that editor here on WP as well, and the least he deserves is to have the opportunity to refute them if he wants to. That's why the notification requirement exists in the first place. Trying to avoid the notification requirement under the pretext that you were "just seeking information" about something else, when the very title of the thread accuses an editor of problematic conduct, is a dishonest attempt at wikilawyering. In the future if you open a thread about another editor in some noticeboard, you should notify that editor immediately. And if you are engaged in a conflict with that editor, you should disclose that fact too. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Such anger. Stupified. BTW, I have regained some interest in the case. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 04:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Creation of the page Gadget:Past as Future

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T229735

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, since I don't think admins can edit or create gadgets. But can someone somehow create the page Gadget:Past as Future with the following content:

#REDIRECT [[Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure]]

{{R from avoided double redirect|Gadget Past as Future}}

{{R from alternative name}}

Thank you. --Ituafmq (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be done? Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure is an article on a movie. See Wikipedia:Gadget for the purpose of the gadget namespace. In any case, gadget issues are best suited for WP:VPT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead of the article says Gadget: Invention, Travel, & Adventure (or Gadget: Past as Future) is an ..., so the redirect is entirely appropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Go bug the devs at phab:T229735 if this is really needed - they have refused to allow community control there. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Previously: User talk:MaxSem/Archives/August 2015#Gadget redirects, Talk:Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (October 2016), Gadget talk:Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (September 2017), m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2019-04#Edits to gadget namespace (April 2019)), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Add maintenance template (August 2019). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's fair, but the rationale for that redirect (there) was to keep incoming links working. And only this page has been given as an example here / phab. Are other pages affected by this? Argument from devs on phab seems to be that encouraging the use of the namespace will only cause more issues later on. WMF failed to even get that redirect deleted at RfD, so if increased use is going to be just as difficult to clean up and cause issues for devs, is it really worth it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not meaningfully harder for the WMF to clean up the namespace if there are two redirects, rather than one redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If the permissions to create these are granted, who says there will only be one more? If it's just for one more, it's probably not worth the fuss. If it's many more, then when they probably fail RfD again they'll have to be deleted as office actions and that'll cause up a fuss. Plus, grant perms to enwiki and other projects will rightly ask why they can't have local perms for it too, so it's not just about enwiki's deletion process. I'm not sure this outcome would be much better? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there would be a fuss when Gadget:Past as Future gets deleted as an office action, then there will be a fuss when Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure (which has existed since 2015) gets deleted as an office action. Besides, the movement to use the gadget namespace has been stalled with no sign of progress for over 4 years, so there's no reason to expect it to happen, and thus for any redirects to be forcibly deleted, in the near future. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, Pppery, and Xaosflux: I think it's fair that Gadget:Past as Future be created. Any page with colons as the correct title, but shouldn't be used because it is a namespace, always have a redirect at the actual article name. See Help:A Day in the Life, Portal:No Escape, Wikipedia:Mersh, and Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure. --Ituafmq (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that no one other than WMF staff (and, theoretically, stewards) has the technical ability to create the page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ituafmq: from a purely technical level, the mysterious future development plans may not include support for wikitext in that namespace - so there is no guarantee that the page could even exist as a redirect once the plans come to light. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: So are you saying that Gadget (definition) pages won't be in wikitext in the future? But why is Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure in wikitext? When you talk about an impossible redirect, are you talking about like making a redirect from a module to any page, because #REDIRECT [[]] isn't in wikitext? --Ituafmq (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In the future in which Gagdet:Past as Future can't exist as a redirect, Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure can't exist as a redirect either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Absolutely true. But for now, while Gadget:Past as Future can exist as a redirect, why not ask someone (staff) to create it? I will ask on meta on m:Meta:AN. --Ituafmq (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what it will or will not support in the future, I just said it may not. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ituafmq: I just closed that in my capacity as a meta-wiki admin as wrong-venue. You can try asking over at WP:VPWMF. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Rename needed at Wiki:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

An administrator or EC user is needed at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a consensus has been reached on talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to rename the page to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Thanks for your attention. --Excutient (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoever closes the RM will likely handle the technical side of moving, as well. Discussions automatically get listed for closure at WP:RM, but you can request early closure at WP:AN/RFC as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage a non-admin closure of this request. Also, to be honest, I do not see any consensus, and the request has been open for a week, Nobody is going to die from it staying open for a full month.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done I closed the discussion and actioned the request. While I personally think "conflict" is preferable, the handful of opposition arguments weren't sufficiently strong to overcome the overwhelming number of editors in support of the move. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Block review : Linas

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

Linas first started contributing to Wikipedia in 2004 and has written or contributed significantly to hundreds of mathematics articles, many of which are listed on his userpage, both under this account and under various IPs, all of which he has self-disclosed. He is currently editing as 67.198.37.16 (talk · contribs). He has been an occasional critic of Wikipedia governance and administration, stating that it has driven several expert editors away, which is not a particularly unreasonable view to hold, although in the past few years, this has been less noticeable.

Currently, Linas' main account is blocked. I looked into this, and it appears to be this thread eight years ago complaining about Bbb23 largely blanking simple precedence grammar because it was unsourced (which was reverted four days later). Linas suggested that finding and adding citations was preferable to just gutting the article, and believing that admins should set a good example for all other editors, and signed off by saying Bbb23 was behaving like a "snot nosed punk" for not doing so. For this, he was templated for personal attacks, following which he basically told the warning administrator to fuck off, which didn't go down well and ended up with an indef block. I think that's basically the gist of it.

Since then, editors have occasionally suggested Linas should get unblocked [40], [41], [42]. Meanwhile, Linas has abandoned his account (I think he's forgotten the password) and seems content to just edit as an IP, having made plenty of constructive edits to many articles since. So this appeal is more just to lift the block on the editor rather than the account, allowing Linas to just improve the encyclopedia in whatever way he wants. I don't see any value in leaving an editor indef blocked after they had a bit of meltdown eight years ago, and while an apology would be nice, I really don't think it's worth shutting a pretty prolific editor out of the project.

Thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's intriguing given the view that we don't entertain third party unblock requests. Does Linas even want to be unblocked? WP:NOTBURO, but this is like condoning all the block evasion. Having said that, I see no point in continuing to block Linas's account if they've been editing right right along. I mean "prevent disruption/non-punitive, right? Be nice to read their thoughts, but I see no benefit to the continued block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(elaborating) This flies in the face of all we hold true and dear, but if they've been editing for years constructively and collaboratively, then the non-punitive nature of WP:BLOCK would allow for their unblocking. If they've lost the ability to log into that account, will there be a benefit to unblocing? Even so, Endorse unblock of Linas. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on the IP's talk page mentioned at the top of this thread, he has said he wants to give it a go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Third-party unblock requests are not allowed. It's up to the editor to tell us why they should be unblocked if they want to continue to contribute here. Sandstein 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Anything is allowed if you can put forward a convincing case for it being for the benefit of writing and improving the encyclopedia. Having seen a rather alarming number of long-term editors quit myself, I have to ask the floor - do we honestly need these dog and pony shows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I interacted with Linas very recently because affine connection is on my watchlist. I checked the geolocation of the IP; however, I had not noticed www.linas.org on that same page. The points he made about talk:affine connection were thoughtful, collaborative and constructive. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I will likely not look kindly on an interloper on a blocked user's talk page making spurious arguments for or against unblocking. However, everything is reviewable by the community, as it should be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's a matter of IAR, so much as we are the servants of the community and subject to the community's will. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the community will not that 3rd party unblock requests are not allowed? I thought that enjoyed community consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: To me, that applies to the aforementioned kibitzer horning in on matters they are not equipped to address on the user talk page. But I think it would be against WP:ADMINACCOUNT to preclude bringing such matters here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

But what about your vote at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block#Third-party block appeals? I don't get it: are you in favor of or opposed to third party block appeals? Surely nobody wants a system where third party block appeals are allowed for some editors but not for others. IAR starts getting real mushy as a reason when this is maybe the tenth time this year that we've had a third party block appeal. Why do we have a rule that no one follows? Lev!vich 16:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably because it's a de facto bad rule. Unblock requests often don't get considered properly, so someone else has to bring it up here for it to be overturned. Besides, No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. the user did submit a request back then, and continues editing so evidently they don't wish to remain blocked. Plus Thank you! Is there something I should do?. I think this satisfies "request by the blocked user". Anyway, can't see what good continuing this block does for the encyclopaedia. Support unblock. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dearest @Levivich:, please reread what I posted here until it comes clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• For some bizarre reason, the user at User_talk:67.198.37.16 is repeatedly denying being User:Linas, and has been accusing everyone who has ever blocked them of being part of some conspiracy. They have also repeatedly referred to the admins involved in their previous cases as "bullies", as "making false accusations", and more. Coincidentally, their original account was blocked for...personal attacks. If they want their account to be unblocked, they need to make an appeal themselves. If they want to keep editing as an anon, at a bare minimum, they need to drop the stick. ST47 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You can make anything look bad if you cherry pick comments without the context behind them, which is why I specifically made a point of mentioning it at the top of the thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• And made some bizarre assertions about my comments here. So. For unblocking Linas. No way of knowing what's going on with the IP who cliams they are/are not Linas. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  They pretty clearly effectively stated or implied multiple times they are that editor. Heck, the first few words on their page are: "I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to more than 500 articles in math and physics topics. The first 423 of them are listed at User:Linas/Articles. The list below, of more than 100 articles, were edits made anonymously." It's unnecessary to require them to state it in any more obvious terms, and distracts from discussion on the merit of the request, since most the conversation above is on procedure or 'identity verification', neither of which seems like the right thing to be discussing here imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 makes a cogent argument for why IAR does apply to some subset of third-party unblocking requests but the ambiguity in Linas's intentions, self-identification, and likelihood of following NPA in the future demonstrate why first-party unblocking requests are always preferable. Normally, I would urge them to stop editing immediately and place a first-person request here but this very recent edit, made in the full knowledge that this discussion is happening, clearly demonstrates they have no intention of letting old sores heal nor do they have any probability of refraining from personal attacks. The appeal (such as it is) should be rejected and the IP blocked indefinitely. Any further sock IP's should be treated a LTA's are normally treated. They may have scads of mathematical knowledge but cooperation is a absolute requirement for participation. They lack the apparent ability to engage in the latter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then we should unblock with a few IBANs? But I think it's just an editor a bit pissed off at being dragged into this again. Were there any issues with the editor engaging in such conduct before they were dragged into it in the SPI / "Block evasion" & following sections? If grudges were an only-remedied-by-indeff offence, IBANs wouldn't exist; they're good for when editors are a net + but lack some self control in certain situations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:, it would greatly depend on how many and with whom the IBANs applied, wouldn't it? At some point, which is almost impossible define in the abstract, the limits placed by IBANs and TBANs and other possible short-of-full-ban restrictions add up to a burden on editing that amounts to something close to a full ban anyway. Where that point is for a particular editor varies widely so discussing it as a hypothetical in this case is of limited benefit. This would have been made mush simpler if Linas themself had contributed here but they seem content to hurl accusations from the sidelines. That this behavior has been clearly communicated to them as unacceptable and that they have continued to nurse those grudges anyway and at the time this is under consideration does not suggest that mere IBANS or other possible short-of-full-ban restrictions are likely to create the net positive editing you posit. I hope that helps explain my earlier statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this block-evading IP has not been blocked yet. They should not be allowed to edit further until this is resolved. I also don't generally think third-party unblock requests are a good idea. It's all very well invoking IAR, but that is supposed to be for improving the encyclopedia, and I don't think their contributions to maths articles outweigh their repeated blocks for personal attacks and harassment.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  For the last 5 years it seems they've been editing as an IP. This is their block log. Excluding a "block evasion" block, it is clean. As to Eggishorn's reply, yes, that explains your position better. Though, I think current posts, whilst it may be better for them not to say anything, are not exactly disproving their ability to contribute productively. And our articles on maths could do with the help. With a general commitment to avoiding personal attacks in the future when in disagreement, without requiring any comment on past events, doesn't that seem like a fair arrangement to extend some rope? It's not like it's difficult to block again if there are future issues. But apparently there have not been for the past five years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that they have had the opportunity to make some sort of such commitment and they are doing the exact opposite. This edit in particular makes an indeff block seem like a kindness at this point. WP:NOTTHERAPY strongly seems to apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. But it's not the community's, or any admin's, job to decide what is good for an editor and their health. And consider what the cause of their current feelings are... What I fundamentally cannot comprehend is why this fuss was even started again. This IP indeed did not cause this "storm". There was no problematic behaviour demonstrated at the SPI, which was also started after the IP had been editing for years.[43]. The original blocking admin states, after dishing out a 6 month block, in Special:Diff/985735664: I chose not to block you when I saw that you were editing again because I thought that having you editing could be a net positive. And nobody is blocking the IP now. So what was the point of the whole mess in February, after the IP had been editing for years? Blind enforcement of policy without regard as to what is a net plus for the project? And what is the point of current events? What was the point of the "Block evasion" section? Did the IP ever bring up "their past" before it was forced upon them? This is all way too rigid. The result? Wasted time on AN, an editor in stress, and the potential loss of a good contributor who has done more for the encyclopaedia's coverage of good articles than many of us here (including myself). And all this for what? A case of an IP productively editing for years?

Evidently this user doesn't care if their original account is unblocked or not - they just want to continue editing math articles. The first half of their user talk page shows (a) that they have lots of positive contributions and (b) can engage in conflict resolution regarding math articles. Evidently they cannot engage in this type of conflict resolution (and that's okay - this stuff is unlikely to come up again unless it is brought up, just as it didn't before), and they simply want to wait till "the storm passes", so let's just let the IP do their thing and end this nonsense, either with an unblock of Linus, or leaving it blocked and letting him edit as an IP. But it's all way too pedantic. And frankly, I think it's the job of good administrators and a good community to facilitate editors who are a net + but cannot navigate through this bureaucuracy. I'd say it is to our discredit, not the IP's, if a situation is created where a good editor cannot be unblocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The "good editor" in question had a lengthy block record prior to the 2012 indef block and a long term history of incivility and personal attacks. The editor was no stranger to ANI and Arbcom pages and never expressed any cointrition for the behavior that led to the 2012 block or, as far as I know, to any of their previous blocks. All of those blocks arose in the context of what most other users would have regarded as minor conflicts related to math articles or math pages. The IPs response at the IP talk to the current discussion demonstrates similar problematic conduct attitudes, as well as unwillingness to admit any fault for prior problems. We do not unblock under these circumstances. At a bare minimum, WP:OFFER always requires admiting past wrongs and promising to avoid behavior that led to the prior block/ban. None of that is in evidence here, quite the contrary. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Once a criminal always a criminal is bad philosophy in my eyes. I consider the IP's block log, over the past 5/6 years, more relevant than a pre-2012 block log. That was 8 years ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Once a criminal always a criminal" -- I never said nor implied any such thing and I specifically mentioned WP:OFFER as the standard path to redemption here on WP for indef blocked users. We are talking about the proposal for unblocking User:Linas here, and that user's block history and history of long term incivil behavior prior to the indef block are certainly relevant to the unblock request. Forgiveness is a great thing, but it has be predicated on first admitting one's responsibility for past misakes and promising to try to do better in the future. That's what WP:OFFER requires and this is also a standard requirement for the unblock requests for temporary (rather than indef) blocks to be shortened or lifted. But no such admission of responsibility and promise to try to control one's temper have been forthcoming in this case, and based on the IP's responses at their talk page, it seems unlikely that this is going to change. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92, those incidents are all over 8 years ago. The ANI threads linked don't have any contributions from him and seem to all have a common theme of "Well I don't like the way he said it, but I sympathise with the basic points". More to the point, although he is currently testing people's patience, I don't see him calling anyone a "fuck brained idiot" anymore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are from over 8 years ago but the block itself is from 2012. The point is, the 2012 block was not an isolated incident, but a part of a long term pattern of incivility and personal attacks. That is definitely relevant to any unblock considerations and you should have made the existence of this history clear instead of trying to minimize it in your opening statement above. In the IP's talk page thread related to the current discussion, the IP, while not using profane language, is making pretty bizzare and erratic accusations against other editors, including those who ostensibly are trying to support his case. In addition, there is no hint, event to the slightest degree, of expressing contrition or admitting any responsibility for the behavior that led to the original block. We simply do not and should not unblock any user under these circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the IP repeatedly denying that they're Linas, in fact they seem to straightforwardly claim to be him at the top of their talk page. Also, they were blocked for block evasion, for six months, the block has simply expired. I'm all for taking this opportunity to review whether they should simply be unblocked, but their comments on their talk page are a bit bizarre. They're claiming that they thought the block had expired, but they're also claiming they're being subjected to an unappealable block in perpetuity, they're claiming they can't be considered a sock because their account was blocked so long ago, they're claiming they were told to evade the block by bureaucrats, and it remains unclear whether they even have access to the account anymore, they claimed there was no reason for the block evasion block and they're a victim of a harassment campaign, they claim they're the victim of bullying, they claim they're being silenced because they're a critic, they attacked the admin who blocked them, it's all a bit much. I'm happy to consider an unblock request coming from them, but they seem fairly obstinate and unwilling even to make a simple unblock request in good faith. Someone literally told them that they weren't doing themselves any favors and that they should simply ask for a Standard Offer, and they completely ignored the point and started asserting that they weren't doing anything wrong. They were indef blocked for long-term behavioral problems, and in theory I could support giving them a free pass for the years of block evasion and granting a SO unblock. The only thing standing in my way is the user's own conduct. Like this isn't rocket science, just log into the account and ask for a standard offer unblock, but they seem unwilling to do that simple thing. So I'm a bit skeptical that we should welcome this user back into the community with open arms. I would need to at least see some level of reasonable communication coming from them. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• What Swarm said. He literally summed up what I was already thinking by the time I got to his comment. When it has been this long and we have an editor with unique skills, I tend to lean towards bending the rules a bit (or a lot), but Linas seems to be going out of his way to make this difficult for us to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• When someone says For the last week, I've been waking up in the middle of the night, wondering what unpleasant surprise awaits me on this talk page, and toss-n-turn for hours. Next morning, bleary-eyed and unfocused, I stress-eat to calm myself down. WP is literally the most toxic place on the internet that I know of; editing here is literally unhealthy, both physically and mentally., we should not let them edit here. I don't care if they're William Shakespeare, this isn't healthy. The user says editing here is literally unhealthy, both physically and mentally, let's not second-guess their judgment. If things change, they can make an unblock request. This is coming together as a pretty good example for why we should not entertain third-party block appeals. Did this thread make things better or worse for the user? Lev!vich 22:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Levivich in that anyone who says that really needs to take a break from Wikipedia ASAP. I still think Standard Offer type appeals are worth doing when the blocked editor isn't quite sure what they need to say in an unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• We should not entertain third-party appeals. That statement is subject to WP:IAR in some situations, but per Swarm and Levivich this is not one of them. Absent an unblock request from Linas I think this should be closed without action. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with others that third-party appeals should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think this is one, but I do appreciate Ritchie’s train of thought. At the end of the day the person has to want to make themselves engage with the community again and address concerns. A necessary part of that in most circumstances is them making the request. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• This incident makes me sad, because it's a story repeated so often. A user happily edits in some quiet backwater of the project for many years. Then some incident occurs drawing them into the drama boards and they get it all wrong. They haven't learnt the skill set needed to deal with the intensity of scrutiny, they respond to criticism by hitting back, they get stuck on trying to prove their innocence in the original incident. In the end, the situation escalates and a once productive editor gets a long term ban. The skills needed to overturn such a ban are ten times those needed to cope with the initial problem, so there is no real way back. In my view it's a net negative to the project, we've lost so many editors to the same basic story, so many that there are entire websites dedicated to once productive editors who fell foul of the Wikipedia system, half the sockpuppets we deal with were once productive editors. Our dispute resolution system is badly broken, it's a system that works to escalate conflicts rather than calm things. It's a system which pretty much assumes the worst and generally get it. I wish there was a better way.--Salix alba (talk): 07:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree and according to comments above, the user is a benefit to the encyclopedia so arguing about who should fill in the unblock form is not helpful. Some people don't like buckling to what they regard as pressure and if investigation doesn't show a reason an unblock should not occur (apart from WP:BURO), Linas should be unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• I was going to sit this one out but the comment above by User:Salix alba (who, as a member of WikiProject Mathematics, I would have assumed to be familiar with Linas' history there) forced me to speak up. Btw, I also believe that the opening statement by Ritchie333 significantly understated Linas' previous issues before the 2012 indef block. Linas didn't simply "happily edit" for many years prior to that block, nor was he just "an occasional critic of Wikipedia governance and administration". In fact, Linas had a lengthy block record going back to 2007 and a long term history of problems with incivility and personal attacks, that led to those blocks. Looking through User talk:Linas and the archives of that talk page illustrates these problems quite clearly. As an example, the 2007 thread User talk:Linas/Archive14#Speedy with malice? is particularly instructive. Nor was Linas a stranger to the drama boards. There have been quite a few ANI threads (prior to this one):
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Linas, soapboxing on wikiprojects (and userpage)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Linas
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Linas again
  • Declined Oct 2009 Arbcom case request by Linas
• Note that WP:OFFER requires, in particular, that the blocked user "1) Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. with no edit, using any account or anonymously, on English Wikipedia. 2) Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." None of these conditions have been satisfied here. An unblock request simply should not be enteratined under these circumstances, regardless of who filed it. Of course, it is extremely sad that we have an editor with valuable expert knowledge who has created a substantial amount of high quality Wikipedia content in the area of their expertise, but has exhibited a persistent pattern of incivility and personal attacks when dealing with even minor conflicts. But disregarding such problematic conduct issues is not the answer, and what has just transpired at User talk:67.198.37.16 shows that these issues aren't going to magically disappear by themselves just because we want them to. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking If Ritchie333 thinks that Linas can be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community, let him unblock the account in his individual capacity as an admin and let's see what happens. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• WP:IAR for the unblock as they've been helpfully contributing for quite a while. Add the condition that for any uncivil remark, it's an automatic 30 day block (and the IP). Any uncivil remark on the talk page adds another 30 days. If Linas can control their temper and their tongue, Wikipedia regains (formally) a useful editor. If not, no harm. Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support unblocking. This is long overdue. Wikipedia is a better place with Linas editing, as is clearly shown by his outstanding contributions as an IP user to mathematics articles. There are only 20,850 articles listed under Wikiproject Mathematics, and I dare say Linas' contributions cover a significant amount of them. Actually, from what I've seen in my experience with mathematics articles, Wikipedia already covers well most of the easy topics in Mathematics, and it is desperately in need of experts in Mathematics to write more complicated articles like Conservative system. Otherwise the mathematics side will become stale. I can assure that Linas is one of these experts, and it pains me to admit that he knows more about ergodic theory than I do. Finally, I've interacted with him a few times in the past, and they were all nice collaborations. Regardless of what happened in the past, it is crystal clear that he deserves a second chance. For those who disagree, please consider the possibility of giving them WP:ROPE. If Linas is as problematic as you are making him seem (he is not, at least not anymore), he will quickly hang himself. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a good endorsement, I see the passion with which you write and I'm honestly kind of inclined to support an unblock based on it. I have my concerns but it's not like he hasn't been editing here anonymously for five years by this point. If anything unblocking him will allow us to easily monitor him for continued behavioral violations. He'll have no rope left after such an extremely generous unblock. It would probably just renew the scrutiny he'll be under. It won't be easy for him. At the same time it will be throwing him just enough rope to have a second chance and integrate back into the community. He's already been editing without causing significant harm to the project, he's just trying to edit math articles as a hobby apparently. I hate everything about his responses to the block and the unblocking process, and to me it is sufficient evidence to shut this whole thing down and re-block his IP for block evasion. But maybe there's another way. Maybe we can bring him back into the fold with his main account, and the project will actually benefit more from his continued participation. First of all we need to establish whether he's able and willing to get back into his account. And for that, he needs to stop arguing and start participating in this discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking the account makes sense even if it won't be used as it would put en end to these contrived IP blocks. If Linas prefers to edit as an IP, why not let him edit as an IP? Has there been a single actual problem with any of his anonymous mainspace edits? Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a procedural issue, if he wants to edit as an IP, then who cares? But he's still a blocked user, and blocking his IPs for block evasion isn't "contrived", it's standard practice. Literally he just has to engage minimally and request an unblock. I really don't care if he want to edit from his IP. He just needs to show us he's capable of basic communication and basic dispute resolution. That's all this is right now. He's not giving us anything, even though people are sympathetic to an unblock. I'm at the point where I could support an unblock, but as of right now, unless he starts engaging like a human being, this thread is probably going to be closed or archived unsuccessfully and his IP will be re-blocked for block evasion until his block is lifted. There's simply no other way this is going to work. He's wasting our time at this point, he's playing games with us, and he's literally between getting an extraordinary pardon and being allowed to return, or being blocked long-term again, and no it will not be a mere six months this time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If blocking an IP with a history of five years of exemplary contributions for allegedly evading some eight-year-old block is "standard practice" then the "standard practice" needs to change because it defies common sense. In the meanwhile, let's unblock the account to prevent further procedural blocks on the IP. "He's not giving us anything" is a hair-raising thing to hear in this context; surely, the IP's mainspace contributions—the only thing that really matters at the end of the day—count for something? If the editor refuses to prostrate himself before us and ask forgiveness for his decade-old transgressions (an actual suggestion), good on him. He shouldn't have to, and anyone who claims otherwise deserves a good trouting. If this ends in the IP getting reblocked, shame on the blocking admin for choosing to press the button. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The exchange at the IP's talk page regarding this unblock request shows, IMO, that Linas has already, as you put it, "hung himself" when given a bif of a rope, and when faced with a situation which required some conflict management. He immediately went back to his old pattern from years ago, became belligerent and hostile, started accusing other editors of all sorts of things, including editors who came to support his case. As an IP, Linas had been edititing in a fairly quiet corner if Wikipedia: existing math articles on advanced topis mostly requiring a graduate degree or at least being a graduate student to understand them. Those articles attract little attention and conflicts there are rare, althouth they do occur (as ArbCom cases regarding MathSci show). If Linas is unblocked now and resumes editing from his main account, there is potential for significant further problems. For example, Linas (under his main account) used to be a prolific article creator. What happens if he creates some new articles and some random people doing NPP slap those articles with a bunch of maintenance tags, or heavens forbid, nominate one or two of them for AfD? It's perfectly fine to give Linas more WP:ROPE, but he first needs to give some indication that he understands that his prior behavior leading to his past blocks was inappropriate and that he promises to try to keep his temper in check and to assume AGF when dealing with others. Absent such commitment, and some explicit indication from Linas that he actually does want his main account unblocked, I don't see how this third-party unblock request can be granted. Nsk92 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal II

Back in December I requested a standard offer to be unblocked after not sock puppeting for a long time, which I was given, though my topic ban remained. After six months, I made a topic ban appeal which ended with no official consensus, but the reviewing admins agreed that I would need to edit more disputable areas and that I could appeal again in at least another three months. I had been focusing on volume of edits before, so this time I focused on editing in contentious subjects. It has now been over three months and I request that my topic ban be reviewed once again. --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Nosebagbear: who is the only user that partook in both of the discussions linked above --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support largely per this conversation on their talk page. They made a mistake, asked for clarification, and learned from it which is the exact kind of interaction I'd hope to see more of. Their edits since the block was lifted have largely been to talk pages which is good, because it shows productive discussion on controversial topics like Trump and racial tensions in the United States. Id' like to have seen more article edits, but everything I've seen so far makes me believe there's little risk in removing the topic ban even given the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose the ongoing issue is that since the last TBAN appeal, where more edits were specifically given as a need, there have only been 50 edits, most of them on Trump's talk page. The editor isn't behaving problematically, and they've clearly demonstrated some form of patience. It's already DS, but we could specifically authorise for the next 6 months the ability for any admin to reimplement the TBAN. Hmm. I'll have a think Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I recalled the main need being to edit constructively outside the TBAN area. I had also asked you for some sort of quota of edits to ensure this wouldn't be a concern in the future, and received no reply. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Steverci: Could you please comment in more detail on your plans if the TBAN is lifted? Do you have specific plans to resume active editing in on the topics of Armenia/Azerbaijan more or less right away? Or are you just asking for the TBAN to be lifted in order to be able to edit on those topics if at some point later you do want to do that? Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as vandalism like this which no one else noticed for a month. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeals of locked + blocked accounts

Dear English Wikipedia administrators,

I'm Martin Urbanec, one of the Wikimedia Stewards. It looks like it is not clear whether an appeal made by user who is both locked and locally blocked should be resolved first by the stewards, or by the local administrators.

It is the steward's understanding that a global lock in such cases is ultimately inherited from local actions, and that the stewards will always grant an unlock request, if it comes from an established community body, such as the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, or English Wikipedia administrators. While we can technically unlock users who are currently locally blocked to allow them to fill a local appeal, we think those unlocks should be always on temporary basis, and just for the purpose of filing an appeal. Furthermore, temporary unlocks are harder to coordinate, so we like to avoid them as much as possible.

However, a temporary unlock makes sense only for cases when the appeal procedure is only on-wiki. In case of English Wikipedia local blocks, the appeal can be resolved via WP:UTRS. As such, we do not think an temporary unlock is warranted – as the user doesn't need to access the account for filing the appeal. We would prefer if the English Wikipedia administrator handled such appeals first, and let the stewards know via m:SRG to unlock the account, if appeal is successful.

I hope this message makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. This is by no means set in stone, but an attempt to handle those cases in a coordinated way.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Stewards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Huh? I thought a global lock trumped a local block? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: Well, technically, yes. A global lock means an account is unable to login, so all local blocks don't matter - the locked account can't do anything, as no one can log into it.
  • However, that's only the technical side of things. According to stewards' policy, stewards do not override consensus. If a project wishes to let an individual in, they should be free to (unless the individual is globally banned by the Foundation or the global community - those cases are relatively rare through). I never witnessed a steward to reject an unlock request if it comes from an administrator/ArbCom – the local projects know best whether an individual should get another chance. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Martin Urbanec, could you give a ballpark estimate about how often this comes up? A couple of times a year? A couple of times a month? A week? I'm just curious how big of a problem this is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Liz: I'd say a couple of times per quarter, through I didn't collect any hard data about this one. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

    Martin Urbanec, any example accounts? Every global lock I have checked has been an obvious troll. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

    m:List of globally banned users? Or were you asking about global unlocks based on a local admin/arbcom's request? —Cryptic 01:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

    • Martin Urbanec, that helps a lot. Knowing that it occurs around ~12-15 times a year is a manageable situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Martin Urbanec: Gah. We at UTRS have been summarily sending appeals from the globally locked back to y'all. It's a Catch-22. We send them to you; you send them to us. Generally, these have been appeals that were declinable on their own lack of merit, without the global lock in place. A few must never be unblocked because of the nature of their behaviors. UTRS is less than ideal because it occurs, by design, outside of the community purview. Perhaps we need to change the way we do things. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Have you anyone in particular in mind? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much Catch-22. The last case I remember that eventually prompted me to send this message is the one that is in UTRS #36598. That one looks like unsuccessful anyway, but there was at least one case when the ArbCom accepted an appeal of a locked account, and the stewards unlocked it to let them back. Don't remember the details, I can look it up if interested. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. For the like I'll prompt them to more fully address the block reason until they have something reasonable, and then carry it to WP:AN. But what then, assuming a successful block appeal at AN? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an example, not one that turned out well, but it can still be used: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Unblock request review for AlexanderHovanec

  The user was blocked here for copyvios, BLP vios, socking, socking and more socking. The were also blocked on Commons and then flooded UTRS. Those 3 things led to them being globally locked. They requested an unblock here, which was never going to happen. But, for the sake of argument in this thread, let's say they were able to convince us to unblock. What was the point of the global lock? A Global Lock is reasonably easy to obtain: Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active. This tells me it is too easy to globally lock an account, and maybe local consensus should be reached to ask for it in the first place. Otherwise, a global lock seems to be nothing more than a bow on the box to make it look pretty, i.e. punitive rather than preventative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Bison X: A global lock is frequently applied to an account which does not have any positive contributions at any wiki they're contributing to. That is usually accompanied by local blocks. The lock in this case prevents the abuser from spreading to more wikis. However, there are cases when a local project decides to give someone a second chance. That cannot be anticipated. Applying the same argument, one could say "What was the purpose of the block if it was removed after all?".
  • Ad explicit consensus building, that's not really a way forward. Since February 2020, I locked about 25k accounts, and all the stewards together locked about 75k of accounts - that means more than 200 accounts locked per day. A global lock is almost exclusively applied in clear cut situations. For situations that are not clear, but there is a need to remove editing privilege from an individual globally, there are global bans as well. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Ah yes, AlexanderHovanec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I carried that request to WP:AN and it was declined. Actually, @Bison X:, this is not an example of what we are talking about. He can request unblocking at UTRS anytime after the standard six months. He is not banned at UTRS with no avenue of appeal. (See also UTRS appeal #30637, UTRS appeal #30600 and UTRS appeal #30529.) He placed a UTRS ticked after the debacle at WP:AN. He is not one of the problem, cyclical, abusive UTRS appeallants. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Pp-office-dmca

Can I use Template:Pp-office-dmca on my sandbox for testing purposes? --Oscar012723487 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The documentation for {{pp-office-dmca}} says that it’s not supposed to be used as a bluff, so the answer is probably no, even if you’re using it for testing purposes. Maka^⭐(talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Could an Admin please have a look at the WP:AIV backlog. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the bot is also slow to clean up the page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer VPNs

If I find an IP being used by a peer-to-peer VPN (P2P VPN):

1. How long do I block it for?

   I've heard some variant on "one week, then if it's still being used after that, two weeks, one month, two months, and so on", but I want to check.

2. What block message do I use?

   {{Blocked proxy}} may be close enough, but I don't know if a VPN-specific (or P2P-VPN-specific) template is merited.

3. Do I only block it if it's made edits? Only disruptive ones?

   The method I'll be using might turn up IPs that haven't (yet) been used to edit Wikipedia.

Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• (1) sounds fine but I have little experience blocking proxies; (2) if you're going to be blocking a lot, you may want to create a template, but whether it's worth it depends on the scale; (3) if you're sure it's a proxy, I don't think you need to wait for it to edit since we proactively block open proxies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• I would broadly agree with your suggestions for all of them.

1. P2P VPNs can be, by their nature, quite fleeting. Blocking initially for a week is very reasonable, there's a very good chance it'll have switched by that time anyway. Escalating blocks as you describe is the usual way of solving disruption from an IP we'd otherwise expect to be dynamic, and it probably works perfectly fine for this too.
2. {{Blocked proxy}} basically covers the idea. If you're going to do this systematically, then a slight variant of that basically just describing the specific situation might be reasonable, but ultimately the block is for the same reason. A P2P VPN is by its nature sometimes indistinguishable from a Tor-style open proxy.
3. You probably know this better than most. If your method is likely to reveal IPs that would be used similarly to the Tor-style open proxies we already routinely block, then pre-emptively blocking them is probably fine. If you're doing this via some other method that may pick out more proxy types without such a solid history of disruption, then something more cautious might be called for, but I can't personally envision a major difference in how we should handle these.

Ultimately, unless there's some major technical difference I'm missing, the world of P2P VPNs has substantial similarity to the concept of open proxies as we describe them. ~ mazca ^talk 00:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to agree with exactly what Mazca said above. Most of these I block will just be with 'vandalism', 'block evasion', or even 'anonblock' as the reason, instead of instigating the whole blocked proxy template (which can often end up confusing). I'd also suggest looking at past proxy bot BRfAs for ideas. Depending on the method, you might find fake IPs, already-blocked IPs, or even mainstream ISP proxies used by regular editors, and so I think caution should be exercised here and there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, darn - I forgot to also ask what block settings I should use, or if I should just copy settings from Twinkle or one of the proxy bots? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, a lot would say a hard block, which is generally what the proxy bots do, since the aim is to stop sockpuppets using the proxies. However, it's difficult to generalise too much. If you do that with residential (or mobile) IPs, especially if blocked for any length of time, it is likely you will get innocent collateral. For example, the proxy bots will never adjust a soft block into a hard block, because this has proved problematic in the past (again, have a look at the BRfAs). In reality, most of this type of dynamic IP vandalism relies on IP hopping, and editing with accounts are fairly rare, and so a soft block will often suffice. Really, it depends on the networks and types of IPs you're looking at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

is this vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Department_of_Education_of_Isfahan_Province&diff=986841789&oldid=986412313 Baratiiman (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_powers_(Iran)&diff=next&oldid=975762066 Baratiiman (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Not by my rather precise definition, although it might be seen as disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The first page was deleted in fawiki but the second page still is in fawikiBaratiiman (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

i was going to make a replica of this for iran Template:K-12 Education agencies in the US Baratiiman (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The devils advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=986841274 Baratiiman (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:General Department of Education of Isfahan Province#Talk

@Baratiiman: You are required to notify any editor whose work you discuss here. Did you do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

i did now Baratiiman (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Iran politics and prior discussion listed there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that I'm notified that this discussion is being opened, I would like to ask those who are going to take a look at this, take the fact into consideration that User:Baratiiman has so far opened such threads about me on a daily basis and on almost everywhere:

1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 164#Economy of Iran
2. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Pahlevun
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive416#User:Pahlevun reported by User:Baratiiman (Result: No violation)
4. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Isfahan
5. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Economy of Iran
6. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Fashion in Iran
7. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Recheck
8. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1078#Third opinion
9. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1080#Politics in Isfahan

I believe User:Baratiiman has a right to disagree with my edits but this mass filing of complaints without trying to build a consensus is not constructive. He has been previously warned by other editors that this behavior is harassment and he should stop it ([44], [45], [46]). Pahlevun (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if User:Baratiiman had asked me before making a complaint here (which he did not), I would have said that Triple powers (Iran) was a content fork of Politics of Iran. I have explained him about the other edit at Talk:General Department of Education of Isfahan Province. Pahlevun (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

lmao teahouse isn't a noticeboard and if i was a hyperactive editor i would have absolutely no problem getting checkedBaratiiman (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• User:Baratiiman should stop laughing his ass off, and read the room. They are one more ridiculous noticeboard filing away from being given a 1-way interaction ban. If (as I suspect, but cannot prove) this turns out to be importing a dispute from fa.wiki to here, then I support an indef block on Baratiiman. Add: looking at the SUL tool, it looks like this is NOT an imported dispute from fa.wiki. The i-ban warning stands. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam He is saying Isfahan Governorate should be a redirect to Interior ministry of iran is this cool? how is this cool? what's special about US education departments that isfahan department of education page lacks what is he talking about scholarly views in Iranian government page Baratiiman (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: That is a content dispute. you need to resolve the issue about the notability of the Governate at either Talk:Isfahan Governorate or the talk page of the interior ministry. As for your comparison to US education departments, the issues probably hinge about coverage in independent reliable sources, but that is a content issue, not a matter for administrative attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• What about the iranian governmentBaratiiman (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: How does the Iranian government factor into this discussion about editors' behaviour? —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Iranian government pageBaratiiman (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

More forum-shopping, now at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Follow-up to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Miggy72

Currently abusing talk page further while blocked. Needs revocation. --94.73.36.0 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

TPA revoked — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Committed identity / SHA-512 as a channel for phishing

At WP:Volunteer response team ticket:2020102910005751 a user requests an password reset based on offering to tell someone the {{Committed identity}} (passphrase for the SHA-512 hash) they posted on their userpage some years ago. The other claims are that this person lost password and no longer has email account access. There have been no edits to the account in 4 years. The request is suspicious for lots of reasons. My judgement is that there is no way this person could provide the passphrase and that they are phishing for access to an old well established account.

Associated with the Committed identity process there are few instructions for how anyone is supposed to get a password reset with a committed identity except to post on this noticeboard. I tried to elaborate at Template:Committed_identity/doc#Password_reset and started a discussion at Template_talk:Committed_identity#Documentation_of_how_to_use_this.

I wanted to post here because I expect if anyone else tries this, they too get directed to English Wikipedia admins. If anyone wants to review the process then post to that template's talk page.

Also, who has the ability to assign a new password to a new email address? English Wikipedia admins do not have this ability, and I question whether it is even within English Wikipedia's power to make policy on this. By the transclusion count there are 2700 instances of this template. To what extent is it even viable as a channel for regaining account access? From the talk page of that template, "Just wondering: Has this ever worked?" I think the answer might be no.

This user who writes in claims to have the passphrase to generate the hash, as I said. Who here checks this, and how can I send the phisher into that process? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: we don't have the technical capability to reset passwords, they can try to email ca(at)wikimedia.org, or file a phab request. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the correct venue for restoring access to an account. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: also to answer your question, there is 0% guarantee that a password reset will ever be honored. I do seem to remember a case where a committed identity was used locally for a resysop, and it certainly could help for a password reset if the account never had email set up and had been offline for many months. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What do "a user requests" and "The other claims" mean? Are you saying there are two different people trying to claim the same account? Do you know if the account ever had admin privileges? If so, someone trying to take it over might hope that would make it easy for them to become an admin in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kind of a tangent, but this thread made me reconsider how I use committed identities. I wrote a bit of a how to for my new strategy at User:Wugapodes/Committed identity. Using key pairs is probably overkill for most purposes, but it provides a way to give an arbitrary challenge to someone claiming to be me. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• This seems like an easy thing to handle. Just post a cut and paste reply saying that all claims of identity based upon committed identity / SHA-512 will be ignored unless they contain a passphrase that resolves to the correct SHA-512 value. If the passphrase[47] is sufficiently long they have one chance in

13,407,807,929,942,597,099,574,024,998,205,846,127,479,365,820,592,393,377,723,561,443,

721,764,030,073,546,976,801,874,298,166,903,427,690,031,858,186,486,050,853,753,882,811,

946,569,946,433,649,006,084,096 (I have a really good calculator) of getting it right.

After someone proves their identity, the password reset should also advise them to pick a new committed identity / SHA-512 passphrase and update their user page with the new hash. That way nobody can get it by threatening or bribing someone at the W?F. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I just always assumed I would send the passphrase to the ArbCom for sorting. Has the requestor presented the passphrase? That's all it should take for an unblock. Lost email access? SOunds like they've nee to create a new account and identify the old account as such. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: ArbCOm, met hinks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I met hinks once, in Niagra Falls! Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just had a look at the ticket, I'm almost 100% certain this is a scammer/phishing attempt. Probably best to ignore. -FASTILY 21:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-administrator comment: I'm pretty familiar with the password reset procedure. The MediaWiki interface intentionally has no interface allowing to change password of someone else - it's too dangerous in case someone's credentials are compromised. It needs to be done via the commandline and as such, the only entity that can do so is the sysadmins. The Trust and Safety team is responsible for evaluating all password reset requests, and any such requests can be forwarded to cawikimedia.org. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I have informed Trust and Safety about this incident, and they will take any necessary actions. Some nonpublic details are in the ticket, available to OTRS agents. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

French Revolution

Talk:French Revolution (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_Behaviour,_Source_Deletion,_and_Article_Neutrality_(French_Revolution)

I am posting this here rather than at WP:ANI because there has not been any conduct violation, but I am requesting administrative attention because things have been difficult there for about a month. The main content dispute is whether a paragraph on American influence should be kept in the lede. It appears to be agreed that a discussion about that is needed in the body, but the question has to do with what is due weight in the lede. There was a discussion at WP:ANI a few weeks ago that ended with a boomerang, but that is in the past.

I tried to help by formulating a Request for Comments. I also tried to open a second DRN thread, whose only purpose was to formulate one or more RFCs, but there was a well-meaning and misguided effort to divert discussion from the RFC to the DRN. I then had to fail the DRN in order to allow the RFC to continue on the talk page. There was a flurry of concern and confusion within the past 24 hours when a change was made to the paragraph in question. It appears that it has been agreed that the RFC is still running and will run until 27 November. I don't think that any immediate administrative action is needed at this time, because it is agreed that the RFC will run for the standard thirty days. We know that what we want in a discussion of the French Revolution is to avoid having to use the guillotine. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like an accurate assessment to me, and a call for profile-raising, and watchful waiting, both of which seem like a good idea. Also agree that nothing is needed at this time. Thanks as ever for your good offices. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting notifications of the discussion to seek further views at WT:HISTORY, WT:MILHIST and WT:FRANCE if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Nick-D - User:Mathglot posted neutrally worded notices of the RFC at those projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, is this still going on? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:MJL - Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am also surprised that this ball keeps rolling. I await the result of the RfC, hoping (naively) that once it is resolved, that the subject is never brought again. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So far the arguments for not including the statements in question have not been very reasonable. We have the usual claims of not-enough weight, which at this point doesn't hold much water considering all the sources that have covered the American involvement prior to and during the French Revolution. There is also the argument that this idea is not covered in a selection of encyclopedias, which by itself, doesn't amount to anything in the scholastic world when we, again, consider all the scholarly works written by French and other scholars. The (many) points that support keeping the statement in the lede have largely been ignored. As such, there has been next to no reciprocal discussion. Just claims. The decision to keep or delete should be based on the soundness of the arguments, and thus far, the arguments to delete are not very compelling when all the facts and sources are considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that a better place to argue for or against the inclusion of a paragraph in the lede of an article is the talk page of the article, unless you are calling attention to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Other than the edit that removed the statements in question in the lede, before the RFC was concluded, and restored, I've seen no such editing to the article. My issue at this juncture is that the points presented are not being addressed -- ignored. If this is not the place to present arguments, I'll confine the debate to the Talk page. All that is asked is that the facts and sources be considered. Thus far they have been roundly ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of impropriety just because they don't agree with your arguments. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Big oops

Looks like its the stocks for you [1] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it took me nearly nine admin years but I finally broke something I don't know how to fix. While I meant to delete an image related to Celebrity Juice, I accidentally deleted the article itself. I tried to restore it (all 1,458 revisions), but am getting a database error. Whelp! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Steward speaking :-). I'll take care of it. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! And we shall never speak of this again...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetically, would it have been possible to do a piecewise history restore? Like only restoring ~100 revisions at a time or something? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. I've had to do that before; generally you can get away with ~500 revisions at a pop (if the server kittens are happy). Primefac (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Restored — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :-). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec and JJMC89: I've also restored the Wikidata item. Sometimes I find it helps to restore just the most recent revision first ... a page refresh/reload used to help too, but not so much in the past few months. Graham87 04:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing POV and disruptive edits

However consensus on the page Arameans after 2 RFC's about the status of the page being inadequate was reached. user:Mugsalot keeps making disruptive edits and was also the only person during both RFC's to oppose it.

Yet the user still reverts edits back under the term 'reverted vandalism' to show himself as the goodguy. Kikkererwtje (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No consensus was reached to support restoration of an incredibly poor edit. Please note accusing user is being investigated as a sockpuppet (1). Mugsalot (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached for a seperation of the ancient and modern group. The current page is going about the modern people and a new page about these people their history will be created and also stop making personal attacks, besides me 4 other uninvolved users voted for a seperation of ancient and modern people, while you being the only one to oppose this.Kikkererwtje (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at CfD

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	40	0	40
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	24	0	24
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	54	0	54
AfD	0	0	12	0	12

There is a huge backlog of 194 nominations at WP:CfD. Most of these discussions should be relisted, starting with the oldest discussions, but I will list at WP:ANRFC the ones that appear to have reached a clear consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Please don't spam ANRFC with CFD discussions; that's not what that's there for. I offered to help and no-one reached out to clarify. :^) --Izno (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Eh, I decided to stop at the end of September. There are too many open CfDs after that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't specify what exactly is unclear about the instructions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole damn thing is a hot mess. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If you can believe it, the backlog is at a bit of a low point compared to where it's been the past months. The past half year, I think the lowest point it was at was like 50 or so, which is still a backlog. I have been wondering about perhaps inviting some people who have experience closing CFDs to produce a shortened guide (maybe like a Q&A of some sort) in order to possibly recruit more admins to help out here. bibliomaniac15 19:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggested this at WT:RFC but: maybe CfD should allow a broader range of NAC closes like TfD does (incl delete closes)? Just spitballing. This hasn't been a problem at TfD seemingly, and it's been in place there for 2 yrs. May well lower the backlogs at CfD too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncontroversial CfD NAC closes are welcome, the results should be reported at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've thought of helping out at CfD but have also found the instructions overly complicated. Maybe they need to be like that but they are daunting. Closing a discussion is straight-forward but it's handling the aftermath that is confusing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the biggest single thing that could be done her is actually making WP:XFDC work properly at CfD. There is so much manual work for every close, especially when you don't have access to CFDW, that I quit closing because of it. --Trialpears (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

re CFDW, perhaps Danny's Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Lowering_protection_and_nacs suggestion could be reconsidered? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a non-starter because it would be tantamount to giving non-admins access to the delete button. If you want to delete things, you need to start an RfA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, an access list was proposed, not giving everyone the ability. But XFDC being able to copy closes to the CFDW talk page automatically, to be manually added, may also be an improvement I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The "access list" should strictly be admins only, who are the only ones who have been properly vetted to be able to delete things. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This would be a great opportunity for those editors whose names would be on the list to consider an RFA ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for help with CBS Sunday Movie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CBS Sunday Movie

"Longtime" editor Mrschimpf keeps adding original research and unsourced text (basically nonsense about CBS's scheduling methodology) and refuses to discuss this on the Talk Page. He makes mathematically impossible claims, such as the idea that movies have to run under 2 hours but yet CBS adds a sitcom if a movie can't stretch to 2.5 hours with commercials. I have already pointed out to him that CBS scheduled Ferris Bueller's Day Off for 2.5 hours and Star Trek Beyond for 3 hours, thereby two instances where movies run longer than the supposed 2-hour limit. Thank you for your assistance!136.49.157.251 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've moved on from this specifically so I don't breach WP:3RR and because there are more important things here to edit than arguing about the scheduling of a limited-run television film block that nobody will care about once the pandemic has ceased and regular CBS program scheduling/series production has resumed. I already told the IP as such after their last reversion, yet they continue to belittle; this is in no way anything that needs to be posted on AN (though 136. didn't leave notice of an AN post on my talk page). Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ignore comments on an article's Talk Page and blithely continue making unsourced, erroneous additions?136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledged in an edit summary I read the talk page and used the link you gave there to assert the scheduling. Once again; done editing this, so belaboring this is pointless. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, as a "longtime" editor, you know a disputed edit should be discussed on the Talk Page instead of making constant, useless edits. Your behavior amply demonstrates that you deserve to be reported to the administrators.136.49.157.251 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• This hardly is an issue for AN, IP: for future reference please see the many ways disputes can be resolved. Though @Mrschimpf:, I don't think it would hurt for you to get involved in the talk page, communication is required. I also do question the value of using a tv schedule as a source (or the fact that the info in contention appears entirely unsourced). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is why I've ended my dispute with this; there's no point in belaboring the point or the schedule overall. Someone please close this so we can all move on (I tried to and have, five hours ago). Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Phil Bridger

For about the last month @Phil Bridger: has been on a concerted smear campaign to paint me as a racist because I have nominated some articles related to subjects in Africa for deletion. Including saying in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavory agenda here" because of the nomination and saying in this PROD removal "I hope it's not racism." There are other examples of him making similar insinuation also. He did the same thing in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21, where he was fine repeating himself that there was racist intent behind my behavior, but then when I attempted to explain myself and he was asked by other users users about what he said, including @Lev!vich:, it suddenly wasn't the appropriate place to discuss things. He was unwilling to discuss things in the AfD either and I had no way of defending myself against the changeset comments.

He continued the campaign today by posting a message about it on the Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21 talk page. Where he included a running tally of my PRODs, AfDs, and the continents of where the subjects of them are located. Which is clearly a case of WP:HOUNDING. Since it's specifically targeting me and my changesets. More so because he has not complained about things through the normal, good faithed, channels like my talk page or ANI. Plus, he has been completely unwilling to accept the explanation I gave for my actions multiple times. While he has claimed that he is merely showing "skepticism" about my nominations, it's pretty clear how he is acting goes beyond that and is an intentional smear campaign to make me look bad and get me blocked from nominating articles and in no way was his initial stance to assume good faith like he claims it was, because he has being accusing me of racism for a while now, if not since I started nominating the articles. At this point I'd just like the WP:HARASS campaign to end. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these points. Phil has given me a hard time from the beginning, and if what this person said is true it's hard to defend. I've had no luck persuading him of anything, not one thing. I want to say this to everyone in the world: Stop accusing people of racism. Just stop it. It helps no one. Second, Don't be Mrs. Kravitz. Do your own work, get your own house in order. Third, if you want more commentary on AFDs and related subjects, click on my name.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation for this comment too. If Phil is going insinuate that the OP is being racist, he needs to be prepared for some pushback. It is not acceptable to refer to another editor as a nasty piece of work and the attack on Adamant1's English skills was clearly uncalled-for. It's bizarre that the admin who closed that AfD warned the OP but said nothing about Phil's incivility. Unless Phil has strong evidence to support his accusations, he needs to stop judging motives and stick to evaluating the articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It is precisely my posting of such evidence at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21 that the OP seems to be objecting to. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I must point out that I said that DRV was not the place to discuss behaviour in my very first edit to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21. And the OP's response to my asking why African schools are being targeted has been that the deletion nominations have in fact been of schools in all parts of the world with no distinction being made about where they are. My evidence shows that that is extremely unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Just another example of keep voters being allowed to say what they like about people while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Drawing battle lines between "keep voters" and "delete voters" is the bigger underlying issue. Darkknight2149 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Quite. Most of us who participate in AfD's don't automatically vote "keep" or "delete" but evaluate each topic that we comment about on its merits. For example in the past week I have voted "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allyson Stewart-Allen (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tereza Østbø Kuldova. In the same period have made no "keep" votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (sorry for the length, but it got a little off track) I don't think anyone would argue that there are certain people/groups (mainly ARS) have a preference for certain outcomes. Personally, I have no problem saying I'm more on the delete side when it comes to my actions at AfD because that's the purpose in it. Articles that are in great shape that meet the notability guideline just aren't sent there. It's not "articles for keeping the same" or "articles that no one cares about." That aside, it's just a reality that keep voters make less guideline based arguments and more ideologically based ones. For instance citing essays, personal preferences, inherent notability etc. etc. And that having such a mindset, instead of just voting based on belief systems rather then the particular guideline based merits of any one single article, will natural veer into evaluations of the nominator etc. etc. as they get more desperate to "just keep everything." Particular when it comes to people in ARS who have been open about the fact that it's they are in a sort of religious battle to "protect Wikipedia from destruction" or whatever. Personal attacks will naturally come out of such a battleground, self-righteous (not in a derogatory way), crusader mentality. If nothing else out of desperation to "save Wikipedia." Such desperation doesn't allow much for rational thinking. 99% of the attacks are made on nominators also, and it's just a fact that delete voters probably aren't going to attack a nominator. It should also be obvious that no one has a problem or is discussing the people who aren't a problem. It's kind of a deflection to act like anyone is.

More on topic, I've said a few times that I am currently doing AfDs/PRODs for secondary schools because the notability guidelines around them changed in the last few years, there's a lot of "cruft" around them that needs to be gotten rid of now, and I'm improving lists related to them. I've also made it clear that I'm specifically doing AfDs/PRODs on secondary schools in Africa right specifically because A is the first letter of the alphabet, Africa is the first place listed in Lists of schools by country, and due to my organizational and attention span shortcomings it's just easier to go down the list systematically then pick random countries/schools, loss track of what I'm doing or where I'm at, and never make any progress on anything. So, as I've said repeatedly, I could give a crap less what continent the schools are located in outside of that, but it's purely convivence/time management calculation that I'm working on African schools right now. Therefore, it has nothing to do with racism or anything related to it. I'll probably be on to South America in a few weeks and then someone else besides Phil Bridger (or maybe it will still be him) will complain that I'm being racist against South Americans. The problem wasn't the accusation in the first place anyway, it was the way you went about it and your unwillingness to accept my explanation. It's fine to be skeptical about why someone is doing something. It's not fine using said skepticism to work backwards from your own conclusions and do a smear campaign of someone based on them. While ignoring any rational reasons for what they are doing, explanations by them, and people calling you out for the slander. Which is what you did. Plus, there was the other snide, personal comments on top of it that there was really no reason to make. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining your modus operandi. I am pleased to see that your recent nominations of almost only African schools for deletion is simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister. I do not, despite your claims to having said it a few times before, recall you previously explaining this in any discussion where I am involved, so I am glad that you have done so now. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Adamant1: This is honestly the type of dividing generalisation I was referring to above. "Articles that are in great shape that meet the notability guideline just aren't sent there." As someone who has been frequenting there a bit more lately, I can tell you for a certainty that notable articles being sent there is nothing out of the ordinary if they are poorly written. I have also observed instances of people taking the nominator's word for it until someone points out the coverage. "That aside, it's just a reality that keep voters make less guideline based arguments and more ideologically based ones" I'm not sure if you have seen the number of low quality fiction-related AfDs, but it has actually been the reverse lately. Many of them are simply subjective declarations of importance, don't understand how notability works, fail to cite a legitimate policy-based rationale at all, straight up ignore certain policies/guidelines (WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN being common ones), or have waved the word "fancruft" around without much (if any) substantiation. The only reason many of these nominations get support is because the same small handful of users has been mindlessly voting "delete" on every one with the same cookie-cutter copy/paste reasons (even on weaker nominations). This often happens faster than outside users show up. The lack of quality control at fiction-based nominations is a big enough issue that I am probably going to propose some sort of reform when my immediate work at User:Darkknight2149/Untitled Hellraiser reboot is finished. That's not to say that there haven't problems with recurring inclusionists as well, but the over-generalisations and approaching AfD with an "us vs. them" battleground mentality (as if Keep or Delete are be-all/end-all solutions) really needs to stop. Darkknight2149 19:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• First, shouldn't this be at ANI instead of AN? Second, Phil Bridger isn't the problem here. Over the past couple weeks, Adamant1 has been "cleaning up" African school articles by removing all unsourced entries and red-linked schools, even if they had a verified reference next to them: [48] That page has gone from [49] to [50] in less than a day. It's not just Ethiopia - Adamant1 removed 8,000 bytes from List of schools in Botswana by only including blue-linked schools in the list, which is neither required nor necessary for lists. While I agree that list needed better referencing, I don't think anyone expected list cleanup to be "delete any school which doesn't have an article." They then PRODed a number of schools, some of which were clearly notable such as University of Bechar, some which aren't clearly notable on their face but are clearly notable with a simple and proper BEFORE search such as University of Bejaia, and a number of secondary schools from over the continent. They have nominated 13 school articles at AfD this month: [51] of which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Boumerdès closed without a single other user !voting delete. The entire conflict appears to have started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda, specifically here which is what Phil Bridger responded to. What we have here is a really bad attempt at school cleanup by Adamant1 (failed BEFORE searches leading to a number of notable schools being PROD-ed or listed at AfD, the school list destruction), a number of users (including myself and Phil Bridger) that a user removing large chunks of African school lists and incorrectly nominating a number of African school articles is biased in some way (I'm satisfied with the explanation that it's the start of the alphabet) and then Adamant1 displaying a general battleground mentality. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I strongly recommend Phil Bridger not be sanctioned in any way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Reviewing these, all the targetted articles seem to be those sourced with only primary sources (from the schools themselves) which per WP:NORG fail notability tests as well as general WP:V policy. They aren't doing anything wrong per se here. --Masem (t) 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree the articles are in terrible shape, but to relate this back to the US, if I tried to prod say Hoisington High School or Ellinwood High School I would get wikitazed. Most of the subjects of the articles do appear to be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What Masem said is exactly right. Other people in the AfDs agreed with me that there weren't any usable sources, including people who are usually pretty on the keep side of things. While all SportingFlyer has been able to come up with in most of the AfDs is random trash that doesn't work for notability. Like the Pope writing one of the schools a letter, a newspaper listing the scores of one schools sports team, and a website name dropping one of them in a few picture captions. None of that makes any of them notable. Let alone would it justify Phil slandering me everywhere as probably a racist anyway even if a few of the articles do turn out to be notable. Same goes for the PRODs being removed. Which BTW all of them were removed by a single user. Who wrote an article in his user space all about how secondary schools are inherently notable and should be kept even if there aren't any sources about them available. 100% it's not on me if someone who is clearly bias about secondary schools and has an agenda to keep everything related to them removes my PRODs. I swear the amount of Strawmaning, nominator blaming, and other type of deflecting keep voters when one of their own being called out is completely ridiculous. At least your willing to give me the benefit of the doubt about the alphabetical thing, but it's not helpful to put this on me just because a few articles that haven't even been closed yet might be notable. Especially when it's pretty likely they aren't and I've had plenty of other articles on secondary schools that weren't steam rolled deleted anyway. The fact is Phil should have resolved the issue through normal channels instead of slandering me everywhere, period. BTW, with my removal of entries from lists, last I checked they have to be "reliably sourced" and all of them were sourced with the websites of the schools. Which aren't considered reliable. I left plenty of blue links and even some that had independent references. So, the complaint that I'm systemically removing valid items from lists is yet another strawman. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, about that: for example, you turned a reliably sourced list (this diff into this diff.) Why was it reliably sourced? There were four references at the top of the page, and even though three of them are broken, not only was one not broken, but the broken links were easily fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add, there's also this diff from October 14th where Phil called me a lier and said that anything not in alignment with his opinion was "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" of Wikipedia that would lead to it becoming a popular culture compendium. So it should be obvious to anyone that he has said things about me he shouldn't have and that he has a battleground mentality about this. Accusing other users that you disagree with of being liers, anti-intellectual, and saying that they are dumbing-down Wikipedia clearly isn't appropriate. But hey, it's cool because some PRODs were contested...right... --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. Which is a page from Times Higher Education with a few hundred words of prose and some statistics, primary or extremely trivial? It is obviously neither, so your statement simply was a lie. And how is deleting an article on an accredited, ranked university with over 30,000 students anything other than "anti-intellectual dumbing-down"? Start thinking about the real world, the actual topics of the articles you are trying to delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we take a random paragraph out of it, I know, how about "As well as this the university also works to provide a series of recreational facilities in order to foster a strong student culture and identity. A range of cultural, sporting and scientific activities are held throughout the year, celebrating both domestic and international events." Seriously dude, what the hell is not extremely trivial about a school having a range of cultural and sporting activities? WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD THE PRESSES PEOPLE!!! THE SCHOOL CELEBRATES EVENTS. SAVE THE ARTICLE NOW!! @Bring back Daz Sampson: the reason I did the WP:WALLOFTEXTs above is because Phil didn't get it the four times I was clear and concise about the fact that racism had nothing to do with my edits. I swear to Christ this whole thing is just completely ridiculous Strawmaning. You have 17 (17!) instances of Phil saying rude crap down below, but this whole thing is my fault because I deleted a couple of list items that were cited to school websites and wrote a couple of long messages. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm with Phil on this one. In Adamant1's second and third WP:WALLOFTEXTs above, they seem to be simultaneously complaining about other users' WP:BATTLEGOUND tendencies, while throwing out wild aspersions about "keep voters". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• The suggestion that because someone deletes articles in Category:Foo or entries off a List of Foo, means that they are anti-Foo, or it's OK to suggest/insinuate/ask them if they are anti-Foo, is ridiculous. It's the very opposite of WP:AGF. Phil has been too uncivil, too often, recently, towards multiple editors:
  1. Sep 8: "You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here."
  2. Sep 8 x2: "Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are ... And if you really don't have the English comprehension to know what "Western Anglophone countries" means then you are not qualified to be editing an English-language encyclopedia."
  3. Oct 14: "Just go on an anger-management course or something rather than carry on with this complete lack of self-awareness."
  4. Oct 14 again: "Just stop telling such lies ... Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down ..."
  5. Oct 19: "The fact that you appear to be monolingual doesn't mean that the majority of people in the world are not."
  6. Oct 19 x2: "+notable, to avoid the otherwise inevitable response from the ignoramus who started this discussion"
  7. Oct 19 x3: "... I can only conclude that this campaign against African schools and universities is based on something other than evidence - I hope it's not racism"
  8. Oct 22: "... there seem to be several editors who take delight in finding a reason to delete articles about schools outside the Anglophone West."
  9. Oct 23: Denying (sort of) that he accused Adamant1 of racism in the Sep 8 comments here (despite making the insinuation yet again in the same comment) and here (arguing purportedly in his defense that the suggestion of racism was made in a different part of the same Sep 8 comment)
  10. Oct 24: "I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist, but just that the objective outcome of this work is to exacerbate institutional racism."
  11. Oct 25: "I am pleased to see that your recent nominations of almost only African schools for deletion is simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister."
  12. Oct 25 x2: "... your statement simply was a lie. And how is deleting an article on an accredited, ranked university with over 30,000 students anything other than "anti-intellectual dumbing-down"? Start thinking about the real world, the actual topics of the articles you are trying to delete."
  13. Oct 25 x3: "Please think before you write."
  14. Oct 25 x4: "Luckily (from both sides) I am not you. I am perfectly capable of multi-tasking."
  15. Oct 25 x5: "It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence." - this one is not so bad, but in the context of all the other stuff he's saying about Adamant (which is most, but not all, of the above), and the fact that it's continuing even today, while this ANI thread is going on, shows that things are out of control.
  16. Oct 25 x6: "... Otherwise just stop posting, or (and this would be a first) admit that you were mistaken." - same as previous
  17. And this Oct 25 comment to a just-blocked editor is gravedancing: "It seems, from your sudden change of character shown in this unblock request, that my comment at this page here was correct, in that a block is the only thing that will stop you acting disruptively." Lev!vich 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

      I don't consider that last one gravedancing, and commenting on an open block appeal not at all. That's a seriously disruptive editor who gaslights about their behavior in unblock requests, and the comment was hardly incivil. Grandpallama (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

      I don't think that "I told you so" is an OK thing to say to a blocked user, even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they deserved the block. :-) Aside from that, sixteen is still too much in six weeks. Six would be too much in six weeks. Lev!vich 01:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

      It's not an "I told you so," as the previous sentence made clear; you only quoted the second. It's an argument against unblocking, alongside my and another editor's arguments, which the admin took into consideration. Grandpallama (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

      In the last six weeks, Phil has accused Adamant1 of: "an unsavory agenda" (#1), being "a nasty piece of work" and lacking sufficient English comprehension to edit enwiki (#2), needing anger management and a "complete lack of self-awareness" (#3), "telling such lies" and "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" (#4), racism (#7), exacerbating institutional racism (#10) (and then denied making accusations of racism in #9), something "more sinister" (#11), lying and not thinking about the real world (#12), not thinking before writing (#13), blatantly denying obvious evidence and being impossible to hold a civilized discussion with (heh) (#15), and failing to admin mistakes (#16). Phil accused Vmavanti of being monolingual (lulz) (#5) and an ignoramus (#6). Phil accused Telsho of being unable to multitask (#14) and then after Telsho was blocked, posted "Telsho, just a few hours ago you were making edits like this, telling me that I shouldn't comment because of an unsubstantiated report at WP:AN. It seems, from your sudden change of character shown in this unblock request, that my comment at this page here was correct, in that a block is the only thing that will stop you acting disruptively." (#17), which I maintain is an "I-told-you-so". Phil also accused unspecified editors of xenophobia (#8). Altogether, this is a heap of abuse towards three editors, mostly Adamant1. Lev!vich 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

      I didn't say anything about the other diffs. I said the categorization of opposing a block appeal by citing a disruptive user's personal attacks as gravedancing is erroneous, because it's not gravedancing. And based upon the subsequent edits at that talkpage, at least one admin agrees. It does make me suspicious about whether the other diffs presented here are also missing relevant context, though. Grandpallama (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

      YMMV, but I don't think that one questionable diff negates the validity of the other sixteen. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt there is any context where it's appropriate to insinuate other users are racists, xenophobes, Nazis, Etc. Etc. At least not as far as the guidelines are concerned. They don't have a "do on unto others" clause in them. We are all responsible for our own behavior. Personally, I take full reasonability for PRODing non-notable schools and deleting badly referenced items from lists. I think Phil should do the same and take responsibility for his bad comments. Weirdly despite him supposedly wanting to discuss this in the "proper" channels I have yet to see him address anything he's said yet. Instead he's just let you and other people defend him. While throwing in a few more backhanded comments about me in the meantime. If there was a "context" that would excuse his actions, he should be able to point it out. I don't see him doing so though. Let alone has he even acknowledged he said anything wrong in the first place. I wonder why that would be.... --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Then there's this statement that people who don't show WP:BEFORE enough worshipful reverence must think of themselves as an Übermensch. That word has a lot of nasty fascist connotations, which was likely the point. I for one am tired of !voting delete on some bit of pop culture crap being equated to Nazi book burning. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE is simply a reminder to understand existing policies and guidelines, and consider alternatives to deletion. Regardless of whether or not it is technically a requirement, the policies and guidelines are not as negotiable, including those that state "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page", "article content does determine notability", "notability is not determined by the quality of sourcing in the article", "fixable problems don't amount to deletion", and "Wikipedia is not a final draft". With that mind, I'm struggling to see a good faith reason for someone to have a problem with BEFORE, that doesn't amount to Wiki-lawyering to sidestep scrutiny. Darkknight2149 23:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow. It's like he skipped over the whole comparing you to a Nazi thing and made this about how your just unable to handle someone asking you to do a BEFORE. The fuggg. Talk about obfuscation. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The user in question actually has a history of bashing BEFORE, so my comment didn't come out of nowhere. More pertinently to you, what I will say is that (as uncalled for as some of Phil's statements clearly are), you yourself have demonstrated a battleground mentality throughout this thread and I'm not the only one who has observed this. Matthew 7:3 and all that. Darkknight2149 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that your at least willing to say "some" of Phil's statements are un-called for. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The racism accusations, and a lot of the badgering, is certainly uncalled for. Several of the quotes listed by Levivich above are also too personal personal and not at all helpful/constructive. Others I need more context for before I can make a judgement. I agree with Grandpallama that the last bulletpoint doesn't look like gravedancing on the face of it, but maybe others know more about that situation than I do. Darkknight2149 02:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no comment on the other examples, but weighing in against an unblock appeal by citing a blocked editor's behavior toward you is in no way gravedancing. Grandpallama (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy. Lev!vich 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• If we're going to compile a list of incivil comments from Phil Bridger, surely we should do the same to Adamant1?
  1. 21 July "It's pretty clear you don't give a crap about the guidelines or doing this the proper way. So, I'm done discussing it."
  2. 8 September "If you think I'm specifically targeting African's with my AfDs though, feel free to report me for it. Otherwise, go take a long walk off a short pier."
  3. 12 September "I'd call his 15 line AfDs screeds where he insults other users instead of talking about guidelines an unwarranted overreaction to his fear that these articles will be deleted, but to each his own I guess."
  4. 15 September "I didn't know a random page in someone's user space was authoritative as to what's notable. "eye roll.""
  5. 13 October "Hey now, where's the fake outrage about Telecart commenting 16 times? Come on man. If your going to be a shitlord about things, at least have the integrity to be consistent about it."
  6. 25 October "Everything you said is drivel. Ypu should go find other things to do instead of badgering delete voters with utter nonsense, because its not helpful."
  7. 25 October "Like I said, let the AfD play out and go find something else to do in the meantime. It will go how it goes without you mouthing off everywhere."

Now, in all fairness, I don't think Adamant1 is habitually incivil, he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance. Nevertheless, I would recommend a close re-read of WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, yup, and Adamant deserves the warning you gave for those comments. Phil's made twice as many comments like that. Surely, he deserves a warning, too? Lev!vich 13:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but looking at this objectively I fail to see how 6 sarcastic comments over a 6 month period (that were directed at a bunch of different users) is even comparably to 17 clearly rude and personally attacking ones in the last month (where most of them were targeting a single user). Sure, if I had said anything even remotely along the lines of "I hope your not editing articles because your a racist" to the same user multiple times over a two month period (even after they asked me more then once to leave them alone), then I'd agree my complaint should just be dropped. I don't think this should be closed without anything happening or be a wash just because I a wrote a comment that ended in "eye role" and sarcastically asked someone to leave me alone who had insinuated multiple times that I was racist though. In no way is my behavior comparable to his. Especially since some of his rude comments, like comparing people to Nazi's, didn't even have anything to do with me.

Frankly, I find you trying to make our behavior equal so that this can be dropped (without even a warring to Phil) rather weird. Even more so though considering that you called me out for supposedly personally attacking Phil (which was questionable) in AfD, but then for some reason you had nothing to say about his obviously rude comments toward me. Even people in the deletion review agreed that they were rude and that he should have been called out for them. Just like people have agreed the same here. Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either. BTW, I would have the same opinion if I had nothing to do with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either. And this sort of bullshit is exactly why I'd support a boomerang proposal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Honestly, I was just about to strike it out when you commented. I agree it was probably un-called and not necessary. That said, before the AfD he had warned me about my sarcasm on my talk page and then singled me out in the AfD close. So, I have zero problem saying that likely he was judging my behavior in the AfD, and not considering Phil's, based on the fact that he had already given me a warning. Which, while understandable, still isn't being objective. My guess is that you probably would have supported a boomerang proposal even if I hadn't of said it though (again, probably unnecessary, but likely true). BTW, the only thing I've "proposed" is that Phil stop harrassing me and insinuating people are racist. Personally, I could really care less how that's done. If the "boomerang proposal" is that I don't harress him then great, because I wasn't anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• A large number of diffs were provided by Levivich here, but as I detailed earlier in this discussion, one of them immediately stood out to me as questionable and taken out of context. So I did a little more digging into this "evidence" and found, not to my particular surprise, that the 'evidence' is mostly bullshit.
  1. Phil questions Adamant1's motivations. At best, that could (weakly) be considered casting aspersions around targeting African schools, which Phil has pointed out in this very thread Adamant1 refused to explain/justify until now
  2. Levivich condemns Phil for calling Adamant1 a "nasty piece of work", but leaves out what Phil was responding to: Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier or something; the Anglophone comment isn't great, but it's what I'd expect in a heated exchange in response to, well, a nasty piece of work
  3. Levivich provides an example of Phil saying Adamant1 should take an anger management course, but ignores the preceding comments, including Bishonen pointing out Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions, Adamant1? The article (which somebody wrote, you know (namely me)) is "nonsensical" and "junk" according to you, and now other people's arguments are "transparently ridiculous". Have you noticed that most other people who give their opinion here do so quite politely? Please don't lower the tone. to which Adamant1 responded I'm sorry your offended by my feedback that aspects of "your" article don't make sense and are meaningless. Maybe learn from it and create a better article next time. Although, probably you shouldn't if you can't even handle pretty milk toast comments like mine.
  4. Phil is critiqued for telling Adamant1 to stop telling lies; since Phil then provided direct evidence of how Adamant1 was being untruthful, this is hardly problematic. And the complaint about "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" isn't presented in its entirety, and the context matters: And of course proper, real universities are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down that would lead Wikipedia to become a popular culture compendium rather than an encyclopedia.
  5. The monolingual accusation isn't great. On the other hand, context is again important, since Phil is refuting the ridiculous argument that only English-language sources may be used on the English Wikipedia by a user who just said in the same discussion And if you want to read about German musicians in German, then you can read the German Wikipedia in German.
  6. Agreed, that's an uncivil edit summary. To the editor who, again, was saying articles about Germans should stay on the German wiki. Which is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
  7. Again, until this discussion, Adamant1 refused to explain why they were targeting African schools. Which should alarm us, rather than cause us to seek punitive measures against an editor expressing concern. The full edit summary, which explains Phil's ongoing concerns, wasn't shared, either (bolding mine): the very first Google Books hit for this was significant coverage in an independent reliable source, so I can only conclude that this campaign against African schools and universities is based on something other than evidence - I hope it's not racism
  8. Phil says "there seem to be several editors who take delight in finding a reason to delete articles about schools outside the Anglophone West", but it's not directed at an editor. So where's the personal, uncivil attack?
  9. These diffs of 'evidence' are a mess. First, Levivich claims Phil implied racism on Adamant1's part, but what Phil did was ask a question: Can you please explain why you consider schools in Africa to be less notable than those in Western Anglophone countries, because I still cant see a valid reason for your campaign against them.; then, Levivich claims Phil did some sort of doubling down on racism accusations based on this text: My comment above was, very clearly if you read it, a rebuttal of the nominator's explicit claim that referring to "Western Anglophone countries" is racist.. Phil was responding to Levivich's ridiculous attempt, by the way, to recast his comments in that discussion.
  10. This diff is complete bullshit. Phil says I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist, but just that the objective outcome of this work is to exacerbate institutional racism., explicitly saying he's not accusing Adamant1 of racism, but that Adamant1's actions are troubling in that they help to concretize institutional racism. That's pretty far from evidence of anything but a high level of conscientiousness on Phil's part regarding the state of the encyclopedia and its inclusiveness.
  11. This diff is evidence of what, exactly? Phil's relief that there is a plausible explanation of why Adamant1 has been targeting African schools for deletion?
  12. Phil again states that an earlier claim by Adamant1 was a lie (the same subject as diff #4), for which he has already provided evidence (i.e., it's not some unsupported aspersion, but a specific accusation backed up by actual evidence) and defends the "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" comment which Adamant1 takes out of context, just like Levivich has done in his list of diffs.
  13. Phil tells Adamant1 to Please think before you write., which is being presented as evidence of incivility? Give me a break.
  14. Levivich includes Phil's response to (now-indeffed) User:Telsho at ANI, where Phil states he is perfectly capable of multitasking. This already isn't an uncivil comment, but it was in response to this hostile comment after Phil pointed out that Telsho had edit-warred over a speedy deletion tag.
  15. Levivich claims Phil is out of control because Phil objects to Adamant1's recasting of what Phil said, after removing the context for Phil's words: You very clearly said "for something to be notable it has to be unique". They were your words, not mine. It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence.
  16. As I've already said, Phil commenting in opposition to an unblock request is not gravedancing. Period.

If Phil has been so blatantly uncivil, then it should be easy to find actual examples instead of this nonsense, largely taken out of context in order to make him look bad. Based upon the behavior in this thread, I'd be more inclined to support a boomerang for Adamant1 and a trout for Levivich. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How is saying that someone's edits "exacerbate institutional racism" constructive or helpful? even more so in the "context" of him already saying "I hope the edits aren't racist" multiple times before that? Clearly him framing it that way was just an attempt to soften his original thesis that my edits where related to racism somehow so it was more palpable, while not actually dropping "racism" as a talking point. Since he had received pushback about his comments at that point. Just like him saying "I hope" before the word "racism" served the same purpose of connecting my actions to racism without being direct about it. Either way my actions were still being connected to racism. People weren't going to factor in the "I hope" part of it. I know that's the case because multiple people since this started have referenced his comments about me being racist as a way to invalid opinions. Which was totally the intent behind him saying what he did.

It's completely ridiculous to treat the comment like it was somehow a nuanced, substance based critique of how certain things can exacerbate institutional racism. Let alone to act like me and Levivich interpreting it any other way then that is just taking the comment out of context. Personally, I agree with the sentiment behind it. No one is going to argue that certain edits don't sometimes exacerbate institutional racism, but him saying so was nothing more then just a cover to continue slandering me. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the problem with Adamant1 is "he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance". Personally, it seems a bit hypocritical to be offended at an accusation of racism (and which to me seems to be at worst an ill-judged remark than a specific desire to offend) while at the same time calling another editor (not Phil) a "shitlord". I don't favour any action other than just a bit of self-reflection - everybody has bad days and snaps at people. I just don't think it's fair to document one side of the argument's incivility without presenting the other side's too, in the interests of completeness. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is your cherry picking a few examples over an extremely long period of time to work backwards from your own conclusions. There's plenty of AfDs where people take digs at me and I just don't respond. There's also plenty of times I've been snarky or sarcastic, where I've apologized for it and admitted I was in the wrong. Including in this conversation. Most of the times I've been rude it was directed at a few users whom I have had continuous, repeated problems with. I know those things just don't support your conclusion that I'm easily offended though. Despite the capitulating about "context" being important, it only seems to be when it serves the purpose of a single side. As far as the "shitlord" comment goes, I've never used the term in my life. Someone else in an AfD did though and I thought id try it out. Honestly, I think it's pretty lowbrow, below me, and I regretted saying it. Feel free to ignore that and use it as an example of how I always behave though.

Nothing ever gets dealt with and no one will ever get along if the only acceptable standard for a complaint to be valid is that the person making it has to have acted perfectly themselves. I really have no problem with Phil "reflecting" on his behavior. I've done plenty of that myself. Although, I also think a stern warning that insinuating people are racists isn't acceptable should be made and he should at least acknowledge that his comments were inappropriate. That aside, I do wonder why in this instance "reflection" by all sides is the answer, but then it wasn't when you were warning me about attacking people. All I've asked for in most of these disagreements is fairness, consistency, and for everyone involved to be equally responsible for their own actions. None of those things should be that difficult and they should apply here. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems worth underscoring that the main point of contention in this thread was a misunderstanding about Adamant's motivations that seems to have been more or less resolved. Phil should've made more of an effort to AGF or discuss concerns of racism, so this could've been resolved sooner, and Adamant could dial down their approach to AfD a bit, but I suspect there's not much that's going to happen here in terms of admin action and I'm not sure leaving it open will be that productive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll dial my approach to AfDs down from making 7 sarcastic comments every six months to 3 or 4. Also, the next time someone accuses me of racism for over a month and other users of being Nazi's, I'll just chalk the whole thing up to a simple misunderstanding. It's good to know what the priorities are. In the meantime, feel free to close this. As it's pretty clear nothing is going to be done about it (not even a warning) and clearly Phil thinks he did nothing wrong. So, there's zero reason to continue the discussion at this point. All the race baiter apologists can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are so many accusations here that I can't find the right places in the edit window in the few minutes that I have available now, so I am making my reply here separately. To Adamant1 I would say that I am not avoiding this discussion, but I have priorities in my life more important than editing Wikipedia, such as, today, caring resposibilities for my grandson and my mother, from which I have just got home, and, in a few minutes, I am going to cook dinner and do some housework. I would also point out to Levivich that nearly all of his quotes were taken out of context, most egregiously in the omission of the words "rather than" from "more sinister", reversing the meaning of what I said. Much of that has been taken care of by Grandpallama, but I will try to find time to give a more detailed response later. Sorry for not being a full-time Wikipedia editor, but you will have to wait. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

All I have to say is that it's to bad those weren't your priorities when you were making the accusations. For someone that isn't a full time Wikipedian and has better things to do, you sure spent a lot of time on it. It's not like I've a bunch of time in my life to spend combating what you said or dealing with this either. If you take anything away from this, maybe it should be that accusing people of racism for almost a month straight can be time consuming for both parties, because at this point seriously doubt that it will be that your behavior was wrong. As much as I doubt your going to do any "reflecting" about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That's enough. I explained why I hadn't responded yet, and said I would respond later. A glance at my contribution history will show you that I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. If you tell me that my grandson and my mother shouldn't take priority then I am not prepared to comment any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Really. Except an admin said they were going to close the discussion and you commenting on the discussion after it's closed isn't really helpful. That said, feel free not. I don't really care. Nothing was going to be done about it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In the time it took you to write this and this, you could have written, "I'm sorry I accused you of bad faith motives, it won't happen again", and we'd all be on our way. Somehow, I don't think lack of time is what's holding up the reconciliation here. Lev!vich 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let's set aside the general never-ending battle on AfD, with plenty of blame on all sides for abrasiveness and failure to assume good faith. But the repeated insinuations of dark motives in these African discussions is a step too far. "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here""I hope it's not racism" Casting aspersions is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. I think an apology for that would be a reasonable way to conclude this. Haukur (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I was surprised to see that Adamant1 reverted three edits I made where I removed speedy deletion tags they had recently added in good faith, two schools at: [52]

[53] (where the revert also removed references added to the articles and added back unreferenced promotional bits of the article) and [54] (which is a poor article as it stands, and it may not be notable.) I believe I also removed the tag on Creating Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon which was reverted and subsequently deleted. In my mind none of these articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion even though there are promotional elements to them, though as someone who has edited African articles for awhile it's par for the course, and I even cleaned up the promotional parts of the articles where I could. In the diffs you'll notice an accusation of WP:HOUNDING and a request to "use the contest button," even though it's absolutely not required as I did not create any of these articles. I've also been adding back in information Adamant1 has been deleting using references, since they've been removing a lot of content from African schools articles, but it's difficult work and has turned into a battleground as opposed to the general collegial improvement I'm used to. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• A quick check of their contribution log also shows they're continuing to speedy clearly notable articles like Diocesan College and Afrikaanse Hoër Seunskool on G11 grounds instead of removing the promotional material. This is not helpful cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective, the real core of the problem here is an editor claiming to be deeply offended at supposed incivility directed toward him, but who himself has a much clearer history of egregious, unapologetic personal attacks, including in some of the very AfD discussions he's supposedly upset about, and who has demonstrated no qualms about casually throwing around accusations and insults in this discussion (All the race baiter apologists can pat themselves on the back for a job well done) (Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either about Ritchie) (Sure, I'll dial my approach to AfDs down from making 7 sarcastic comments every six months to 3 or 4). There's also a history here in the last year of filing long-winded grievances at AN/I about other editors that frequently included personal attacks being levied by Adamant1 in those discussions against editors and admins who disagreed with him: [55][56][57]. There are legitimate battleground and civility issues here, but they're not on Phil Bridger's part, and some of the comments in this discussion should result in a stern warning to Adamant1 (the "shitlord" comment, addressed but not made in this discussion, merits a block all on its own). Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are legitimate battleground and civility issues here, but they're not on Phil Bridger's part Pointing out Adamant1's civility issues (which are real!) doesn't make the inappropriate insinuations by Phil Bridger go away. I would be fine with warning them both, though. Haukur (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. Some of the provided "insinuations" were actually just requests for an explanation as to why these articles were being targeted. Even if one argues that Phil needs a warning, the degree of incivility (and battleground editing) is far greater, and more widespread, on Adamant1's side. Phil's most significant error was not bringing his concerns to the greater community, but Adamant1's intransigence when challenged could reasonably be expected to raise suspicion. Grandpallama (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• I finally have some time on my hands now, and in the light of Adamant1's "I'm fine with that" above have decided to respond in similar detail to what has been said above, so (mainly to avoid my doing some pointless work) I would ask that nobody closes this discussion in the next few hours. I may repeat some points that have already been made above because I have decided not to to look at Grandpallama's rebuttal above while I am replying in order to give my own perspective. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Adamant1's "I'm fine with that. Really." has shown that it is worth commenting further here. I've finally got a bit of time to myself, so will reply now.

Firstly a note about the general situation.

For the last couple of months I have been a little concerned that Adamant1 has been nominating many schools and universities in Africa for deletion. After some accusations of bad faith at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21 I posted my evidence, showing that 95% of school articles nominated or proposed for deletion by that editor in the last three months were in Africa, on the talk page of that discussion, because it wasn't directly relavent to the DRV itself. I included that words "I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist". That was immediately before this report was raised, and seems to have been its immediate cause. Adamant1, in this discussion, explained what he had been doing here, an explanation that I had not seen before. I thanked him for the explanation and said I was pleased that this edit pattern was not anything more sinister. Then Levivich came along and pinned his 17 theses to the door, mostly taken completely out of context, including reversing the meaning of what I clearly said in that edit.

Now to the specifics.

Firstly a response to Reyk's post above, The word "Übermensch" comes from 19th century philosophy, well before the Nazis existed, and is a description of a person who is not subject to the rules that apply to most people. There was no native English word that described what I intended so precisely. Like many other words the Nazis used it for something rather different from its original meaning, but let's not use distorted meanings given by Nazis. I thought we had progressed beyond the "don't mention the war" days when the use of a German word was automatically considered a reference to the Nazis.

Now, Levivich's 17 points.

1. I considered that Adamant1 had a case to answer, because I have seen him nominate many articles about schools in Africa for deletion but very few from anywhere else. Rather than reply to my concerns he waited for well over a month until this discussion had been started to provide an explanation, which I thanked him for and accepted.
2. Maybe I shouldn't have used those words, but this was a reply to a comment that I should piss off and drown myself. I am not not going to apologise for that.
3. This comment was made in a discussion that was very civilly progressing, but Adamant1 had disrupted by saying someone who has created some of Wikipedia's best content should "learn from it and create a better article next time" and then, in the next sentence said that it would actually be better if she didn't create any more articles. No apology due here.
4. In this discussion Adamant1 in the nomination statement said that a profile published by Times Higher Education, which includes when the university was founded, what faculties it has, that it has over 30,000 students and gives its rankings in various areas, all encyclopedic information, was "extremely trivial". I stand by my statement that this is a lie and anti-intellectual dumbing-down. No apology.
5. The word "monolingual" is not an insult, or pejorative in any way, but simply means someone who speaks only one language. And I said "you appear to be monolingual" because Vmavanti had given me that impression in this disussion and several others, where he stated that non-English sources should not be used and that the only way for an English-speaker to understand them is via machine translation. There's not even any claim of incivility here, let alone anything for which an apology is due.
6. I shouldn't have said "ignoramus" in this summary, and apologise to Vmavanti for doing so. Unfortuately we can't go back and change edit summaries.
7. See my reply to point 1. There was a case to answer, but Adamant1 answered it and I thanked him for the explanation. One again, I do not believe that any further apology is due.
8. I believe what I said is true, and the main thrust of my comment was that it was a shot across the bows based on WP:COI. This is scraping the barrel, and nothing for which an apology is due, let alone any sanction.
9. I don't understand what is being complained of here. All I was doing was, as I have done many times before and only finally got an explanation for in this discussion, asking for one and, in your second link, asking for separate issues to be discussed in separate threads. Nothing here to apologise for.
10. No incivility here whatsoever. I said that I don't belive that Adamant1 was being consciously racist. And nearly all of us are guilty of unconscious racism. I'm a white European myself, and am sure that there have been occasions where I have crossed the street to avoid a group of black teenagers in hoodies when I wouldn't have done so to avoid a similar group of white teenagers in school uniform. I'm getting a bit tired of typing this now, but there is no apology due here.
11. This one really takes the biscuit. In this edit I thanked Adamant1 for his explanation and said I was pleased that it wasn't down to anything more sinister. How could anyone possibly interpret that as saying that there was something more sinister? Nothing like an apology due here
12. See my reponse to point four.
13. I responded to Adamant1's comment that for something to be notable it has to be unique. His response was completely disconnected. This was a perfectly valid response to that. No apology.
14. This is another "nothing" accusation. I was replying to Telsho's comment "Phil, I would suggest concentrating on your own AN report if I were you". I acknowledged that Telsho probably wouldn't want to be me just as much as I wouldn't want to be him, and pointed out that I can deal with more than one issue. More barrel-scraping for which no apology is due.
15. See my reply to point 13. How can anyone hold a civilised disussion when the other party won't repond to simple statements, but goes off on a totally irrelevant tangent? No apology.
16. More of the same. No apology due.
17. Absolutely ridiculous. I commented on an open block review discussion, and linked ny previous comment on that page because it had been deleted. Certainly no apology here.

In summary, I apologise to User:Vmavanti for what I said in point 6, but no more apologies, or warnings towards me, are due. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the apology for #6, the bottom line, for me, is that Phil still believes that if an editor nominates too many Africa articles for deletion or removes unsourced content from Africa articles, the editor "has a case to answer", and so it's OK to suggest or question whether the editor is racist, biased, or otherwise has bad-faith motives (#1, #7, #8). If an editor says a source is "trivial" and Phil disagrees, it's OK to say the editor is lying (#4, #12). If an editor argues against using non-English sources, it's OK to say the editor appears to be "monolingual" (#5). It's OK to say that editors are "a nasty piece of work" (#2), should "go on an anger-management course" (#3), don't think before they write (#13), or are incapable of multitasking (#14), if Phil believes such comments are justified. I don't think any of this complies with WP:CIVIL, particularly WP:IUC and WP:AGF. Maybe Phil is right and I am wrong, and consensus is that these comments do not violate CIVIL. We'll see. For my part, I support a warning that while Phil is entitled to his opinion that these comments are not uncivil, the consensus is that they are, and so Phil should not make any more comments like this in the future. Lev!vich 19:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Addendum: I would have supported a warning against Adamant as well, but I believe Adamant has already been warned for the diffs presented in this thread. I see there may be some new stuff below unfortunately, and if so perhaps as SF suggests it should be handled in a separate thread. Lev!vich 19:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to make a considered reply to everything now, but, as I have said above, "monolingual" is in no way an insult, my "a nasty piece of work" comment was made in reponse to an editor saying that I should piss off and drown myself, the "anger management course" comment was made in a civilised discussion that Adamant1 had disrupted with angry edits, "think before you write" was made in a discussion where that editor had clearly not done so, and I did not say that another editor was incapable of multitasking. And where is your apology for point 11, where you completely, 180 degrees, misrepresented what I had said? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I read #11 not as a sincere comment, but as passive-aggressive sarcasm. I figured if you sincerely believed that Adamant's decisions were "simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister", you would have apologized for, retracted, and/or struck your previous comments insinuating something more sinister (like #1 and #7); instead, you've said you have nothing to apologize for with respect to those comments. (You actually wrote, "I do not believe that any further apology is due", but I don't think you've made any apology yet, unless I missed it, nevermind a "further" apology.) Nevertheless, if you're saying #11 was a sincere statement and not passive-aggressive sarcasm, then I will WP:AGF that's true; I apologize for suggesting otherwise and I have struck those statements above. Lev!vich 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Then stop reading things in that way. Writing, on the Internet or elsewhere, does not come with tone of voice or body language, so things should be interpreted with their plain meanings, with no reading between the lines. I've already explained why I was entitled to ask Adamant1 for an explanation of his actions on 8 September, a response to which didn't come until 25 October after this discussion had started. I make that 47 days, during which Adamant1 made many more deletion proposals and nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you didn't AGF about Adamant's intentions until, after 47 days of your making accusations, they started this ANI thread. I apologized to you; you haven't apologized to Adamant. One of the things you accused Adamant of was failing to admit when they're wrong (#16). Lev!vich 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have explained why, while assuming good faith, I asked Adamant1 for an explanation of his edits on 8 September, and I didn't get a response for 47 days. So those 47 days are somehow my fault? I am responsible for Adamant1 not providing an explanation in this time? And I am supposed to apologise for this? No, no, no. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I had said multiple times throughout this that my actions had nothing to do with racism. Apparently, just saying something simple like "I'm not racist" wasn't detailed enough for you though. Not that I should have had to say it in the first place anyway. 100% you should apologize when your in the wrong. Whatever the details are or how inadequate at the time you thought "I'm not racist" was when I said it like 5 times. Especially when it comes to something like this. Even if had of never said anything to explain myself ever, you were still in the wrong. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Despite all the "throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" that has gone on in this discussion, I have never said that you are racist, so saying "I'm not racist" is not a reply to my questions. I simply asked for an explanation of why you were nominating so many African schools and universities for deletion. You provided that explanation 47 days after I first asked and I accepted that explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

True, nor did I say you did. That said though, you did say "I hope this isn't racism", to which one would think me saying "I'm not racist" would be a perfectly acceptable answer. I don't see why it wouldn't be. I'm sure everyone with any kind of integeraty about this would agree with me that it is. I know you said after the fact that you where really making a more generally point about how some edits can add to structural racism and blah blah blah or some such post facto nonesense, but at the time your comments wheren't anything along the lines of "I hope your edits aren't contributing to structural racism." So..Really, your just arguing semantics and being nitpicky about word usage to get around being responsible for your behavior. Likely you'd be doing the same thing no what I would have said to explain myself at the time, because the important thing here was me reporting you. Not the explanation after the fact. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I for one think you are wrong considering the long-term disruption Adamant1 is currently causing (stuff like drive-by tagging of African articles like [58] is continuing unabated and we probably need another thread at this point), but I'm far too involved at this point to have a neutral take on this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I meant to add the word respectfully into my sentence and didn't. Please accept my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  No worries! Lev!vich 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Even if Adamant were engaged in long-term disruption, CIVIL doesn't say that we only have to be civil to non-disruptive editors. (And those diffs aren't all aimed at Adamant anyway.) Lev!vich 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  I completely agree with that statement, but I also think the contextual reading is the correct one here - I think the civility line has been breached, yes, but I also don't think there's 17 different points of incivility here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  I concede there are not 17. I think there are 10 unacknowledged points of incivility here from the last two months (the ones in my !vote); that is, 10 statements that Phil thinks are OK in context that I think are not OK in context, and I think 10 (or even 5 or 3) are enough to merit a warning. Lev!vich 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Continuing the theme of harsh accusations for AfD nominations of articles on African subjects, could someone take a look at this edit? [59] I think this is not okay but I don't want to moderate a discussion I'm involved in. Haukur (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Haukurth: That's... not good, but please make that a separate discussion as no parties here are involved in that, and this is already too long. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to comment on SportingFlyer's accusations about my edits to list articles that he supposedly thinks are problematic. After a little discussion it seems his main issue was that I removed references to New Era (Namibia) in Talk:List_of_schools_in_Namibia#Inclusion_criteria. Which he thought was legitimate and reverted me for removing despite it being a government owned news outlet that has been found by to bias by multiple people investating it. When I attempt to discuss it with him on his talk page he told me not to leave messages there, didn't respond on my talk page when I pinged him there about it, and then criticized me in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for not trying get consensus for my edits. When again he was the one that refused to discuss it. Plus, he treated me like my opinion that a clearly biased, government owned news outlet shouldn't be used as a reference wasn't valid simply because of the tiff over the speedy deletions. Which were mainly instigated and exacerbated by him. All while using the whole thing as a way to justify Phil's behavior here and to make me look bad.

People sit here and handwave away my comments that there's aconcerted, intentional targeted measures being taken by certain users against other as me just "taking things out of context" or me not assuming good faith. The way SportingFlyer has intentionally created problems were there wasn't any, to then use them here to make me look bad and as a tool to invalidate my opinions, is exactly what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, none of the things I have done are actually problems outside of a few people making an extremely big issue out of them, Phil included, just to make me look bad. While I appreciate that Phil accepted my explanation after the fact, I agree with Levivich that the problem is me having to explain it in the first place, or face accusations of racism. Same goes for SportingFlyers divisive nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"None of the things I have done are actually problems" is a judgment that is probably best made by other people. It's nice that you approve of your own actions, but I would like to see some secondary sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day, none of the things I have done are actually problems outside of a few people making an extremely big issue out of them, Phil included, just to make me look bad. Your recently blanked talkpage strongly suggests otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

People delete messages from their talk pages all the time and the guidelines say it's acceptable. Plenty of people revert messages I leave on their talk pages. I could really care less if they do. I thought the talk page was a little long, hard to follow, and the conversations seemed done with. It's not like people can't just look at a past version of my talk page. Once again, it's another thing that perfectly fine for everyone else to do and that the guidelines are perfectly OK with, but then is somehow nefarious and wrong to do simply because I'm the one doing it. Toughpigs, I meant specifically in relation to the thing with Phil, which from what I've seen everyone including him has agreed me editing Africa related articles wasn't a problem, and the thing with SportingFlyer having to do with the government ran news sites. Last I checked my last message wasn't and this complaint isn't about anything else. Both of you are really reaching. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Blanking your talkpage itself isn't the point, as my comment made perfectly clear. The fact that it was full of uninvolved editors and admins expressing concerns about your behavior and edit warring (until you blanked it), completely contradicts your claims that nothing is wrong with your edits and that only a few people are concerned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has agreed you editing African articles hasn't been a problem. Let's take a look:

• I first noticed this issue at Deletion review, which I frequent. Both AfDs were odd to me. The first one was the attempt to overturn a keep to a no consensus, which I've advocated for before (it does matter) but nobody in the AfD apart from Adamant1 wanted the article deleted. The other AfD and slightly more difficult DRV featured Adamant1 mischaracterising sources that were presented in the AfD. I noted the result was incorrect in my DRV participation, long before I got involved here.
• On 24 October I stumbled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS Sheikh Secondary School and ended up noticing Adamant1 had made 10-11 AfDs regarding African schools (along with one Italian school.) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Spei College is still open, so this argument isn't as strong, but Adamant1 again tried to knock out the sources I had presented, even though there's significant coverage from multiple reliable Batswanan newspapers.
• I ended up voting !keep on all but one of the AfDs Adamant1 brought forward since I thought all of the subjects were notable. I didn't think this was necessarily disruptive, but African schools can be hard to research and my assumption was that not a lot of time had been spent on before searches. Not all AfDs are closed yet, but it looks as if Adamant1 responded to every single one of my keep !votes, which was very frustrating. The exchanges led to responses like this one. Keep in mind I !vote delete 60% of the time and keep less than 30% of the time.
• Adamant1 has so far responded to five out of the seven keep !voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parktown Boys' High School. Frustrated, I commented that WP:BLUDGEONing was occurring. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• I discover this discussion on the 25th and look through Adamant1's contribution log and notice they have indeed been removing lots of information about African articles and been making some bad PROD/speedy nominations. I ask at WikiProject Schools to make sure I've got the process right because I don't want to have my work deleted, revert the removed schools at List of universities in Zambia and clean it up, making sure every school is sourced (there were some schools which needed to be cleaned up!) Adamant1 leaves a message on my talk page with a lecture. By this time I've been explaining myself for a couple days to Adamant1 on AfDs and I know WP:IDHT likely applies and ask they don't post to my talk page any further, but rather discuss content issues on the talk page of the article. In the next edit my request is ignored and I am accused of wikihounding.
• I clean up List of universities in Liberia without any issues.
• I notice four speedies that are incorrect, remove the tags, and add references. Adamant1 edit wars and reverts the removal of the speedy deletion tags and claims I am not removing them in good faith, even though I improved a couple articles in the same edit as the revert. After two undos, I eventually disengage and VQuakr comments that the "speedy wasn't good even before it was contested" here. GB fan unprods another which leads to a discussion on GB fan's talk page in which GB fan is very patient in explaining correct speedy deletions. I end up adding references to the articles. One was subsequently deleted after the revert, which I only noticed after the fact - it's since been restored and is currently at AfD.
• Adamant1 starts PRODding articles instead of speedying them. They prod both Herschel Girls' School and Heritage Academy (Pietermaritzburg) in a span of two minutes - Heritage Academy says "reason for proposed deletion" as the reason for its proposed deletion. I remove the PROD for Herschel and add some references. It is flagrantly clear no before search was done based on the ease of finding sources and the number of edits which preceded the PROD.
• Adamant1 tags Hilton College (South Africa) with a notability tag. It is quickly and correctly removed. They threaten to add it back before having some common sense here. Other tags were also poorly added and quickly removed. Some others remain. I haven't explored most or all of them as to not escalate things any further
• There's also some discussion over at Talk:List of schools in Namibia which really doesn't make any sense at all - I'm trying to figure out exactly which schools are being removed/aren't referenced properly so we can keep them in the list and it's starting to go around in circles.
• All of this has happened since this AN discussion was opened. I recommended that ANI (not AN, but here we are) was a better place for behavioural problems regarding Phil Bridger at DRV, since it was diluting the discussion a bit. It does not include the since-blanked discussion on Adamant1's talk page. It also doesn't include what's already been said above in one of his interactions with Phil in which he was warned by Ritchie333 at the original AfD.
• Part of the issue here is that this part of the wiki does need to be cleaned up - African pages are a little more difficult, because what might be reliable isn't, what looks unreliable might be, and sources are often a little bit harder to search for (though many of these articles aren't that bad.) Further complicating things are that not all of these edits are incorrect, but such a high number of them are deletion-orientated when they don't need to be, or cite policy incorrectly in doing so. I'm not arguing I've conducted myself perfectly throughout all of this, but many users besides myself have needed to clean up the clean-up you're doing, and it's exceptionally difficult to work within the rules when it seems as if Adamant1 makes up whatever rules they like in order to achieve the result they seem to want, which is content deletion through cleanup. I have no recommendations at this time, but I do believe sanctions are in order. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• "nobody in the AfD apart from Adamant1 wanted the article deleted." It's slightly disingenuous to characterize an AfD that only had one vote as if there was more to it or that there was a clear group of people that were against it being deleted. Like, if I had a discussion with someone on my talk page and you characterized it as "everyone disagreeing with me", the wording is just misleading to make it sound like more people where involved in the discussion then were. From what I remember Phil didn't vote. The same goes for your assertion that I was "mischaracterizing sources", just because I interpreted them different then Phil did. Last time I checked, people can disagree on the quality of sources.
• I don't see what your point is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS Sheikh Secondary School. Except that I disagreed with you about the quality of sourcing. Which, again, I'm allowed to do.
• I don't disagree with you about sourcing being hard to find for subjects related to Africa, Etc. Etc. So, I don't get what your point is. Except that I responded to something. Which again, I'm allowed to do. Could I have been a little nicer about it? Sure, but I've already said I can be overly sarcastic sometimes and that I will try to work on it. Notice though, that originally I said that a source didn't discuss the school and you responded by saying "You've nominated quite a few African schools for deletion in a short time frame." How was your response at all relevant or appropriate? Especially considering you knew the stuff with Phil was going on.
• "I discover this discussion on the 25th and look through Adamant1's contribution log and notice." You also said on your talk page that you were going to "review" my edits. there in lays the problem and why I said you where hounding me. It's not appropriate to look through other users contributions to "review" edits you think they did wrongly. Period. As far as WP:IDHT, I supposedly "refused to get the point" in an AfDs about sourcing. Which then meant that I couldn't ask why you were reverted the edits I had made to some lists? That's your big reason for not discussing things when you should have. Your justification amounts to "It's cool I reverted a bunch of his edits and wasn't willing discuss things, because he thought the sources I provided in an AfD weren't good." Seriously dude.
• No problem there.
• It was your personal opinion that the speedies were incorrect. I actually had a couple of others deleted that you didn't screw with. So, likely they weren't "incorrect" and you were using circular reasoning to work backwards from your own conclusions. "I removed the speedies. So, the speedies must have been incorrect" isn't really an arguement. I reverted you twice. That wasn't edit warring. I didn't "claim" you weren't not removing them in faith either. They were removed in bad faith because you removed them after you said you where going to review my edits and then went through my contribution history to find things to revert. Which you admit to. That's not a "good faith" thing to do. Also, I wouldn't call GB Fan being "patient" when he attacked me multiple times for not knowing how speedy deletions work, when I was making a good faithed effort to figure out what the specific problem was. Maybe that's just me though.
• "Adamant1 starts PRODding articles instead of speedying them." People can PROD articles. Even if they get removed. Like Reyk said, "People will try and tell you that getting your PRODs declined too often is felonious conduct on your part, but nobody actually believes it." There's definitely no guideline that someone can't PROD articles. I didn't "start" PRODing articles after you came along either. I've been doing it for a while now. So, it's a non-issue that your imagining is one. I guess you just didn't browse through my contribution history enough to know that I had done PRODs before.
• I don't feel the need to address this one. Except to say people add and remove things all the time. Again, there's nothing controversial about that. The person who removed it added a few sources, and I'm good with that. So, I reverted myself. I just hadn't noticed that the user had added the sources. It happens. That's not having "common sense." I don't generally side with people who freak out over a notability template being added to an article. Good job being hyperbolic though.
• Likely the discussion started to go around in circles because you kept asking me the same question over and over. When I had already answered you pretty clearly like 5 times already. Things tend to go in circles when you keep asking the same question to someone. I don't get what's clear about "I'm removing items based on the guidelines." Frankly, it's rather odd that your using your inability to understand the guidelines as way to illistrate that I'm acting inappropriately.
• I already addressed "the since-blanked discussion" thing above and it's a non-issue anyway. It's slightly bizarre and ham fisted that people are treating something that is extremely routine, OK by the guidelines, and done all the time as an issue. Mostly, it's just extremly weak fooder for the narrative that I'm a bad editor or whatever.
• I agree with this. Clearly there's work that needs to be done on articles related to Africa and there's inherently problems with sourcing Etc. Etc. Reverting people who are trying to improve things isn't the way to deal with the problems though. I don't agree with your last part though. I don't see anything in what you've outlined be sanctionanble. Your main point seems to be that I disagreed with you about some sources you added to AfDs and that I blanked my talk page. Big whoop. Neither of those are sanctionable and the whole thing is really vague and rather try hard. Feel free to be more specific and cite an actual guideline that I violated though.
• Personally, I think you HOUNDING me, which you fully admit to doing, should be sanctioned. Since the guidelines are pretty clear it's not OK to look through someone's contributions so you can "review" their edits. With my behaivor, Ultimately it seems like your argument and that of everyone else who thinks I did anything wrong, comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Which isn't sanctionable. There's also the important point that you not liking it led to you slandering me here repeatedly. Doing so wasn't OK either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Adamant1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You know something, Adamant1, if every time you argued or disagreed with someone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parktown Boys' High School, you improved the article instead (whether adding sources, copyediting or reorganising) you'd be praised for cleaning up African schools and regarded as a great editor. Instead, you've now got a reputation for being argumentative and disruptive. So I think we're at the point where we need to think about sanctions.

• I would like to propose that Adamant1 is topic banned from all deletion discussions about schools, broadly construed. This allows him to continue improving articles (which includes removing unsourced and questionable content, which I don't think anyone has an issue with as long as there's consensus that it is questionable) while removing his disruptive influence. Your thoughts, please Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And to think that I thanked you for improving an article I PRODed. Here I thought we were making progress. harumph. How disappointing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- this strikes me as punitive and retaliatory. I wouldn't want a precedent set that coming to AN or ANI with a legitimate complaint, as this was, will get you punished. If there's an ongoing issue with Adamant1's edits, deal with it later if it continues to be a concern. What this looks like is administrators closing ranks and doling out retribution because someone's gotten too uppity. Reyk _YO! 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any legitimate rationale provided for such a draconian reaction to what I see as a legitimate complaint against another editor. This proposal appears vindictive and petty. I am also concerned that, as an admin, you think this is OK. Especially as you appear to have had a number of run-ins together. Not the standard I expect from a good admin. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly okay for admins to have an opinion, and for editors to disagree with it. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that its perfectly OK for admins to have an opinion. But the basis of adminship is that those editors are held to higher standards and trusted to make good decisions and use good judgement. This isn't a good example for you. It looks petty. It looks vindictive. More importantly it demonstrates poor judgement, personal bias and is below the expected standard for an admin. Also, tagging on the passive-aggressive "chill" with a similar edit summary doesn't look good either. You should withdraw this proposal and take a step back. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I remain persuaded that Adamant1 is the problem editor here (or, at the very least, the more problematic editor, by a significant degree) and that most of the diffs provided by editors concerned about Phil Bridger were either taken ridiculously out of context or fail to demonstrate the problem they purport to. However, it's not clear to me that a TBAN on school AFDs is what is needed here, because Adamant1's behavior isn't particularly confined to school AFD discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: how come my supposedly problematic behavior isn't just being taken out of context? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you are reproducing and confirming it here and in other discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh, kind of like Phil reproduced his claims of racism in multiple discussions? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed. There's a table of their recent activity at another discussion. This shows that, before schools, they were trying to delete colleges and universities and, before that, it was hospitals. And then there are topics like Matriculation in South Africa which would generate tiresome arguments about "broadly construed". I reckon it would be better to start with all proposed and speedy deletion activity because it doesn't appear that they are doing them right and such activity is less visible than AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: in last two weeks before this recent tiff I had 12 articles speedy deleted for promotion, of which five where done in the couple of days leading up to the problems, and 99% of the PRODs that were removed in the last few days where done so by the same two users that I have problems with. Necrothesp, who has an article on his talk page all about how school articles should never be deleted under any circumstance, removed ten of them. I also had two articles speedy deleted during this whole thing. So, clearly your analysis that this is on me for not doing them right is wrong. My PROD record was perfectly fine before I was target by a few users with personal biases. Also, my success rate at participating in AfDs is generally high. Higher then yours in-fact. So, your clearly wrong about this. I'd be perfectly fine with your judgement if my PRODs were removed by non-involved neutral. Saying I don't know what I'm doing though just because someone who wants to keep every school article removed my PRODs is simply circular and faulty reasoning. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oof. Another discussion, ongoing, where again there are insults and casual casting of aspersions by Adamant1. Grandpallama (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it rather bizarre that you wrote a message saying I was making insults and casting aspersions in a discussion I hadn't even participated in yet when you wrote it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think that what's needed here is a throttle, rather than a topic ban. This editor is zealous and keen to clean up the encyclopaedia, which I admire, but he's removing so much content, so quickly, that it's threatening to overwhelm our capacity to scrutinise and, where appropriate, challenge his decisions. This whiffs a little of a blitz and the outcome could be a fait accompli. Can we cap the bytes of content removed, and the number of AfDs started, in any one week? And can we please do it without all the ABF and name-calling?—S Marshall T/C 15:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Although I usually review my edits pretty good before making them, if an admin that wasn't Andrew Davidson or Ritchie333 where to leave a polite message on my talk page asking me to slow things down a little I'd probably do so, because I think it's probably a fair critique in certain ways and I have better things to do with my time then waste it on this endless back and forth about everything. That said, if I was limited in how much I could edit, I feel like it would just encourage the kind of hazing and ganging up on that I have been a victim of. Plus, some users just make a lot of edits and it doesn't seem like there is a clear (or fair) line as to what is to much. If the line is largely dependent on say SportsFlyer's ability to find trivial sources to railroad my AfDs (which seems to be the critique when it comes to how much I'm editing), then I don't think limiting my edits would be fair or a good solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

if an admin that wasn't Andrew Davidson or Ritchie333 where to leave a polite message on my talk page Actual responses to other admins who politely post on your talkpage: [60][61][62] Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course I meant directly in relation to this since it's a critique that I slightly agree with. Whereas, in at least one of your examples I didn't agree with an admin adding on to an already existing pile on by adding non-constructive comments to the discussion. Which, last time I checked, is my prerogative. It is my talk page. Thanks though. Wait a minute though, aren't you against people taking things out of context?--Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction(s) whatsoever since both parties both have their own share of responsibility in how events have degenerated to this. I believe editors, both old & new, experienced & inexperienced should be able to very much freely report incidents they aren’t pleased with without the subconscious fear of a boomerang. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I believe editors, both old & new, experienced & inexperienced should be able to very much freely report incidents they aren’t pleased with without the subconscious fear of a boomerang. If one raises a report at a noticeboard, their behavior is also open to scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Open to scrutiny, sure. I have no problem with that. I've said I could be little less sarcastic and I think the critiques of it are perfectly reasonable. There's a clear difference between scrutiny and retaliation though. This seems more retaliatory then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - victim blaming makes us all look like a bunch of assholes. Lev!vich 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's a clearer personal attack than any of the diffs you provided in this thread about Phil Bridger. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Haha, yeah right. Lev!vich 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes" is pretty much the definition of a personal attack, so yes. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sure except that's not what I wrote. Lev!vich 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

An intentional miss quote made by someone that claims Phil did nothing wrong because everyone was just taking him out of context. Classic. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose does not address Adamant1's battleground behavior, which I think is the root of their side of the issue. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support but only temporarily, maybe for a week or two. A pause for thought or 'throttle', perhaps, as suggested above. Clearly Adamant1 has a credibility problem in that he came bellyaching to AN, when he himself has been doing the same - and often worse - than what he's complaining about. He also could have nipped all this in the bud by offering the alphabetical story at the outset. I also think Levivich's partisan contributions have been strikingly unhelpful. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I am partisan: a proud, card-carrying member of the Civility at AFD Party, which is why I recently supported sanctions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson. Lev!vich 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, people saw straight through your tendentious WP:CHERRYPICKING there, just like they have here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where I accused another user of being a racist for a month straight. I'm not really sure what I could have done that's worse then that either. definitely blanking my user page and disagreeing with other users about the reliability of sources isn't and that seems to be the crux of what I'm being accused of doing. At least from what I've seen so far. yeah, and I guess I used the word "crap" six months ago or something. Which apparently Ritchie333 thinks is a more egregious sin then race batting. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Listen we all know it's "live by the sword, die by the sword" on here. If I get involved in a dispute or heated discussion on content I know I can't run to the admin noticeboard telling tales, pointing fingers, holding half an onion to my eye and generally carrying on like an offended pantomime dame. Unless I'm squeaky clean myself - if not then it's sure to blow up in my face. I like you as an editor (only based on what I've read here) because you're honest and wear your heart on your sleeve. The fact that you're obviously genuinely unhappy about what you perceived as an allegation of racism goes in your favour too. I just wonder why you're incredulous that Phil looked through your edits and asked you about them. I mean, we all make editorial decisions on here all the time, and yes, we're all accountable for them. So far from being verboten, these sorts of difficult questions are absolutely necessary. Essential, even. Otherwise how would we stop a real racist from running amok? How will we confront and roll back the notorious systemic bias plaguing the whole project? My honest assessment from a neutral position is that you could and should have put the matter to bed with your alphabetical explanation right at the beginning. Phil (and everyone else) has accepted that immediately in good faith. You chose not to do that, perhaps because you thought you could use faux indignation as WP:BATTLEGROUND ammunition; then come here and have Phil hit over the head for it! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that. My main problem with Phil was that he didn't just ask me about it until I filed the complaint. He's shown zero willing to even acknowledge that he could have handled things better to. I would have been totally fine with him if he had of left a message on my talk page when this all started asking why I was editing so many articles related to Africa. That's not what he did though. If he had of, I would have just answered him and and there wouldn't even be this whole thing right now. Me and other nominators are almost constantly attacked in AfDs. Including routinely being accused of racism. I've been accused of it a number of times myself and it was a month long thing with Phil that only ended because I reported him. The fact is that delete voters and nominators have to walk on shells. While keep voters can act as backhanded and rude as they want. Phil is just one cog in that unbalanced machine. But I had gotten to the point where I wasn't going to just take it anymore. Like you said, reporting people doesn't really help, but it at least sends a message that I'm not going to just accept being demeaned or whatever. It's sometimes good to air things out in the public to. Even if nothing materially in the moment comes out of it. What's the saying, "democracy dies in darkness" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per S Marshall and VQuakr, who I think have identified the actual issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Question: the proposed deletion discussion topic ban seems unlikely to gain consensus. Is there a general feeling that something should be done here? As near as I can tell, Adamant1 seems chomping at the bit to fight with effectively everyone, and frankly I haven't seen any evidence of the introspection from them that would be necessary to more productively channel their energy in a civil, collaborative way. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. I'd rather this be over with. I was done with when the thing with Phil went no where. If Ritchie333 hadn't of started this new thread everyone, including me, would have been on to other things. I don't think me commenting in a AN about me in the mean time is fighting with anyone though. Last time I checked people can do that and I've been relatively civil. Apparently according to Grandpallama I was insulting people in this and casting asperations, but he made the comment before I even participated in it. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion about your participation in that conversation, starting yesterday, is demonstrably false in light of my comment about it being made today. This is pretty indicative of your shaky relationship with the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I don't get what your saying about "that" conversation. In this one, that was started by Ritchie333, you where like the fifth person that posted and said "Oof. Another discussion, ongoing, where again there are insults and casual casting of aspersions by Adamant1" and I hadn't posted on this new discussion yet at that point. I assume by "another discussion" you mean this one, the one that Ritchie333 opened and that we posting on. Otherwise, I don't know what else you'd be referring to. But sure, I have a shaky relationship with truth because of what you said. While the your one that's intentionally miss-quoting people and saying I'm insulting people in discussions I'm not even involved in. Right...I'm actually probably the most honest person here, because the facts are on my side, I have nothing to hide, and unlike most everyone else I'm willing to take responsibility for my mistakes. So, there's zero reason I would need to lie about anything. You on the other hand...Apparently, not so much..--Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I was obviously referring to the linked discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If Ritchie333 hadn't of started this new thread everyone, including me, would have been on to other things. I do not believe that is true, as evidenced by your bludgeony and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior (examples here and here) while this discussion at AN was ongoing. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support at least a temporary TBAN - It absolutely is not punitive. Based on Adamant1's persistent battleground mentality, broad one-note generalisations about "keep voters" (and bizarre claim that notable articles are never nominated), and his attitude both here and discussions such as this (where he started off explicitly accusing users of having an agenda for removing his prods and then walked it back when these users were named and tagged). Adamant1 is unlikely to edit constructively in deletion-related areas for the time being. If there's anything WP:AFD could use less of, it's combative "us vs. them" behaviour such as this. I am also not opposed to some sort of sanction for Phil Bridger if he continues to cast aspersions about racism. Darkknight2149 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant clearly notable articles like Star Wars. Comments like that where I'm taken completely out of context are exactly why I'm defensive sometimes. Everyone else gets to say whatever the hell they want and miscutrue what I say, but then I have to walk on egg shells or supposedly I have a battle ground mentality. But then no one else ever does. Just like in discussions such as this where I was pretty clear it wasn't pointed at anyone and Andrew was the one that made it personal. For all anyone knows I could have been talking about someone that removed my PRODs a year ago or some crap. Not that it had anything to do with him but Necrothesp, who removed 10 of my PRODs related to schools, has an article on his talk page all about how articles of schools should be kept no matter what. So, it's not that ridiculous to say someone people, like him, have agendas. He clearly does. It's not a bad thing that he does, we all have priorities, but it did mean some of my PRODs got removed that I don't think should have been. I don't see what's wrong with commenting on the fact that he removed my PRODs because he thinks schools articles should be kept. That's all I was doing. No one seems to have the decency to show me good faith or to consider the context of my actions though. Yet they endlessly badger me about how I'm suppose to show people good faith and consider the contexts of everyone else's behavior.

I fully agree that AfDs could use less "us versus them" behavior, but it never gets called out or dealt with when it's coming from a keep voter for some reason. Andrew has constant problems with other users, nothing is ever said or done about it. Phil insinuated I'm a racist for a month and he doesn't even get a warning. ToughPigs makes completely unnecessary snide remarks in his votes all the time. There's not a damn peep out of anyone over them. At least your fine with Phil being sanctioned if he continues to cast the aspersions. He doesn't even think it was wrong though and your cool with the sanctions in the future if it happens again. Whereas, I've been more then willing to say I could be a little less sarcastic and that I will work on things. Yet, despite that, for whatever reason your still cool with me being sanctioned. How come you don't want the same allowances granted to me that your giving Phil? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• You opened your post with "Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial."" before asking if users can be sanctioned for prodding. Then when another user pinged everyone who had recently removed your prods, you claimed that you were speaking broadly and wasn't referring to any specific user or situation. That's contradictory. Darkknight2149 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How is that contradictory? I didn't name anyone specifically in the original post. I don't have any clue who the people that were serially PRODing other users PRODs are either. I never claimed I did. A few people have just said it's happened and I thought it would be helpful to clarify. So I asked a question about it. The reason I phrased it the way I did though is because I didn't think the question would have worked if I had of just been like "hey, can people who remove a lot of PRODs be sanctioned for it?" or whatever, because everyone want's things to be specific. I was just attacked in my AN above this because I use the word "seems" in my AfDs sometimes. Since supposedly that's to vague and non-comital of a word or some crap. So, I was trying to be specific enough without pointing the finger at anyone because it was a general question. No matter how you phrase things people are going to make an issue out of it. So, I guess I should have just implicated a bunch of people in something they didn't have anything to do with just so how I did phrase it wouldn't be used against me later. Just between you and me, there were people that I was thinking of, but it's not like I remember who the hell they were specifically. I didn't even remember that Atlantic306 had removed a couple of my PRODs until Andrew posted the table and I thought Necrothesp was another user. So, I couldn't have even pointed the finger at anyone if I wanted to. Not that I did, because again it didn't have anything to do with any single person. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You specifically claimed (as demonstrated above) that serial bad faith deprodders were removing your prods specifically, in addition to the prods of "a few other editors". Then someone posted your prod log and tagged all of the users that have removed your prods. Since then, you have been insisting "Oh, I wasn't talking about any situation or any person in particular" after directly stating that serial deprodders were targeting your prods and asking if serial deprodders can be sanctioned. That is the contradiction and we can all see what you originally typed. Denying it makes you look dishonest and is more likely to turn it into a bigger issue than it would be otherwise. Darkknight2149 02:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How far back does the table go? I've been editing Wikipedia for like 5 years now. You think I've only done PRODs in the last month or that they are the only users who have ever removed one of my PRODs? Seriously dude. The nonsense ad hominem crap I deal with. From people who spout off about AGF to. Christ. This crap isn't black and white like your making it out to be either dude. Sorry I didn't put a ton of thought into how every damn word would sound or spends months getting every single letter of it perfectly right before I posted the question. My bad. Lessoned learned dude. Next time I'll be sure to have you look it over first. So you don't try to make me out to be a lier latter because it's not phrased exactly how you think it should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In other words, you actually were referring to a specific person(s) or situation(s), but just not a recent one? I'm not going to reply to you anymore. I don't see what that will accomplish. Instead, it would be more constructive for me to post the full exchange for everyone's context. Darkknight2149 02:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No. As I've said about 100 times now it was a number of things. I really don't see why that's so how hard for you to get. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The exchange at the prod discussion.

Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." When 99% of the time they were the only ones that had a problem with it and when articles went to AfD, most of the time they were deleted without incident. So my question is, what constitutes a "controversy", is something "controversial" if one person who has an agenda takes an issue with the PRODs, Is there a line where if someone is systematically removing PRODs due to their agenda and to make things harder for other people that it becomes abuse of the system? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Adamant1 does not seem to maintain a PROD log and so it was not clear what or who they were talking about. To assist discussion, here's a table of PRODs that they have proposed in the last 3 months. Notice that, while these topics are all quite similar, the PRODs have been removed by a variety of editors. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Recent PRODs by Adamant1 Date Article Deprodder Creator 28 Oct 2020 Herschel Girls' School User:SportingFlyer User:Raker 21 Oct 2020 Ebène State Secondary School (Girls) User:Necrothesp User:Shruti14 19 Oct 2020 Homevale High School User:Necrothesp User:Mona-LisaJafta16 19 Oct 2020 Athlone Boys' High School User:Necrothesp User:MrOfet 19 Oct 2020 Allen Glen High School User:Necrothesp User:Maggs830920 19 Oct 2020 Zambia Forestry College User:Necrothesp User:Martinchangani 19 Oct 2020 Lioli High School User:Necrothesp User:Molise Lesley Maqelepo 19 Oct 2020 Mabathoana High School User:Phil Bridger User:Rigleybr 17 Oct 2020 Le Bocage International School User:Necrothesp User:Kappa 17 Oct 2020 Ebène State Secondary School (Boys) User:Necrothesp User:Shruti14 17 Oct 2020 Bon Accueil State College User:Necrothesp User:Neshivo 17 Oct 2020 Rodrigues College User:Necrothesp User:Sacalavou 16 Oct 2020 Matriculation in South Africa User:Andrew Davidson User:Htonl 09 Oct 2020 University of Bechar User:Atlantic306 User:Emijrp 09 Oct 2020 University of Bejaia User:AllyD User:WhisperToMe 09 Oct 2020 Batna 1 University User:Atlantic306 User:Rabie222a 09 Oct 2020 University of Laghouat User:Atlantic306 User:Tahasamurai 09 Oct 2020 University of Adrar User:Atlantic306 User:Emijrp 09 Oct 2020 University of Boumerdès User:Phil Bridger User:Boumediene15 12 Sep 2020 Al Noor Hospitals User:Dormskirk User:Ardourian 12 Sep 2020 Allied Hospital User:Adamant1 User:Captain_Assassin! 12 Sep 2020 DHQ Faisalabad User:Atlantic306 User:Zaidi.raza As the other editors in question may wish to comment, let's ensure that they are notified. @SportingFlyer, Necrothesp, Phil Bridger, Atlantic306, AllyD, and Dormskirk: Andrew🐉(talk) 23:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) The reason "it was not clear what or who they were talking about" is because it was a general question that I didn't feel like singling anyone out in particular for. For some reason, it's almost like you can't just ask a question around here without it turning into a big row. Where people on the other side bandwagon and go off on whoever is asking it. Andrew, I really don't appreciate you turning this into a personal thing or trying to make a spat out of it when neither was why I asked the question. The only reason "the other editors" are in question is because you just made them a part of this. My guess is that your doing it so that the subsequent row will deflect from the question getting answered. If had wanted specific users involved in this, or if it had anything to do with them, I would have just pinged them myself. It's extremely bad faithed and rude to implicate people in something on my behalf that I didn't implicate them in myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC) To be fair, there was an accusation embedded into your question about whether users can be sanctioned for indiscriminate deprodding: Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." I don't think it's bad form to notify them. They will probably want to know that this could lead to reports being filed against them in the future. Darkknight2149 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC) To be fair, I've been doing PRODs for a while now and whatever "embedded accusation" it might have had, I didn't have any specific people in mind or I would have just said so. I have zero problem calling out specific people doing things when I want to. I have zero problem with Andrew pinging people about a discussion. I do have a problem with him pinging specific people that I'm currently having issues with and saying that I was specifically talking about them when I wasn't. Even if I was, it wouldn't be appropriate though. Whatever "embedded accusation" there might have been. Sure, ping people all you want though, just don't put words in my mouth or whatever when you do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC) I really do take exception to be accused of being a "serial PROD remover[s] that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted". I am most certainly not a serial PROD remover. Nor do I think nothing should be deleted (I've deleted plenty of rubbish from Wikipedia in my many years here). I regularly check the prod categories and only remove PRODs in a small minority of cases where I believe the PROD has been wrongly applied and where deletion needs further discussion. This has already been explained to Adamant1. It has also been explained that a PROD can be removed by any editor for any reason (or none). Prodding was introduced for wholly uncontroversial deletion of rubbish and NN articles that have no value to Wikipedia. It was not introduced to allow editors to bypass the AfD system on articles that may be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Good thing no one accused you of being one then. Especially me. I was pretty clear that my question wasn't pointed at any particular user. I don't see how you could have missed that fact either. That said, your comment is exactly the type of thing I was talking about when I said Andrew is just trying to cause problems. Nice job going along with it. It's pretty clear what both of your priorities are. Fake grievances and made up controversies. The whole thing is so ridiculously trite and played out at this point. You guys should really get a new gimmick. Especially Andrew Davidson. Dude has a way lower AfD success rate then I do and yet your all criticizing my edits. As if. Fake aggrievement. That's all it is. Pure, simple, fake aggrievement. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC) I have updated the table above to add the user that created each article. Note that, in no case, did that editor remove the proposed deletion. One reason for this will be that Adamant1 does not notify the creator when they place a PROD. This failure to notify seems quite controversial. As such editors tend not to be habitual editors who check their watchlist often, they may not understand what has happened to their creation if it is deleted. From their perspective, it will just have vanished without explanation. They will then tend to be annoyed and/or confused.The WP:PROD process explains how this should be done: "You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the == Proposed deletion of Name of page == The article Name of page has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages."Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC) I'd love to know how any of that is relevant to my question or really anything else for that matter (hint, it isn't). At this point your just blowing hot air to hear the sound of your own voice and continue a discuss that was already resolved before your first comment. Please desist from it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC) The original question was about what makes a proposed deletion controversial. If someone creates an article about a respectable topic in good faith and then you propose that it be deleted but don't notify them then that would be an example of a controversial proposal. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Oh. You should have just said that instead of including all the unnecessary personal tripe. That aside though, the last time I checked notifying the article creator while being courteous isn't required. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that doing something like a G12 or G1 speedy delete wouldn't be controversial even if the article creator wasn't notified about it. Nor IMO would it be cool for anyone to remove them at their whim "because controversy." Also, I think we all agree that it shouldn't be necessary to take every gibberish or copyright violating article to AfD, just so we can all pontificate about them to build "consensus" that they should be deleted or whatever. Personally, I rather skip the bureaucracy when it's not completely necessary and trust that the reviewing admins know what they are doing. I fully acknowledge that its not the way people like Necrothesp and SportingFlyer prefer to do things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose reluctantly, because I agree with VQuakr and believe the behavior here of Adamant1 would be more appropriately addressed with a short-term block. Changing to Support based upon the overwhelming battleground evidence increasingly on display in this discussion, and especially on the basis of this nastiness toward Bishonen. If this is what Adamant1's AfD participation is like, then the project would be better off limiting his access to it. However, I continue to think a block for persistent battleground behavior would be more appropriate. Would also recommend that Adamant1 is long overdue to read, absorb, and internalize the ideas expressed at WP:BLUDGEON. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — @Grandpallama, it isn’t a bludgeon when editors attempt to defend themselves, especially if they feel they are being quoted out of context or their words misconstrued, @Adamant1 appears to be simply defending their-self from what they may believe to be falsehood. I see the conversation is now tilting towards Prodding??? Prodding which is arguably the most useless method of deletion & that someone may get in trouble for semi-indiscriminate Prodding is just nonsense. The consensus is leaning on no sanction/action be taken on Adamant1, which imo is the correct course of action. Honestly this back & forth is doing the project no good. Both parties involved should take responsibility for their actions, acknowledge their shortcomings, promise to do better next time & just move on. Why prolong the drama? It seems as though the older & more experienced we get, we tend to develop an affinity for unnecessary prolonged drama. Celestina007 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• The bludgeoning is a separate issue than anything to do with Phil Bridger. See this AfD as an exceptionally recent example - it is unfortunately not a unique example. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Seriously? This whole thread is a textbook example of bludgeoning. Adamant1 has responded to almost every single post from almost every single editor. One is expected to defend himself, but creating massive walls of text repeatedly is precisely the problem with bludgeoning. And, for the record, Phil Bridger is the only one here who has been quoted out of context, and whose behavior was brought to the board, and yet he has managed to keep his posting to a reasonable amount. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• The consensus is leaning on no sanction/action be taken on Adamant1 is an incorrect statement, by the way. Consensus is leaning toward rejecting this proposed topic ban, but a number of the opposes have said it's because a different sanction is more appropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: If I counted the numbers correctly you've commented twelve times in this and I've commented 14. Remember to that this is about me, I have right to explain things, and your not obligated participate. Also to compare, most of those messages where directly responding to people who asked me questions or to elaborate on something that someone had miss-quoted me or blatantly got something wrong. So they at least directly related to the discussion. Whereas, from what I can tell you've gotten in like 2 (?) off topic tiffs with Lev!vich, you made the whole comment about me insulting people in the beginning which served no purpose except to be hyperbolic and add fuel to the fire, and I'm sure there's other examples.

For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions, say pretty unconstructive things to stir the pot, and then to criticize people who were originally in the discussion and that's it directly related to. For things like them being arguementive or calling the amount of times they have commented bludgeoning. When in reality the grifter (again, for a lack of a better word) has comment more or equal amounts to them (12 to 14 in this case) and were really the ones being arguementive (your side tiffs with Lev!vich, clearly hyperbolic statements, Etc. Etc.). Which, in case it isn't obvious, is exactly what your doing. It's a rather insidious and exploitative way to participate IMO. Especially since your rarely if ever involved in disagreements I get in not directly related to this and I hardly interact with you in AfDs or the like. For whatever amount I think SportFlyers is just on his campaign against me for nothing else except to cause me problems, at least there's actually articles, AfDs, and other things that his behavior are directly related to. For you it seems more like it was just a good three days to miss quote Lev!vich and stir the pot in things you have no direct vested interest in or something. So you went with it.

(BTW, Feel free to criticize this as a wall of text to. I don't really care. It take the amount text it takes make a point, there's no hard limit on the number of characters a message can contain, and the whole criticism is rather low hanging fruit anyway. Your free to just not read messages you think are to long or to not participate in discussions where you think someone is "bludging." Despite being accused of having a battle ground mentality or whatever, there's plenty of discussions where I do just that. I'm sure you can to.) --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions What reason? Quit casting aspersions, state whatever it is that you're implying, and back it up with a diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to back up pretty obvious things like that with a diff. It was a general thing anyway. Not that I don't have examples though, but hey why not practice what you preach for once and AGF that I'm basing it on something instead of needlessly continuing this? I don't need to provide diffs for every thing I say anymore more then anyone else, including you, does. For instance, you didn't provide one when you said I was insulting people in a discussion I wasn't involved in. That said, I'd like to see a diff where Lev!vich said "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes." Don't feel obligated, but you did say I'm the one that's lose with the truth (without providing a diff to back it up to). Last I checked intentionally miss quoting someone doesn't seem very truthful or honest. Nor does going off about how others should provide diffs for things when you don't. I'm not jumping through arbitrary hoops other people don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

For instance, you didn't provide one when you said I was insulting people in a discussion I wasn't involved in. False. I commented on the discussion in the link which Andrew Davidson provided, which is one in which you had been heavily commenting.

I'd like to see a diff where Lev!vich said "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes." Right here. Opposing a proposal on the basis that supporting it is victim-blaming and makes the victim-blamers look like assholes is, ipso facto, calling the proposer and the supporters of said proposal assholes. According to you, though, this is an off-topic tiff, and this discussion is about your, and Phil Bridger's, behavior.

I don't have to back up pretty obvious things like that with a diff. It was a general thing anyway. No, actually you do. You responded to me, referencing observations I've made about your editing behavior in this thread, and insinuated I'm a 'grifter' with some sort of agenda of my own (ironic, given that you are at this noticeboard to object to insinuations about your motives): For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions. What is my supposed 'reason' here? If you're going to cast aspersions, back up your words with evidence. Grandpallama (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

So what if you were commenting on the link he provided? It didn't seem like it at the time and it still doesn't, because that wasn't a new conversation and you said the one you were referring to was. Even if you were referring to the link though, your comment was still completely unnecessary, didn't add anything constructive, and was totally just meant to add fuel to the fire. Just like almost every other comment you've made. Which was what my point was and isn't dependent on what conversation you were referring to. So get over it.

As far as Lev!vich goes, you directly quoted him as saying "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes." Which was just wrong because he never used the word "me." You can't just add words to a quote that weren't a part of what the person originally said and not expect push back for doing it. That one is totally on you. Either quote exactly what someone says or don't quote them. Period. Yes, the back and forth about it was an off topic tiff. Like you say, the discussion is about mine and Phil's behavior. Which last time I checked doesn't include you beefing with Lev!vich on the side.

"No, actually you do." No, I actually don't. I'm not obligated to provide anything or even participate in this discussion for that matter. So don't boss me around. I'm supposedly the one with a battle ground mentality, but here's Grandpallama bossing other people around and continuing an argument that I suggested he end. Go figure.

I'm not here to "object to insinuations about my motives." I'm here to counter the clear cases of people misconstruing my actions and to answer questions people ask me. That's it, and I have every right to do so. I didn't even know about this discussion, and wasn't participating in it, until someone pinged me. Honestly, I could really care less about it. If I do get blocked I'll probably laugh at the absurdity the whole thing and go spend my time in better ways. Not once have I said anything else either. 100% all I care about is that this is done fairly and that people don't lie about me. That's it. If I deserve to get blocked for my actions though, cool. It will be squarely on me. Like I've said several times, I have no problem taking responsibility for my actions and I have. I'm not taking responsibility for things I didn't do though and I'm not going to be blocked for them either. At least not without correcting things first if it does come to me being blocked. I'm sorry that you have such a problem with that. I'd like to think we aren't authoritarian's here and that people can speak at their own trials. Maybe I'm wrong though. Since you treat me like sticking up for myself is some egregious sin. So sue me for doing it. I'm done with this discussion. Hopefully this time you are to. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: After originally saying that users with a bad faith agenda keep removing his prods ([63]), then swearing multiple times that he didn't say that after they were tagged (see the exchange above and at [64], [65], [66]), then claiming that he was only talking about prod removers from a long time ago ([67]), Adamant1 has now changed his story for the third time and is directly accusing Necrothesp (one of the users tagged) of having an agenda. The constant flip-flopping is why I stand by my Support vote for now. Darkknight2149 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Where did I say that Necrothesp had "a bad faith agenda" in that discussion? The last time I checked the word "agenda" is rather neutral. Especially compared to accusations of racism. Which some people in that discussion were totally fine with and fed into. You continuing to read negative connotations into the word so you can beat a dead horse is really just showing a lack of AGF. I suggest you put down the stick. In no way is using the word "agenda" a blockable offensive. You continuing to treat it that way is ridiculous and just makes you look petty. I'm sorry I committed the grave sin of responding to someone who pinged me. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am trying to stay out of this debate, but this personal attack on Andrew D is not acceptable. For the record, I have never considered blocking Adamant1. To forestall a potential argument about bias, I should mention I disapproved of Andrew making a personal attack about two months ago in the same manner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I find him constantly talking down to me and other people in AfDs not acceptable. That specific comment about him having a plan to get me blocked was specifically in reference to his comment in the AfD for Matriculation in South Africa where he said "The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path." Which was in reference to me nominating articles related to Africa and it was said about the same time he made his comment here about the nomination and it "generating tiresome arguments." When it ended up closing as a merge. In light of that and his almost endless backhanded behavior everywhere, I think what I said was justified. Clearly someone who says they are going to oppose me, or anyone else, for nominating articles that get merged has personal issues they need to deal with. Also, his comment was very threating in tone. Which shouldn't be acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, the point about expecting opposition refers to the statement in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." I removed Adamant1's PROD of Matriculation in South Africa and would do so again. The AfD endorsed my position that deletion was not appropriate. Adamant1 continues to try to delete such educational topics and continues to encounter opposition. The point is that they should not be using the proposed deletion process for this as it is only for uncontroversial cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew:, I had zero problems with the PRODs "being removed" I had a problem with your attitude about it and you treating me like doing PRODs is some great egregious sin. Same with the AfDs. I had like 12 PRODs that were deleted right before that without issue or it being controversial. It only become an issue because you and a few other people decided to make it one. Then you badgered me about doing the AfDs. When your the one that wanted them. Atlantic306 removed 4 of my PRODs, what I did there? Absolutely nothing, because Atlantic306 didn't make a big fat stink out of it and didn't act condescending like you did. Same for the other like 3 people that removed my PRODs that I had zero issue with. Supposedly according to you and Darkknight2149 I had such an issue with Necrothesp removing my PRODs, but I couldn't even remember who he was until you posted the table. Your just acting like I have personal problems with certain users to deflect from that fact that you do. PRODs are a tool Wikipedia gives people to have articles deleted. That's not on me. Get over it dude. Your whole "Adamant1 continues to try to delete such educational topics and continues to encounter opposition" comment is exactly the problem. There's nothing wrong with doing AfDs for "educational topics" and there's zero reason that me or anyone else should be receiving "opposition" for doing them. Just like no one should be receiving "opposition" doing for AfDs about hospitals. Which you also took an issue with, got really snooty about, and caused a bunch of problems over Etc. ETc. Because your, and a few other users battleground mentalities (and you clearly have one) is the problem here. Especially yours. Just to illustrate, in the last month I've done 18 AfDs for schools. 18 isn't that much. It's clearly not enough to justify the "opposition" you and other people are having about it. definitely it's not enough for people to start claiming I'm I'm trying to wipe the continent of Africa off the map due to racist intent. Again, if your opposing someone doing an AfD about every other day and are acting as petty as you have been about it, clearly you have issues that you need to work out. I'd also go as far to say you probably shouldn't be involved in AfDs anymore until you do. 18 AfDs over a month and a half period, most of which have resulted in delete when they totally should have been (which is really your issue), is a non-issue. You targeting and attacking me over it is completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: There seems to be plenty of that to go around. Adamant1 also accuses me of "reading negative connotations into the word so you can beat a dead horse" while adding "I'm sorry I committed the grave sin of responding to someone who pinged me", but the irony is that I likely would not support any sanctions if he hadn't continued to dig himself into a deeper and deeper hole. The constant walking back of his previous statements, the battleground mentality, the lashing out and bludgeoning, the veiled accusations. Someone actually defended him against bludgeoning above, and you would think that would be the perfect segue to cut back and demonstrate that these concerns are not valid. Instead, he has continued to reply to every comment with even more aggressive (often dubious) responses. Sometimes the best defense is to say nothing at all. Darkknight2149 11:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is Adamant1's boundless battleground behavior, expressing aggression and self-pity in every single post, and showing no capacity to step back and let anyone else have the last word. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ToughPigs, I'm civil to people who are civil to me. Period. It's not "expressing aggression and self-pit in every single post", which is just completely hyperbolic, to correct people when they intentionally misconstrue what I say. It also leaves out how much of an aggressive battleground mentality everyone else, including you, has about this. Often times, way more then I do. I can't even ask someone for a source in AfD so I can use it to improve an article without someone coming at me slanted about and treating me like I committed some great sin. Things that should otherwise be none issues are constantly blown out of proportion by people for absolutely no reason. Like you an issue for two months over something completely ridiculous like me using the word "garbage" to describe sources or Darkknight2149 total lack of AGF by needling me repeatedly over a completely neutral word "agenda." BTW, I also get thanked a lot by users when I push back at the way people treat me. So, really, it's all a matter of perspective and what your "slant" is. But clearly people feel pushed around by people like Andrew and they appreciate me calling out people who do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that was the self-pity. Thanks for providing such a good example. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Only because no counter example or explanation is ever valid and the only acceptable thing is to shut up and take it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:PEPPER suggests some alternatives between posting too much and shutting up. Lev!vich 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

And I use them. One post is to much for people like ToughPigs though. Unless their the ones doing the posting. Like Grandpallama accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON when he posted the same amount I did. I'm not going to bend over backwards to accommodate people like him and ToughPigs who don't care about following the standards that they are saying everyone else should follow though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

More self-pity, refusal to take helpful advice, accusations and personal attacks. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Like with ToughPigs, me and him went at each a couple of times. When I tried to work it out and stop the bickering he ignored me and continued doing it. Yet now I'm supposedly the one exhibiting battleground behavior. He repeatedly took jabs at me in AfDs and then didn't stop when I asked him to, and now he's acting like this about things. And any pointing out of his behavior at all is dismissed as a personal attack, arguing, or displaying self-pity. Screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So that's how that works out. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Close this- it's clear that nothing productive will come from keeping this open any longer. Reyk _YO! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support sanctions The longer I think about it the more I believe that Adamant1 is simply trolling. See the unbelievably fruitless discussion on Talk:List of schools in Namibia. --Pgallert (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that's pretty rude and bad faithed of you. Your the one that went off about how there should be consensus on it in the first place. Of course, you threw in a lot of personal insults, waffled a lot about it, bossed me around, and just generally acted unreasonable, but still. Reverting someone and forcing them into a discussion, and then using the discussion you forced them into to argue they should be banned is a little mediocre. I'm just trying to build the consensus that you said I had to have before I could edit the article. It's pretty mean and hurtful to call that trolling. You shouldn't just throw a word like that around indiscriminately. Especially when I'm taking my time as a volunteer of this fine encyclopedia to try and work things out. It really seems like that's not what you want to do. Which, frankly, I'm rather saddened by. And to think, I even put my precious time into doing an RfC for a source we disagreed on and yet supposedly I'm just trolling. Such a bummer. Where in this disagreement have you done an RfC on anything? Where I ask you, where? What was trolling about me doing one? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - whilst Adamant1 does come across quite strong and maybe 'over the top' at times, it's quite clear that their edits are in good faith and such action is not needed in my view Spiderone 11:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Sigh... Darkknight2149 05:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh and look, Darkknight2149 is still adding to it even though it's already been closed. I find it slightly weird and rather WP:HOUNDING that you keep posting links to discussions I'm having that your not a part of. The only thing that would motivate you to do so is if you where going through my edit history to find things to point out. Which, last time I checked is rather unsavory and against the rules. I'm allowed to ask admins questions. Just like I was allowed to the question on the PROD discussion board that beat into the ground over nothing. So, I suggest you put your personal issues in check, stop targeting me, and move on to other things. Instead of trying to cause problems where there isn't any. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies's talk page is on my watchlist. Proposed Deletion is on my watchlist. WP:AN is on my watchlist. I have also shown a great deal of restraint in ignoring much of your flippant, gratuitous, and often self-defeating responses.

Let me be frank - You were let off the hook easily, yet you couldn't resist continuing the fight on another thread. You were told outright "OK, so it's other people's fault, is what I still hear. I don't think you can claim that somehow you are being discriminated against; in fact, we are all too inclusive of people who can't drop the snark--if that's how you and the people around you speak. I got a few things to do so I'll be short: if you're in a hole, stop digging." You refused to drop the stick. You were told "I'm going to give you a completely unsolicited piece of advice, and you would do well to listen to an uninvolved editor, for the first time since you opened the AN thread: Drmies will not appreciate you exporting your bludgeoning to his talkpage. He's already given you an incredibly strong, overt hint with his comment about digging holes. You should embrace having escaped sanctions and move on as quickly as possible." You still refused to drop the stick. In fact, you replied with this, which wasn't very smart. Even now, the one constant is your battleground mentality complete refusal to take a hint, no matter how subtle or upfront.

If you do not change your behaviour now, someone will file another proposal against you in the future and it will be a lot more successful than this one was. That's the final advice I have to give you. Darkknight2149 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I have zero problem with that. I'd just like this to be done with and I'm sure everyone else would to. If you think that means opening another complaint because I committed the Egregious sin of asking a closing admin to explain something better that I didn't understand so I can avoid problems in the future, then that's on you and you should do so. Otherwise, I think it should be dropped and you should leave me alone. You taking one sided quotes out of context just to try and make me look bad and so you continue this isn't helpful though and it's clearly hounding. Like I said, I should be able to ask an admin a question without being retaliated against or threatened for doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Restore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, could you please restore this page and move it to my sandbox? Thanks in advance. Patriccck (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP block exemption?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an administrator familiar with collateral damage from IP blocks take a look at the recent discussion at User talk:Sumit banaphar? This is not one of my areas of expertise. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 - I've sent you an email. SQL^{Query me!} 04:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request access to create article

Original AN post archived 1 November 2020‎

Hello, Please read here, I am not fluent in English but I always tried my best to be effective And I have good activities For example, please check the Kashmar article. Please give me this access because I deserve it, I'm very interested in creating a template And note that I used to only create templates And I had no problem and lost access! Thank you for helping me M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC) For clarity, this appears to be an appeal of this ban. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC) @M Imtiaz: Yes, thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC) You have successfully followed your unblock conditions for a number of months. That's good. But in order to have your topic ban lifted, you need to convince us things would go differently if your topic ban was lifted. Please explain in your own words why the topic ban was placed back in August, 2019 and what you would do differently this time. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC) @Yamla: Hello dear brother, look, I think we should move on from the past, I was blocked due to not being fluent in English and creating a wide range of weak articles, and so on .... But now the situation is different, I can do better and I do not intend to create an article, but I can do well in creating an article as well, Please see the Kashmar article. From zero to one hundred, I worked on it and you see, I worked well and I can still be as good as I am, but I am very interested in creating templates on Wikipedia, which you took my permission from me. And I can do nothing but edit, forgive me, I did not answer completely and accurately because of my lack of mastery of English time, Please see my recent edits, You will see that I am different than before[68][69][70] M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, please read here. I applied for permission to create the article But without any archiving, please check M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I added the original discussion in the above collapsed template for ease of access. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin impersonator

There is a newly registered user named Empire of Grammar (talk · contribs) who pretends to be a Wikipedia administrator on his user page. For instance, this user replaces fair use licenses to public domain (diff, diff) and removes whole sections from articles (diff); his capitalization changes are also questionable (diff, diff).--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As usual, the admin impersonator turned out to be a sockpuppet. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I say we should get revenge by having some administrators impersonate sockpuppets... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Can an edit filter be set up to prevent that admin template from being added to non-admin pages? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  No but one preventing non-admins from adding it to any page would be technically feasible. Take it to WP:EFR if interested to take it further. --Trialpears (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

SafwwefeStrikesBack (talk · contribs)

Nominate a violent action against Joe Biden in many wikis [71]. He was banned in viwiki, afwiki, mrwiki. Alphama (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The user is globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Continuing racist comments from IP 98.228.253.244

Hi, I posted yesterday [[72]] about a racist comment from IP 98.228.253.244, which stated that critics of the anti-Semitic writer Kevin MacDonald should be dismissed as "hilarious" because they have "Jewish surnames". IP's original comment for reference: [[73]] At that time I was told to issue a warning to the user but that further action wasn't necessary. I did issue a warning (level 3 derogatory, which seemed like the appropriate one given the hugely inappropriate nature of the comment). Today however the racist comment was restored by the IP along with a statement doubling down on this user's racist views: [[74]] This seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NAZI and grounds for action. I am less concerned with suppressing the comment than with blocking the user (of course temporarily since it's an IP) from making further racially derogatory statements which could contribute to a hostile environment. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed at Talk:Joe Biden

The article Joe Biden had to be full-protected due to vandalism. There are currently half a dozen "full protection edit requests" on the talk page. I am involved so I can't respond to them. If some admin could come by and take a look it would be appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Something big going on with him? Will have a look. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot of trolls turning up, should the talk page not be semi-protected or something? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

My inclination would be to let the whining continue for 48 hours without responding to it (ignore it, except for blatant attacks). Perhaps remove junk every 12 hours per WP:NOTFORUM or whatever. However, if it gets worse, semi-protection would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more blatant threads that were clearly NOTFORUM. Sadly 48 hours isn't going to be long enough, this is going to continue for weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's optimistic. But no more than 8 years or so, I'd say. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I got curious: Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age#10_oldest_serving_state_leaders. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Whats that, 100 edits over eight hours, with half probably forum'ish? Not the end of the world, bombshell stuff I thought was going to happen, but ye, I wouldn't be surprised for a high profile article like this one to be targeted for quite a few years! Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The talk page isn't being vandalized right now, just flooded with opinions saying that we can't call him "president-elect" until the electoral college meets and votes. Those are good faith opinions and we can deal with them; there is good consensus on that issue. The same changes would probably be made to the main article if it was unlocked, and that might be a reason to keep it locked for at least another day or two. While it is, we will continue to need uninvolved admins to respond to valid edit requests. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Help

HI there I hope you are well.

Can you be king enough to help me with this article im working on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janith_Wickramage

Thanking You Best of health

Wtlipnikki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtlipnikki (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wtlipnikki You don't ask what specifically you want help with, but you should ask at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

t risk of being mistaken for EEng --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Good one, DFO. Speaking of risk...did you notice Ringo's attempt to preempt obscurity - could he be EEng? Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Finally someone's figured it out: I'm actually Ringo Starr. But seriously, here's a true story... when I was about 6 I was absolutely the spitting image of Paul McCartney. Really. People would point on the street. EEng 09:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Speaking of "quiet desperation" with one's song unsung. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See also Draft:Janith wickramage.--Auric talk 09:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal II (restored from archive)

Back in December I requested a standard offer to be unblocked after not sock puppeting for a long time, which I was given, though my topic ban remained. After six months, I made a topic ban appeal which ended with no official consensus, but the reviewing admins agreed that I would need to edit more disputable areas and that I could appeal again in at least another three months. I had been focusing on volume of edits before, so this time I focused on editing in contentious subjects. It has now been over three months and I request that my topic ban be reviewed once again. --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Nosebagbear: who is the only user that partook in both of the discussions linked above --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support largely per this conversation on their talk page. They made a mistake, asked for clarification, and learned from it which is the exact kind of interaction I'd hope to see more of. Their edits since the block was lifted have largely been to talk pages which is good, because it shows productive discussion on controversial topics like Trump and racial tensions in the United States. Id' like to have seen more article edits, but everything I've seen so far makes me believe there's little risk in removing the topic ban even given the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose the ongoing issue is that since the last TBAN appeal, where more edits were specifically given as a need, there have only been 50 edits, most of them on Trump's talk page. The editor isn't behaving problematically, and they've clearly demonstrated some form of patience. It's already DS, but we could specifically authorise for the next 6 months the ability for any admin to reimplement the TBAN. Hmm. I'll have a think Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I recalled the main need being to edit constructively outside the TBAN area. I had also asked you for some sort of quota of edits to ensure this wouldn't be a concern in the future, and received no reply. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Steverci: Could you please comment in more detail on your plans if the TBAN is lifted? Do you have specific plans to resume active editing in on the topics of Armenia/Azerbaijan more or less right away? Or are you just asking for the TBAN to be lifted in order to be able to edit on those topics if at some point later you do want to do that? Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as vandalism like this which no one else noticed for a month. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per a query by applicant, I've restored from the archive - I think that even if we don't grant it, they would appreciate some more specific guidance Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Steverci: - this is purely my own perception, but one reason why we can be reticent to just ask you for x number of worthwhile edits is that such things have a habit of being gamed. For example, let's say we told you to give us 150 beneficial edits elsewhere. 150 typo fixed are beneficial but don't tell us much about your ability to avoid, or, potentially even more useful, handle, conflict. Likewise, 150 edits in a one week burst might just indicate that you can keep calm for that long (though given your resilience through a fairly irksome appeal process, that might be the least of my concerns at this point). I think at this point, per WP:ROPE, I could be considered a weak support for a removal of the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pagetitle

Moved from Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard

There is a proposal to edit the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle, which seems to have some support at the village pump. How wide of a discussion do edits to the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle require? An RFC? Maybe a link at WP:CENT? —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW any sysop can make the edit, not just interface-admins. Wider discussion for more than six days would be warranted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, thanks, I've moved the discussion to WP:AN. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear admins, could you please advise: what is the best course of action for gathering wider feedback for the proposal to edit the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle? Should it be an RFC or a link at WP:CENT? Or maybe something else? Follow up question: if it is an RFC, which RFC topic should be used: tech or style? —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not admin, but I don't think a proposal to replace a dash with an endash (even if it is in the title) needs to be advertised at WP:CENT. A discussion at VPR seems sufficient. However, MOS:ENDASH only applies to articles & I'm yet to understand enwiki's love for it. I don't think I've ever used an endash outside this place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that longer would be good, VPR itself seems fine. If you're looking for wider discussion... well, here were are, though I didn't mean to suggest it needed a sysop to make the decision. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and Amorymeltzer: ok. Then I'll just wait for a couple of days, maybe even a week or two, before seeking closure for the discussion at WP:VPR. Thanks, both of you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

About my article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators, This is on behalf of Iman Farzin, it is necessary to mention you be some information about my self and the article about me:

An article about me has been created couple of months ago, it’s been reviewed and everything was normal, until I had some revelations about the corruptions of football in Iran. After that, I’ve been attacked by hundreds of people in all social medias (Instagram, Twitter), at the same time, two editors from farsi-wikipedia came trough here and nominated my article for deletion. The article about me was “Speedy deleted” in fa-wiki, they even didn’t let the article to to trough a “Discussion for deletion”, they blocked almost anyone who has been contributed in. If you look at the AFD (article discussion for deletion) page now, the first comments by Iranian nominators are interesting to see: “ you can find anything about anyone in Iranian news agencies”!!!! Or “ we deleted this article many times in fa-wiki trough a discussion, this is not notable in fa-wiki, so shouldn’t be notable in en-wiki” or “the sources are all in farsi and there is no english sources” . These are some examples that you can go and read. After this, I realized that something like a movement by some Iranian people is happening against me. I asked some of my friends to contribute and improve my article by more sources. (I canvassed them) but I didn’t know that they will be blocking after they voted. They were canvassed by me, and it was my fault, not them! I also posted on a forum of wikipedians on LinkedIn, and first thing I mentioned there was: I don’t like to canvass! Unfortunately, I didn’t know that I should come trough this way (Administrators notice board) before user: Tim (I forget his full username) told me about this.

Now I have two issues for you to know: 1- fa-wiki is another project. Many editors of fawiki know that there is a kind of mafia there to get everything under controlled, and it’s a hard thing to fight with them. 2- An article with more than 30 references of reliable sources, in worst case should go for deletion trough a discussion, not speedy deletion. They speedy deleted the article in fawiki and I already explained that this is the first AFD for my article. I didn’t lied. 3- even with all canvassed issues happened, the notability of subject is something different and is regarding the WP:GNG. For me (as an amateur in wikipedia) it should be better ways to be learned, and to get noticed about my mistakes, blocking is not a good way. I also didn’t canvassed anyone to vote “keep” for me, I asked them to read the article and kindly write they real opinion about it. They also blocked some users as Sockets, but at least 2 of them I know (user:Sajjadimanian) and (user:Thedunker66) who lives in USA, for sure can’t be sockets. They were just canvassed by me and I accept the responsibility of my mistake.

Sorry for my long statement, but It was necessary. Best Regards, IMAN FARZIN 86.55.112.237 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GargAvinash unblock appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GargAvinash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GargAvinash has submitted an unblock appeal as follows:

I started editing Wikipedia 6 years ago (I guess) when I was in school (class 8). I created two pages (Pt. Ramprakash Mishra and Roshni Mukherjee). I didn't know anything about Wikipedia's Notability policy. I created those pages because I was associated with them. Both were teachers. I didn't give attention to the warnings that time because I knew nothing about Wikipedia. After blocking of the account User:Kumargargavinash I created another account User:ADPS but this account was again blocked due to sockpuppetry. Again in October 2019 I created this account and started editing. I was learning the policies of Wikipedia. I was creating articles and learning more about editing process. Then I also got Autopatrolled right. I enrolled at NPP school. User:Rosguill was teaching me. During that learning period, I read carefully about sockpuppetry and concluded that blocked users should not create new accounts to edit. Then I declared at my NPP school's talk page that I have two previous account blocked. Then User:Rosguill opened a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard and community decided to block me again. Now requesting unblock after 6 months. Now Community can see my edit behaviour of my all accounts and can decide whether to unblock me or not. — GargAvinash talk 19:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As a CU, I see no evidence of socking within the CU period, and would be willing to unblock, but as this block was the result of community discussion, I don't think policy allows this without getting community consensus at AN. I'm thus bringing this here. Any admin can close this and unblock if there is a consensus without needing to wait for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock. (Link to blocking discussion) As there's no indication that they have done any socking since the block, I think it's worth giving them another chance. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support I wasn't even fully on board with the original block. It looks like they've complied with the standard offer and I think we should give them another chance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support glad to see that they've returned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock The editor has demonstrated that they know what they've done wrong, and appears to demonstrate a willingness to edit constructively according to policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and this is the cultural problem: Then I declared at my NPP school's talk page that I have two previous account blocked. Then User:Rosguill opened a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard and community decided to block me again. Now requesting unblock after 6 months.. WP:NOTPUNITIVE. This stuff encourages socking and non-disclosure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more. Imagine confiding in an admin who's mentoring you only to have them inform on you to AN. It's a miracle GargAvinash is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia after the treatment s/he's received. Needless to say, I support unblocking the user. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock per edits prior to block as well as per Rosguill --DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock don't get why the user was blocked by community discussion in the first place given the improved maturity, in any case block is not serving any constructive purpose as it is stopping a productive editor from contributing. JavaHurricane 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock Everyone deserves a second chance and the editor here clearly has matured. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I supported and continue to support the block when the socking emerged. Not only was the editor socking, they claimed they didn't realise socking was wrong [75] when they'd already been blocked for socking and then told stories about how it was their friend [76]. By their own admission, they'd also tried to get their other account unblocked while hiding that they were already socking because they didn't want to get blocked for socking. If editor's can't be bothered obeying our socking policy whether because they don't care or unable to understand even after receiving ample warning, then fuck them. If they able to evade, whatever, they can edit while being an editor in bad standing if for some reason they want to and there's likely to always be that fear they will be uncovered leading to a situation where their chance of return may be low even if they wait 6 months. While it was good that the editor finally came clean unprompted, at the time, there was still zero evidence this editor was willing or able to obey our socking policy so a block was fully justified, and was entirely on GargAvinash's poor behaviour, not on the community or anyone else. They've since demonstrated they seem to be willing to obey our socking policy, so there's no longer any need for a block. Them coming clean voluntarily is one reason I'm satisfied even if their unblock request isn't perfect. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm assuming that User:Gopalagarwal11 is a misidentification by User:SpacemanSpiff because if not, that leads to significant concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  (Not a comment on the unblock request). I don't think it is a misidentification. The overlap on non-notable topics is too telling. BTW, if not a misidentification, that would place this user's editing start in 3rd of 4th grade. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock per many above, developed maturity and the site's longstanding proclivity to encourage second chances (which is a good thing). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some task support

Resolved

Hi - hoping an administrator can help with a few seemingly uncontroversial tasks:

• File:Platting Map.jpg has been found to be a free file, so I would like the ability to export this to Wikimedia Commons.
• File:Columbus State Community College Logo 2014.jpg has also been found to be a free file, so I would like the ability to export this to Wikimedia Commons.
• Moving any deleted content from Stonewall Columbus to User:Ɱ/sandbox33, as I would like to consider rewriting and publishing it.

--ɱ (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've done the third. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I exported the other two. @Ɱ: please double check the files on commons to make sure that everything is in order. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, will do. Thanks all. ɱ (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Full protection and certain politicians (you know the ones)

I hate to bring this to AN and start a dramafest, but how long are we gonna keep Joe Biden and Donald Trump full protected? Clearly there is a lot of disruption happening right now, but we can't keep them full protected forever. We have to drop them back to ECP at some point, but is that tomorrow? Next week? Next month? January? Unless extended, Trump's full is set to expire tomorrow, but Biden's is indefinite at the moment. This had been being talked out at User talk:Oshwah, but numerous admins and regular editors have expressed a combination of support and dismay and I think this has surpassed what can be discussed on a single user's talk page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Other creative solutions about how to allow editing but prevent disruption are welcome, such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions: (1) Why not ECP now? Just how many compromised/gamed accounts have there been? Too many to block? (2) Why not PCR now? Lev!vich 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No comment on ECP, but PCR is counterproductive on articles with high edit rates because every time an IP or non-AC account edits, we get a massive backlog of unreviewed changes as it also holds up subsequent edits by any non-PC reviewer. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively -- well, aren't they already exempt per: WP:1RR restriction: [...] Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, but there are a lot of unhelpful drive-by edits that fall short of being vandalism or violating a clearly established consensus. Take this one for example. It's not quite vandalism (sources exist to support it) and I don't know that there's a clearly established consensus not to call Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in the Lead, but it's obviously Undue weight and it forces another editor to burn their 1 revert of the day to undo it. ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is now back to EC protection. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare. About Joe Biden, I realize that full protection was necessary because of horrible image vandalism, and I congratulate User:Oshwah for swift action. But there is another way to deal with image vandalism: when this happened several times to the Trump article a few years ago, it was fixed by adding an abuse filter against uploading images. Maybe that could be installed on the Biden article, and the article reopened to normal EC editing? I really don't think full protection for that article is acceptable for more than a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, [77] GW had dropped it but then put it back to full because folks immediately started edit warring. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

An edit filter to prevent adding file links or changing the infobox images on an article seems feasible and not too performance impacting. GeneralNotability thoughts on EF idea? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is currently in place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz what filter is this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Was it in place on Saturday? Because if so, from what I understand it didn't work. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been actioned since. The filter is actually this one - findable to those who have access. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there really a reason to have this as a private filter? I mean, unless you're doing something hacky to detect what is an 'image', it shouldn't really be possible to bypass it just knowing the regex? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, yes it should remain private. You can guess roughly what it does, and I don't think you'll be improving on what's already there. Most filters tackling advanced vandalism are 'hacky'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've found it and on review agree that it should remain private. Don't want to say much more per WP:BEANS. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think ProcrastinatingReader is trustworthy, so I'll explain the situation a little more to them privately (but yeah, not here, BEANS), agree it should be private. I see it's been reactivated since the last time we had to fire it up, so I've got MusikBot set up to ping me on IRC when someone trips it. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just weighing in since I was the one who placed full protection on Donald Trump. I was hoping reverting back to ECP would suffice after the 24 hour sysop protection expired, but an edit war started up. That said, it was way less of the nightmare flurry of editing we were seeing yesterday, and it was mostly about one specific issue which is being sussed out on the talk page as we speak, so I'm cautiously optimistic that ECP will be sufficient tomorrow after the protection expires again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just stating up front in case I am not around later that if there is some agreement to drop the protection on the Donald Trump article back down to ECP, I have no objections to my protection being changed. I'd just ask that whoever does it makes sure they're available to have eyes on the page for a little while after in case the disruption reoccurs, as it did earlier today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare:, I'm willing to give it another shot. I can keep an eye on the article for the next few hours. In terms of the edit war that caused you to immediately re-protect the article, I agree it wasn't ideal especially coming right out the gate like that, but I think we can tolerate some reverts like that. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that important whether we have "|successor = Joe Biden" in the infobox at any given moment. ~Awilley (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a productive discussion, especially since I really have no clue what's been going on besides needing to answer edit requests. Having indef fully protected that article myself a few months ago, I completely understand the situation Oshwah's in and don't envy it. IMO the status quo seems to be going okay---I've noticed about 3 to 5 admins including me trying to regularly answer edit requests---but obviously I'd prefer if people could improve the article without our intervention. That said, it's a highly visible BLP and any disruption right now would be very bad; I would rather we be too cautious all things considered. I think we should let full protection stay for a day or two more, and then try ECP. If disruption occurs again, immediately full protect. Lather-rinse-repeat until we can have ECP without problems. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  EEng along with Iridescent's quote below convince me otherwise, especially now that we have a filter set up to prevent the worst of the vandalism. I think we should unprotect sooner rather than later, and devote our admin resources to reverting and blocking rather than filling edit requests per WP:5P3. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• To quote Iridescent [78]:

This is just the kind of article where we need people to be able to edit all the time, since for the next four years it will need to be constantly updated. Full-protection is an absolute last resort for articles (at the time of writing this is one of only two articles in Category:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism); what full-protection does is hand over control of one of Wikipedia's most important articles to the tiny handful of people who have both admin status and enough interest in the topic to want to edit it. If I didn't think it would provoke a wheel-war, I'd remove the existing protection without a second thought; I think it's totally inappropriate.

Our proudest moment should be that we maintained at least a semblance of "anyone can edit" (anyone who's extended-confirmed, anyway) on the new president-elect in the midst of all this confusion. EEng 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've lowered the protection on Biden with the proviso that anyone who thinks I'm wrong can restore full protection without consulting me. No need to worry about wheel wars on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wheel war. EEng 03:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  🙄 ~Awilley (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just let me know what protection and length is decided upon here, and I'll be happy to set it. No need for another admin to get dragged through this. I'll keep my name on the protection to keep others out of the drama. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Based on the comments here and no objections from GorillaWarfare I will tentatively remove the full protection from the Donald Trump article. As with Tony's unprotection of the Biden article, any admin can reinstate the protection at any time without consulting me. That seems a reasonable way to roll with this for the next several days, since we can't expect any one admin to be on call 24/7, and we don't know if or when ECP vandals might decide to strike again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't it wonderful. Right now, we've got Joe Biden omitted from Donald Trump's infobox. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is admitted at Mike Pence's infobox. Wonderful inconsistency, indeed. An Editor-in-Chief's dream... not. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  So some infoboxes are in flux. Big fucking deal. EEng 03:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  It's also not exactly accurate. The article is full-protected (...) and there's no consensus to have that content in the infobox atm it seems Talk:Mike_Pence#Remove_"Succeeded_by"_information_based_on_VP-elect_Kamala_Harris. Very likely it'll end up being excluded anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  We'd been better off, if that infobox topic had been brought up months ago. Oh well, as somebody told me earlier, it will all be meaningless after Biden & Harris assume office. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Re1ny.Dev

• Re1ny.Dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked Re1ny.Dev from mainspace for six months, due to persistent addition of badly sourced content relating to sexuality, especially to WP:BLPs. Please review / unblock / reblock / adopt as you see fit, this is one of those cases where there's probably no one single good outcome. I have no objection to any change to this block. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like a damn good explanation for this edit, putting what is basically whacking material on one of the most important figures in remembrance of the Holocaust should be done only by established editors and then with extreme caution, and this edit is a complete and utter BLP violation. So, on the surface, it seems to be a good block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think six months is quite long for a first block (and for an infrequent editor) but it is a serious offense. I think the block could be lifted once they acknowledge they won't repeat this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was a block just from Article space but not Article Talk space. In that case, I think this is a fair block that will allow the editor to show they can contribute positively. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: That's the thing about the infrequent but disruptive editor. They might not even notice a shorter block. And of course, any block is appealable if the blockee can show they have remedied the problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Another editor has started an RfC to restore some of the material: Talk:Cavetown (musician)‎#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• {sigh}, That is patently false. From their edits it looks like the only thing they tried to add was “transphobic” which is not in the proposal at all, and never was. Glee^anon 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• TLDR correction/expansion for pedants: Another editor (Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an RfC[79] to restore material that was removed as a direct result of Re1ny.Dev attempting to insert "transphobic" using an unreliable secondary source and a primary source where Cavetown specifically denied being transphobic. As often happens in these cases, once attention was drawn to the page in question it became clear that there were other claims, not made by Re1ny.Dev, that are had clear WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT problems. So far the consensus is to exclude the material that Gleeanon409 wants to include. There is some disruptive behavior by Gleeanon409 (bludgeoning[80][81][82][83][84], making major changes to the RfC question after multiple people had commented[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93], a general battlefield mentality[94][95][96]), but IMO nothing so far that requires administrator intervention.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Likely violating CANVASS, this is third posting thread to try to elevate claims Cavetown’s self-identifying as aromantic and transgender, as noted in reliable sources, is unworthy of inclusion.
  It’s blindingly obvious the information will be included, and only a matter of when. Glee^anon 19:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT. It has been explained to Gleeanon409 multiple times by multiple editors that the question is WP:WEIGHT, not reliability of sources. Yet Gleeanon409 keeps repeating their "as noted in reliable sources" mantra without addressing the undue weight issue. The ongoing fight with User:Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Moving forward is also troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gleeanon409 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. gnu57 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:PERM backlog

It is requested to Admins to please have a look at the long pending WP:PERM backlog. Thanks NewWikiLover (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The main backlogs seem to be AWB, PCR, and Rollback, though there are misc. requests in other sections as well. I'm going to work through PCR and Rollback, but if anyone has more experience with AWB I'd appreciate the help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've had my fill. There's still a lot of AWB requests, and a handful of Autopatrolled, Page Mover, and NPR requests outstanding. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy @Primefac: as they have handled AWB requests earlier. 42.110.211.81 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89, Anarchyte, and Rosguill: Thanks 42.110.211.81 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, been busy, will likely hit later. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also been quite busy. If the backlog still exists in a few days time, I'll be able to have a look. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to admins Wugapodes, Primefac, Rosguill, Lee Vilenski, JJMC89, Anarchyte and others (sorry if I missed anyone) for addressing the concern. Now, only PCR and rollback has backlog with a handful at File & Page mover request.42.110.198.18 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Eric Scerri: unblock request

• Special:Contributions/154.16.92.0/23

Eric Scerri is trying to edit Eric Scerri. Apparently his IP address 154.16.93.119 is in a range that has been blocked on all WM Foundation wikis.

The block started at 12:37, 9 Aug 2020. The block range is 154.16.92.0/23

The block was apparently made by @Martin Urbanec:. I posted an unblock request on 8 Nov to Martin's talk page but have not heard from him.

Is anybody here able to help please?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Two thoughts: first, this is a rangeblock, and thus Scerri is just caught up in it. Second, if he really does want to edit his own article, he should create an account and post on the article's talk page (and/or not use blocked proxies). I will also note that there is a local block on this range as well, so appealing to Martin Urbanec (who I will note was not informed of this discussion) is rather a moot point. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note this is indeed an open proxy. Please switch off your VPN, it will work after that. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with User:Mr Hall of England

For some time now I have been trying to explain to User:Mr Hall of England that introducing unnecessary pipes is unhelpful. Countless times I have directed him to WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE. For that he has called me a troll so I doubt I am achieving anything. Now he seems to be on a mission to remove redirects not only from the main space but also from archived talk pages, user pages, 10-year-old deletion discussions, etc. The user claims to have a learning disability so I hope someone can do a better job explaining why all of this is wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

•  User blocked indefinitely from article namespace per WP:MEATBOT and WP:communication is required; you can see an extended rationale on their talk page but I'll also explain here. The short version is that this behavior is long term and needs to stop immediately. Looking at their block log, this user has been blocked multiple times for making changes after being asked to stop. Their talk page takes forever to load, so I don't have a comprehensive list of warnings, but they were warned by the reporting user at least a month ago, warned about this thread 5 hours ago, and warned by an IP 3 hours ago. Despite all this, they keep going and I haven't found any explanation for why they are ignoring these warnings. They were notified of this thread almost 5 hours ago, but still continued to make edits that they should have known were controversial. The rate they were making these edits is incredibly quick---about a hundred per hour!---and the edits are pretty obviously against the consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN which they have been warned about. Honestly, given the history and current problem, I think we're reaching the end of our rope. I considered a complete CIR block, but I want to give them a chance to explain themselves and hopefully improve. But quite obviously their behavior is disruptive and has not substantially improved over the last few years. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have been tangentially aware of Mr Hall on-and-off for some time, with some genealogy articles and occasional spats at AfD and his talk page. There is clearly an enthusiastic editor buried deep inside, albeit one with an inability to communicate, compromise, and take instruction. I think my watchlist will be far less cluttered now they have a chance to consider the consequences of their actions. Good, swift action here to block. doktorb _words^deeds 09:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A bit worried here - Mr Hall mentions in his reply that he has learning difficulties, and from some contact over the years I think him to be an enthusiastic editor rather than a disruptive one. He has approached me to see if I could mentor him but I don't have the time - have suggested he tries the Rugby Union project page to see if anyone can help. Could the block be lifted in the meantime? --Bcp67 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Spoondivy and failure to be collaborative

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spoondivy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has told me that "please do not tell me what I can and can't do on this site. I don't take kindly to that type of language.", including the basic rules of the site. He ingratiated himself into a conversation with a different editor to make a personal attack. When I warned him that we don't do that, this was his response. His behavior is rapidly degenerating and I would like an admin to step in. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this chestnut here where he lies about me and makes more personal attacks. I just saw this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=988195994 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, Looking at their contribution history, I'm tempted to say this is somebody whose account was hacked. Their behavior starting a few days ago is so different from the several years preceding. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith Sounds like his account should be locked, then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯

Withdrawn per Nil Einne below. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) {{checkuser needed}} Would a checkuser investigate whether the current edits seem related to previous edits from this account? The July edits are probably too far back to check, but there's an October edit that might be informative. I agree that recent activity is strange--a flurry of user talk activity when the editor hasn't edited user talk ever before now. I'm not sure that's enough to request a lock at this point though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think this is a different editor. Their first article talk page comment relating to the dispute seems to be [97] where they specifically said:

Back in the spring of 2020, the home office released the 50th Anniversary for the album "Workingman's Dead". I went in and added the additional live material issued with that release and changed the format from the "classic" style to the Track listing format when I did this and not one individual complained. I go and do this to the "American Beauty" page and someone gets offended.

A quick search confirms edits from July [98]. I mean it's possible whoever compromised this account looked through the history, or found an account, for contributions to use as an example. But this seems incredibly unlikely. The lack of previous comments to any talk page isn't that surprising when we consider we're only talking about 195 or so contributions (219 now) before this dispute arose. The most likely explanation is that the editor has until now made edits without getting into a significant dispute, or at least one they cared about or noticed. Now they've got into their first major dispute and unfortunately their handling of it has been very poor. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would add it's not simply their comments. The interest in American Beauty seems to tally with the historic interest of which a big chunk seems to have been Grateful Dead. I mean I guess it's possible someone compromised an account and then looked for an articles they could be a dick in where they would reduce suspicion, or wanted to target Justin so looked for articles or accounts where they could overlap. But again, I find this incredibly unlikely. IMO this isn't a compromised account, just a fairly new editor (no matter they've been here since August 2018, 219 edits can still be considered new, I mean they've not even extended-confirmed yet) who is terrible at handling disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

He ingratiated himself into a conversation with a different editor... this sounds like a job for EEng. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, you forgot to notify Spoondivy. I have done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha, they deleted it. My apologies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Y'all are a bunch of morons. I am who I am, this account is not compromised and you can all bite me.--Spoondivy (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that this Justin dude needs his safe space and a pacifier. Typical millennial. Can't handle a strong argument. And let me tell ALL of you something else. There's DNA in me that arrived on the Mayflower back in 1620. Yes I can prove that. If I want to discuss something I will discuss it, if I want to argue something, I will argue it. BUT NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY will address me like I'm a child. Capisce!

Right, so I make a change and nobody says a WORD, I come back later and make another change and somebody gets their panties in a wad. I love the DOUBLE STANDARD. As I have stated before, my argument was about consistency, NOT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES, as I have said many times before. My only PERSONAL PREFERENCE regarding the GRATEFUL DEAD discography page is that every tune that bleeds into another be followed with greater than sign (>) to signify this change and that after every instance of a song name that ends with an apostrophe, Truckin' being the prime example, a space is left behind the song so that when it is viewed on the page you don't see this -> Truckin'" which to me looks stupid. This is how it should look -> Truckin' "

So take all of your a..-wipe yak about this whole episode and shove it where the sun don't shine.

And remember something else you pitiful humans, one day your going to die, we all do, and then somebody just might come along and make that change and you won't be able to DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT because yer dead and pushing daisies. HA!!! Have a good day. --Spoondivy (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for protecting my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would you please protect my talk page or prevent this user from editing it? Look what he has done to my talk page.[99] --Wario-Man (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have learned it is OK to remove warnings from one's own talk page, so I have no doubt @Nasheen: will not re-add any more warnings to yours. If they do, they will be blocked from editing your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, remember to notify them if you complain about them at a noticeboard. I've now done that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

President-Elect of the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Multiple edit requests are being made to change this article, claiming that Joe Biden has not been formally elected at this time. The article is semi-protected, and the edit-requests are (correctly) going to Talk:President-elect of the United States. The requests are then (correctly) being denied because Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and the news media are referring to Biden as President-elect. What is interesting is that the edit-requests are coming from a combination of IP addresses and almost unused accounts that made one or two edits several years ago. The IP addresses might be sockpuppetry, but that would not explain the accounts that are waking up after hibernating. One possible explanation is that the edit-requests are being brigaded from some external bulletin board. Does anyone have an alternate explanation? At this point what is in order is probably only administrative attention, in case the brigading increases, or in case there is some sort of mischief. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the dormant accounts may be sleeper socks, and others are just people who remembered that they have a Wikipedia account and want to get in on the action. Off-site canvassing is also a good probability as well. Just deny their requests and archive 'em. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is very similar to the crap we get at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, and our standard operating procedure for persistent demands we change the article to accommodate right-wing conspiracy theories on that page is to revert them off on discovery and point them at the FAQ. If these are drive-by demands, they're not interested in any sort of measured debate that isn't blind obedience, and therefore they're just a waste of space on the page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed protection applied, until after the College of Electors meets. Risker (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Risker, Perhaps also place an FAQ like banner/editnotice on the talk page to explain why we are calling Biden president-elect? Would also allows us to just summarily deny request with a link to said FAQ Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've placed an FAQ —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation bot

Ch 6 frequency by Smith609 is being abused. Please help. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.194.221 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show any diffs regarding this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Arbitration Committee elections: more candidates requested

There is just under 72 hours left until the self-nomination period for the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections ends. At the time I am writing this, only two candidates have nominated themselves. This year, we have seven open seats on the Arbitration Committee (even if there are fewer candidates than seats available, at least 50% support is still required for a one-year term and 60% for a two-year term).

If you are interested in taking on this difficult role, you are invited to nominate yourself. You must transclude your candidate statement to the candidates page by 23:59 UTC on 17 November 2020. Per WP:ACERFC2020#Nomination timing this year this is going to be a hard deadline, so I would avoid waiting until the very last minute to submit your nomination to avoid any technical difficulties. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion archived unclosed

An admin experienced, well-intentioned editor comes in with a valid issue about a chronic behavior problem that she can't deal with herself, showing plenty of diffs PLUS evidence she has tried over the past few months three times to deal with the problem without bringing it to ANI, and because she doesn't keep bumping the discussion, it's now archived. I don't understand why no one helped with this. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee, Consider bringing back your request from the archive. If you do so, you might suggest an admin action to take. If the case is about tendentious editing and assumptions of bad faith a one-month block seems possible. The editor does not seem to accept any feedback so others would have to decide what to do. There is unlikely to be any negotiated solution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ed that you consider unarchiving the discussion and create subsection where you propose a sanction. If there is support then it can be implemented. I have not dived into all the diffs there but I will admit that if both El C and Cullen have declined to block I would be hesitant to do so absent some kind of community consensus (I think no action is as worthy of respect as action). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Barkeep49, thank you, I've reopened and added a section. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, EI_C has blocked. Cullen has warned and suggested increasing blocks. Girth Summit has warned and suggested increasing gblocks. UTBC has tried their best to explain, as have all three admins. I've tried to explain on multiple occasions. EI_C and GS have gotten busy IRL, and I think Cullen after the wall of text on his page and responding at Girth Summit's has given up. Honestly, look into the diffs. I've not brought anything to ANI in five years as far as I can recall. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you've pinged me, a couple more thoughts. El C blocked once and then seem to have accidentally blocked a second time. But none of this was in your ANI report. With respect, your lack of ANI filing experience is showing; what you wrote makes for better ArbCom than ANI reading. Like I did at my first ANI report, you've included too much detail, making it a little imposing for someone to dive in, and didn't include important facts (like the block). That is, on a meta level, an answer you originally not understanding why no one has helped you. Even "Admin action requested" is not going to be effective as "Block proposed", then proposing a 1 month block, and supporting it as the proposer. I wouldn't encourage anyone to get more ANI experience per se but Wikipedia:ANI advice is useful for any first time or periodic ANI filers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm sure you're right. I don't know how to fix that, but advice is much appreciated. What should I do? Should I change the subsection head? Should I add a diff for the block? The discussions at Girth Summit's and Cullen's and EI_C's talk, in addition to the one at UTBC's? I'm open to any help. I'm at the point I'm ready to walk away from this and let someone else discover it later. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No one has replied to so I don't see an issue with you changing the section name. And, as I know you know from past experience, sometimes waiting (and sometimes walking away) is all you can do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. :D —valereee (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Others have already given good advice but I'll add another point. Admins should not expect special treatment at the boards. Plenty of editors open threads which don't result in any action, not even editors saying there's no need for action. There are even threads where there's some minor support for action but not many comments and the thread is archived without action. It's fine for editors to unarchive those threads if they think they were archived prematurely and are hoping something will happen, but all editors including admin need to accept that for a variety of reasons, opening a thread which you feel has enough evidence for action doesn't mean action will result. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, wow, I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that I was sounding like I was requesting special treatment, but now that you've pointed it out, that's exactly what it sounded like. My apologies; that wasn't actually my intention, but you're right. Thank you for the advice. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I apologize for not commenting sooner, but I have now supported a block and an editing restriction at ANI. Barkeep49, it is not that I "declined" to block or support a block, but rather that I am sometimes slow to decide and I have had a lot on my plate in recent weeks. I encourage participation by others in the ANI discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, seriously no apology necessary. I appreciate someone who is slow to decide. I think we all should be slow to decide. I think as this was basically my first 'real' ANI, I just didn't really understand how best to approach it. I've become (slightly) more educated. :) —valereee (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• The thread was unarchived to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pasdecomplot in case anyone is looking for it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent/Inappropriate use of protection templates by a non-admin user - Temp or perm block of editing privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:WikiBoyLove - Persistent misuse of protection template(s) for an unprotected page, including disruptive and unsourced edit(s) of living person.
• Incidents - [100], [101], [102], [103] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Not done, this has not been discussed with the editor, they only added it to one article the three times; they very well could be trying to ask for protection and/or not understand how the protection templates work. They have not been approached about this issue (just a generic "don't disrupt" message) so we're nowhere near the amount necessary for any sanctions. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editor was a sockpuppet and is now blocked. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I was shocked when I saw this that he wasn't immediately blocked for the pro-pedophilia username. So I did. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved admin to keep tabs on contentious Israel-Palestine AfD

Hello, I recently stated an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans. This is obviously a hot topic and I'm neither a regular AfD participant nor an especially frequent editor within the Israel-Palestine conflict area. The new article in question came to my attention via an RfC at Israel. I'm confident that the concerns I've raised warrant an AfD discussion and I'd like to be able to step back from the AfD as far as possible so that this can now happen.

I've been accused of canvassing by a number of editors in favour of retaining the article; this is not the reason that I'm bringing this issue here (I'm quite happy to address the issue directly with the editors in question on my talk page). The problem is that the discussion has been brought to the AfD and I'm concerned that it may negatively effect it, with some of the editors writing at the AfD that a consensus reached there will not be a fair outcome. Some outside guidance, and a pair or two of neutral eyes to moderate the AfD, would be appreciated. Many thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to the canvassing claim, I think they may have been confused, but that clearly isn't canvassing. I don't mind keeping an eye on the discussion, but so far it isn't a heated discussion, so probably a bit early to bring to AN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if this was premature, I was mostly hoping to have an admin keep tabs on it going forward as it's one of those topic areas where emotions are often running high, and I appreciate you doing so. Thanks again, Jr8825 • Talk 13:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: what should help is that I've added ECP to it as new editors aren't allowed to contribute to AfDs, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller - is that a new finding? I thought any user acting in good faith could respond in any such discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 which was passed Dec 27 last year. The bit discussing the exception that allows new users to uses talk pages says " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." In other words, they can't even edit such discussions here. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for that. I found it shortly after the ling (sorry). Presumably the bit about posting talk page messages is exempt on the AfD as well then, as we aren't talking about content? Thanks for clarifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I'm not sure what you mean about posting talk page messages - for article (except for an RfC) and personal talk pages yes, but for an AfD talk page, no. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for restore articles titls

This user Jaffer Awan many times warned by other users and blocked by an administrators for 3 hours for moving pages after unblocked they again start moving pages, please stop him and restore all pages back to there old title thanks. Ytpks896 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ytpks896, I guess General Notability should've blocked this user for a week at least. I have reverted a number of the moves which can be seen here. Many more are left, and it is a difficult to revert these much moves quickly. I'm doing still. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think he should be blocked for at least one month, He is a new user and He needs to read wikipedia guidelines, Thanks for your help TheAafi. Ytpks896 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The user has not edited after the expiration of the block. At this point, I see no merit in this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the block was intentionally short - just enough to stop the (apparently undiscussed) mass page moves. There is no need for a longer block unless they resume the moves without discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Once the block was done, it should not be lengthened and the user should not be blocked again after the expiry, unless either some other problem is noticed/discovered (e.g sockpuppetry) or the user's behavior after the block was made justifies it. 147.161.13.57 (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Filemover RfC has been opened

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An RfC has been opened into whether the filemover flag should be removed from CU (indefinitely) blocked accounts. Your input is welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

...and closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are there three trusted admins who can close a contentious dispute?

There's an RFC on WP:RSN about deprecating the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday edition of the Daily Mail. This was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Mail_on_Sunday two months ago, but it seems to be regarded as a hot potato nobody wants to risk touching - particularly as it's the sort of question where three admins would be a good idea, not one.

So I wouldn't normally ping AN, but in this case I suspect it needs it. Are there three experienced and uninvolved admins who can take on this one? thanks - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having no particular impression of the source one way or the other, and no involvement in the discussion, I'll volunteer for a panel. BD2412 T 23:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, unless my quick skim is wrong, this won't require a panel close, just do it. I'll co-sign if necessary. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that. I'll get started. This may take a while. BD2412 T 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

   Done @Primefac: if you are comfortable co-signing, I would appreciate that. BD2412 T 01:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'd say your close is more than sufficient. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks to BD2412 for the close and to Primefac for noting it might not have to be a panel close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mission Statement Critical Thinking Point

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to Wikipedia

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Page protected

Which is correct?

I suggest an edit to the main wikipedia page away from a specific towards the overview. I would replace:

This

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male.

With

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. Gender bias has been mentioned as a currently relevant concern because the majority of editors are male.

Credibility

This change would improve credibility because it identifies and acknowledges the major criticism, rather than accentuating a secondary criticism. It also improves consistency between major wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RFPP backlog again

We seen to be seriously backlogged at WP:RFPP, with 30+ open requests and about 30h the longest delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Was just beginning a pass through it when I saw this on my watchlist :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Primefac (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sports team season mass deletions, comment needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This issue needs urgent resolution; it has been needlessly contentious and hundreds of articles have been lost. I brought this to ANI last month, but uninvolved Admins were totally AWOL.

There is a major impasse in the soccer articles being created in good faith, and being deleted en masse. The ANI discussion and the deletion pages have been frustrating and unproductive, and marked by arrogance, bad faith or incivility (on both sides). Users have already made their points, repeatedly, here.

I ask uninvolved Admins to comment on at least one of the following:

a) Important: We need a working definition of notability for team seasons, especially for European soccer team articles of the type "2009–10 Real Madrid season", etc. Please use the guideline WP:NSEASONS to help. The guideline, which is brief and U.S.-centric, clearly allows such articles about U.S. college teams, i.e. amateur teams. Large numbers of Wikipedia sports articles concern amateur teams or semi-professional teams, and always have done. Many deletions have stated that eligible teams must be in fully professional leagues, but even a cursory reading of NSEASONS refutes it.
Would you agree in principle that a suitable definition for soccer could be, "Teams in national leagues"?
(It may not be AN's place to judge on content, but the current situation and rules are a mess, and nobody's helping.)

b) If you have time: Could any deletions below be in breach of Wikipedia policies or principles? Many were based only on a consensus of highly motivated users who supported many deletions with minimal justification. Those who disagreed were ignored (e.g. Békéscsaba, Doncaster), or were absent due to the sheer number of deletions. As I said in ANI, this was done not by consensus, but by attrition. Deletions of this type (and awful/nonexistent debates) help neither Wikipedia, nor the coverage of soccer on it, and hurt users' faith in it.

This was a snapshot of a single month; there have been many more.

More recently, articles have been edited with "WP:PROD" to try to bypass even a rudimentary debate. That is completely inappropriate. The ANI discussion showed widespread opposition to the nature of the past deletions, and that they were controversial. But the purpose of WP:PROD is "to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion ... if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Do you believe that this behaviour should be deemed unacceptable in future?
Please help. Thanks. - Demokra (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• (a) The appropriate place to discuss WP:NSEASONS is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). (b) If you feel the articles listed were deleted out of process, discuss them (individually please, not en bloc!) at WP:DRV. (c) Anyone can PROD an article. If the proposed deletion is controversial, remove the PROD message. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Having opened 5 or 6 of the listed AfDs, I fail to see the issue. These were for the most part uncontroversial deletions, voted on by people whose names I recognise as belonging to editors who actually like football and have made thousands of articles relating to football. Your attempt to create a guideline which would specifically allow articles which routinely get deleted at AfD goes against anything such guidelines stand for. The intention is that they describe actual practice, that they describe groups of articles where 99% of the entries would survive AfD: a specific guideline should never be used to protect articles which don't meet the requirements. I can perfectly understand editors, after having nominated dozens of articles for AfD which ended all in "delete", who then move on to ProD; the previous deletions show that the proposed deletion is, on the whole, uncontroversial, even if occasionally someone objects (and many of the AfDs had no opposition at all). In any case, there is nothing here that requires admin attention, this is something for the village pump probably. Fram (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category navigation is not working

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I need to post it somewhere. The system is not letting me go through categories in the normal way. When I open a category it has the first 200 articles. However when I click on next it goes straight to a page starting with the 200 articles beginning with the first one categorized under B. If I go back it gives me a page with the previous 200 articles, but will only allow me to go back 1 page. This means in some categories some articles in the category cannot be navigated from. This is a very frustrating situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Worth asking at WP:VPT? GiantSnowman 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Verified it's not working for me either. I tried with Category:Horticulture and gardening (the first category I came across with more than 200 pages). When I load the category it shows me the first 200 pages as normal, up to pages starting with "S" in that case. When I click next, it seems to be "rounding" to the next letter: the first page shown starts with "T". I don't think it's coincidence, since the first page has 200 pages and the second 33, in a category with 248 pages. When I click previous, the listing starts with letter "B", and now there are 200 pages again but more "S" pages are shown, and also I can click previous again to get the listing from the start, but with only 30 pages shown (up to the end of the "B"s I guess). Bizarre. I agree it's an issue for VPT, and feel free to copy my comment over there if you're going to report, I'm logging off for the night. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:koavf dispute regarding Season 24 of South Park and The Pandemic Special

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:koavf has created the article South Park (season 24) in blatant disregard to a talk page discussion in the episode article The Pandemic Special. At root of the issue is the debate as to whether or not the episode in question was or was not the beginning of Season 24 of the series. As per the episode's talk page, there are at least 6 reliable sources, not the least of which is the actual press release on the subject from Comedy Central, that all state that the episode was a one-time special and not the beginning of the season. Koavf has stated on his season 24 talk page that he did read this discussion, and even with the subject being controversial at the least, he still created his article. He is using a video link and one other source to justify his stance, while I have shown him the 6 other reliable sources that disagree with his contention. His article is false and should be corrected as soon as possible. When I attempted to edit his article with these cites and sources which counter his statement, he reverted them on grounds of WP:POINT and WP:OR, neither of which are correct. There was no original research added, only factual citations which counter his statements of the article. In fact, when the article The Pandemic Special was originally created, it had to be page protected for some time as there was an ongoing edit war from other users on this subject. This subject is contentious at least, and a new article that contradicts another article already existing should not be published without at least discussing it first, especially considering that there has already been a talk page discussion on the subject matter, and even a 3RR dispute resolved on the matter where the opposing party admitted that he was wrong for attempting to change The Pandemic Special article from a special episode to a Season 24 premiere. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• This board doesn't settle content disputes. You might want to try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SanAnMan, So there are two issues here which I'll try to disentangle. One is the content dispute which hinges around "Is this the premiere episode of season 24"? That is a pretty straightforward issue: I have multiple reliable sources saying yes and you can see South Park (season 24) for them. The second issue is SanAnMan's behavior. Nominating the article for deletion as a "hoax" is completely inappropriate and was immediately reverted. He also seems to misunderstand WP:CONSENSUS as a consensus of sources rather than a consensus of editors. If you look at Talk:The Pandemic Special#Season premiere or standalone special?, several editors chime in about whether or not they think this constitutes a season premiere. There is no consensus among the editors that it isn't. SanAnMan also shows poor judgement and a willful misreading of sources: e.g. with this press release, there is just an absence of evidence: it doesn't say this isn't part of season 24, it just doesn't mention season 24 at all. He also contradicts himself about what constitutes a reliable source because he cites Comedy Central in this instance and then also says that this same source is unreliable. Which one is it? Then today, he made this disruptive edit and proceeded to edit war about it in contravention of WP:POINT, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:BRD. Now, instead of posting to talk, he's running to AN. His judgement and understanding of norms here is flawed at best and several of the actions I linked are bad faith attempts. He is unwilling to collaborate and willfully flaunting the norms that we have here. (This is in addition to removing sourced information from The Pandemic Special and List of South Park episodes as well as contravening other norms like MOS:RETAIN and WP:CITEVAR: why he thinks he is exempt from those, I have no idea). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC) (@Ivanvector: we overlapped one another. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

Koavf You don't have "multiple sources", you have two, I have six that counter your stand. Per Ivanvector this will be discussed in DR. As for your edits to List of South Park episodes, it seems I'm not the only editor who thinks your edits are wrong. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SanAnMan, Again, you show poor judgement and a willful misunderstanding: first off, there are no less than four sources in that article (Comedy Central, Metacritic, NME, and UPI) that call this these season premiere of season 24, secondly, your sources don't all counter mine: the Comedy Central press release doesn't say this isn't the season 24 premiere (that would be countering). Please re-read my post above to show that you comprehend things like WP:OR, MOS:RETAIN, WP:POINT, etc. because you have consistently shown that you do not understand these. E.g. why do you think that you are exempt from MOS:RETAIN? As an aside, several other sources, such as the iTunes store, list this as the season 24 premiere. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Koavf taking this to DR and they can settle it there. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversal of revdel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request restoration of the revisions of Abortion in Hong Kong from 09:45, 15 November 2020. They are copyvio free. It is wrong for User: Diannaa to claim that there was copyvio content from https://www.fhs.gov.hk because those identical words were lifted from the laws, NOT fhs's original content. Inclusion of a small portion of the exact legal text is necessary for this topic. It is also wrong to claim there was copyvio from the pubmed article because I had written my own passage based on the sources quoted. Data from https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201706/28/P2017062800481.htm are not copyrightable either.--RZuo (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Diannaa was never asked about this revdel nor was she informed of this discussion. I have taken care of the latter. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

She was, since I hotlinked her username.--RZuo (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There are two gigantic notices (one on the page itself, one as an edit notice) that say that's not sufficient. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This section is not about an editor, but about an action (revdel), in case you didnt realise.--RZuo (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

An action done by a user, who has the right to defend it. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It was Diannaa's revdel, so she has every right to state her case. Otherwise, we'd be wheel warring. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The fhs content is under copyright, and pubmed has not published that piece, it's just hosting the abstract - copyright belongs to Data Asia. As near as I can tell no content was removed that was originally at info.gov.hk. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It has been made very clear at this section and at Talk:Abortion in Hong Kong that there was no more copyvio content from fhs starting from the revision at 09:45, 15 November 2020. The identical phrases in wiki and the fhs page are short segments of the legal text, inclusion of which is acceptable. There are countless examples of quoting such legal text even though crown copyright exists.--RZuo (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Quotations need quotation marks. Without them, it's a copypaste of copyright material and subject to removal under our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Quotations need quotation marks. False. On this wikipedia alone there are numerous examples of quoting crown-copyrighted laws without quotation marks: all these articles in Template:English criminal law, for example Criminal damage in English law. On the other hand, it was abundantly clear that the segments were from the Ordinance even without using quotation marks.

I did not quote or copy from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12262369/ either. I rewrote the entire paragraph but now my work is destroyed. Your claim that I copied and violated copyright could not stand if every user can see my paragraph and compare.--RZuo (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will make you a side-by-side comparison when I get back from the grocery store.— Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RZuo, While you are technically correct that quotations do not always need quotation marks, I read that as casually indicating that quotations must be identified. One way is through quotation marks and another way is with a block quote. In either case, citations are necessary. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Quotations which is technically an essay but accepted by many editors as appropriate guidance. Here is the relevant section:

Quotations must always be clearly identified as such using double quotation marks ("quoted text") for quotations shorter than about 40 words. For quotations longer than 40 words, use the HTML tag

like this around quoted material

or the template {{Quote}}, which has optional parameters to include citations. Both of these methods set text apart from non-quoted material. You don't need to add quotation marks when using the <blockquote> tag or the template {{quote}}.

If I'm following (and I may not have caught everything), the material you added was copied from a copyrighted source, but the specific information you wanted to include was the exact legal text. It is true that the text of laws is usually an exception to the usual copyright restrictions, but if you include material from a law, the citation should be to the law not to a copyrighted article that incorporates wording from the law. As I mentioned I'm looking at this quickly and happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Government works (including legislation) are copyright in many countries. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Hong Kong which says that government works in Hong Kong enjoy copyright protection for 125 years. Regardless, the source web pages are not legislation, they are informational pages put out by the Hong Kong government and a copyright journal article. The side-by-side comparison is now available at User talk:RZuo#Abortion in Hong Kong - side by side comparison. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth is:

1. Some web pages quoted Cap. 212 Offences against the Person Ordinance.
2. I quoted Cap. 212 Offences against the Person Ordinance.
3. I put down those pages as sources.

this in no way means I violated copyright of those web pages, because I am quoting the exact legal text for this topic. Abortion is a contentious topic, so the exact wording of a country's law is quite essential for readers to understand. And the text quoted was only short segments of the 8-section 47A. Medical termination of pregnancy.

Up until now User:Diannaa cannot recognise the socalled copyvio were the precise definitions written in the law https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap212?xpid=ID_1438402836264_002 .

What a joke it is to insist that I quoted from https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201706/28/P2017062800481.htm . I copied the Chinese version of the table of stats from https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201706/28/P2017062800464.htm but since this is English wikipedia I put down the English URL. I did not even bother read that page at all.

Abhorrent evidence fabrication to defend some haphazard sysop action.--RZuo (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RZuo, quotations need quotation marks. There were no quotation marks. And as noted on your talk page, some of the material is a match for a copyright journal article and does not appear to be in the legislation.— Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RZuo, How is this fabricated in any way? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 23:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RZuo, Please assume good faith. Surely you are aware that some websites copy from other websites, and often do so without providing proper attribution. We have a tool, The Copy Patrol tool, which looks at recent edits and checks to see if the text matches other documents on the Internet. Those reports, which I think you can see here more often than not identify more than one source. I think they stopped listing at three sources as a never seen more than three, but I assume there are many instances where there are more than three. It is quite common for someone to object, when being told that there edit matches site X, claiming that they had never seen site X before. That's commonly true, perhaps because site X and the editor got the material from site Y. However, it is really critical to determine whether the material came from site X or site Y; if it can be found in more than one place it probably isn't original to the editor. The exact source sometimes matters, because one site might claim full copyright while another might have an acceptable license. I try to take care not to specifically state that an editor copied from site X, but to say that the material in the edit matches material at site X. That almost invariably means there is a problem, even if the editor never saw site X before.

If you are including language that's an exact copy of material found elsewhere, even if it is text associated with legislation which is not restricted by copyright, you must clearly identify what has been quoted and where it can be found. As I noted above you can do that with quotation marks but there are other ways, and I didn't see that you did that, at least not in the first version of the article. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RZuo, you brought this question here I assume to get clarification that your understanding of consensus on policy, which was different from that of Dianaa's, was correct. The fact you aren't getting the answer you expected is not evidence that others are fabricating evidence to protect the other editor. Even the most experienced editors here generally accept the idea that there may be policy they don't completely understand. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cases of quotations without quotation marks

Here I report some such cases for immediate sysop action.

Criminal damage in English law#Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Crown copyright persists for 50 years.) No quotation marks were used for the legal texts quoted in sections "Without lawful excuse", "Belonging to another", "Intent and recklessness", "Threats" and "Possession of items".

Laws regarding rape: sections "New Zealand (Consent)" and "Trinidad and Tobago".--RZuo (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• As far as the first example is concerned, I was under the impression that UK legislation was covered by the Open Government License, which only requires attribution. Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Correct; the majority of the UK webpages and legislation are released under the OGL. I have added the required attribution for the Criminal Damage Act 1971. — Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Independent review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request an independent review for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mirhasanov and User talk:Mirhasanov#November 2020.

The ANI issued by users without providing proper evidences and supported by admin in an organized way following my ban from the topic. I tried my best to justify but, the ban imposed without my participation. I do think that the imposed ban is not fair. Moreover, admin didn't explain me what tban means and he waited me to make a mistake in order to document them and justify his decision. I believe admins must guide users not trick them. Considering all unfair action conducted by admin, I am asking an independent person who can help sort the dispute.Mirhasanov (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the person who thinks that the Armenian genocide hasn't been proven. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not seeing anything that shows TBAN inappropriate. Of course, the inability to see the reasonableness of the TBAN might argue in favor of the TBAN. Would welcome more eyes in case I missed something as I haven't the time to look more closely. there s a tl;dr aspect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Rosguill: I too have only looked quickly, but where was this editor notified of the tban? I've skimmed through your contribs around the date and don't see any relevant edits around the time you edited Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020, nor any notification at user's talk of the tban itself? I may just be being very blind here... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, I see only one edit on said user's talk (and that was the block for Special:Diff/988886310, not the tban itself). The editor should probably have been notified on their talk, per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#sanctions.notice. No comment on the merits of the ban, may well be appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This is why I don't do DS. Too complicated. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

      To be fair, I think the notification is fairly important, along with info on the appeal process (The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process.) Merits of ban aside, a sanctioning admin cannot be frustrated when the editor comes to their talk after not being given information on how else they can appeal. Next concern is whether the ban meets the uninvolved requirement, per activity + talk activity in the specific page, plus statement in Special:Diff/988089090, indicates a discretionary sanction may not be appropriate here. One cannot simultaneously do the content and the admining. Even if the decision is correct, it removes the appearance of impartiality and fairness. I assume, and expect, I'm missing some context here though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

      My bad on not placing a formal notification. By the time I realized that it was required, Mirhasanov had already directly addressed the ban so I figured that it would only be condescending to place it. As for involvement, I've essentially been keeping the peace at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and consider my role there to be primarily as an admin. I have given my opinion when asked for it in order to guide editors toward constructive solutions, and have no personal stake in the subject matter. The amount of content that I have actually added to the page (not including content added as the result of a consensus among other editors and answered edit requests) is minimal.

      The ban itself was following the ANI discussion, where I offered my opinion that Mirhasanov was a net negative at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, suggested a tban, and was going to leave it at that. Nobody else ended up speaking in Mirhasanov's defense, and the thread ended up archived automatically without resolution. Following the thread's archiving and prompting by the editor that had opened the thread, I figured that between the discussion at ANI and standard DS measures, blocking was the correct decision. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to all that WP:BURO exists, and that it's more important that the right result be reached than that everything is neatly filled out in triplicate and filed with the home office in Watsessing. The TB and block seem to me to be the right result, and I endorse both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Well, it's not about buro; seemingly the editor still, currently, understands neither why they were sanctioned, or their options to appeal. I don't know anything about this complex topic to recognise POV, though, so if Rosguill feels they are sufficiently uninvolved and the ban is necessary, and so do multiple editors in the topic area, that's good enough for me. To resolve the first concern at least, am I correct in thinking the TLDR for the ban is: too much talk page drama and POV, with minimal contribution to prose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, am I correct in thinking the TLDR for the ban is: too much talk page drama and POV, with minimal contribution to prose?, yes, with the clear intent to POVPUSH being the more relevant concern than the drama. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• The OP posted this to the AN/I thread. I'm moving it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dears, Deepfriedokra, Beyond My Ken, ProcrastinatingReader, First of all thank you very much for reviewing my case. I was not able to post it in Incident board for some reason, therefore I am posting it here. With your permission I would like again start my defence against Rosguill's ban decision. His justification to consider me net negative are based on below points:

1. Comments regarding the inclusion of content about ethnic violence the Background section here [104]

I informed the user Armatura, who is initiator of my ban request by the way, not to include Genocide Watch statements as the source is unproven and issued bias report. This was eventually proved as Genocide Watch removed these reports from their official site. The point is they were also trying to include Armenian Genocide topic and issue completely pro-Armenian information in the article. I reiterated the fact that we shouldn't use the word of "genocide" wherever we can and avoid such statements that accuses the other side in genocide or potential genocide. Moreover, I added that the Armenian Genocide is only recognized by 32 countries and denial of it still can't be accepted same as The Holocaust and justified that other side support killings of innocent people, as the authors try to draw this picture. However, I also see same sentiment here between some admins taking my comments as personal. I again would like ask those admins to drop review of my case if they think that my vision denial of Armenian genocide can be justified to ban me totally from the Nagorno-Karabakh war topic.

Conclusion of the point : Lately, Genocide Watch issued another statement for favour of Azerbaijan side, because of multiple protest email sent to them. In the end they decided to remove the both statement. I was right with my scepticism against Genocide Watch and they proved it with deletion of statements.

2. Offsite coordination with other pro-Azerbaijan editors

I don't refuse the fact that I have tried to contact with relevant pro-Azerbaijan editors but, it never happened. The only reason for this was dominant pro-Armenian content in the article which Rosguill him/herself confirmed it here and encouraged me to act bold and change it [105].

Conclusion of the point: Even the indentation to conducted a meeting can be considered negative, it didn't affect unbiased content of my suggestions. Following my conversations here , , , , , you can clearly see that I am following consensus process and actively contributing to the process.

By referring to these two points only, Rosguill decides that I must be banned from discussion in Talk page, while no single thing I have done breaks a red line rule, he had mentioned. If you would check article itself, all points I was sceptic about were deleted, even though I don't have any privilege to edit on this page, which means I was right with my challenges. Moreover, instead of informing me in a proper way and explain what Tban means, he proceed with this decision, banned me and then after my comments on the page he document them against me to completely block me from the page. I several time asked him proper justification of his decision because provided evidences doesn't show that I created destructive discussion. In the end again I would like to thank to all of you for your time. I know how time consuming is this process and I appreciate it. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mirhasanov: Did the Armenian genocide, as understood by the consensus of historians and described in our article, occur, yes or no? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: I didn't understand the context of your question. Could you please be more specific? Mirhasanov (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC

• No. My question was clear and concise, and your obfuscatory answer I take as being, essentially, a "No". Therefore, I stand by my endorsement of an AA2 topic ban, and the block that has been imposed on you, and would also support an indef block or a site ban. I don't think we need or want you here, you should be posting to some ultra-partisan anti-Armenian blog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• As an editor also participating in this topic area, I thought I'd provide some context for admins reviewing this and voice my support for Rosguill's actions. While Mirhasanov makes a fair point that many (in fact most) other editors on the talk pages surrounding the conflict are emotionally connected/invested in the conflict, I agree with Rosguill that Mirhasanov contributions to discussions have been unfailingly partisan and don't indicate an ability (or willingness) to follow our NPOV policies on this subject. Rosguill explained their reasoning at AN/I extensively, twice, and Girth Summit pointed out during that discussion that a topic ban was justified by Mirhasanov's refusal to acknowledge or consider these comments. Mirhasanov's continued inability to see why a topic ban was suggested and implemented shows that they currently lack the required competence to edit in a such a contentious area.

A small number of uninvolved editors and a high number of new editors closely connected to the topic has meant that Armenia-Azerbaijan talk pages have been loosely policed. There have been some completely inappropriate comments on genocide denial and ethnic hatred at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war; Rosguill has rather stoically been trying to keep the peace. The difference between Mirhasanov and other editors is that Mirhasanov hasn't shown any willingness to apologise or take back inappropriate comments, or constructively work with editors on the other side, or read up and learn more about the genocides they deny (which some other editors appear to have done). The fact Mirhasanov has ended up in this situation, when a number of editors engaged in borderline battleground behaviour have not, speaks volumes. And, additionally, my view is that editors who openly deny a genocide are inherently unsuitable to participate in topics closely related to it.

While Mirhasanov may not have been given the appropriate 'official' notification under DS, I'm highly sceptical that they were unaware of their tban, as the AN/I discussion mentioned a topic ban several times and Rosguill even put it in bold. Jr8825 • Talk 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I still don't understand: Where exactly was the topic ban imposed? Can someone provide a diff of an edit by Rosguill which imposed the topic ban? The discussion above leaves this question unclear. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Here and here, I think? Actually I can see from the discussion that the topic ban was supposedly implemented before this. Jr8825 • Talk 12:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I am still confused. There is a log entry at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#2020 which says: "Mirhasanov is topic banned indefinitely from AA2 per this discussion at ANI". But I can't find anything in the ANI thread which actually says that this AA2 topic ban is being imposed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Rosguill: Could you please clarify in which specific edit you have imposed the AA2 topic ban on Mirhasanov? I am still unable to find it in the ANI thread. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

      Nsk92, my understanding at the time was that adding it to the log was imposing the ban. While I neglected to immediately leave a talk page template about it, Mirhasanov received a ping from the addition to the DS log and made comments objecting to the ban imposition at the ANI archive page where the discussion had been archived. Levivich then helpfully de-archived the discussion to ANI, at which point I responded to a few rounds of questions from Mirhasanov. Mirhasanov kept at it at ANI after I said that I was done asking questions, and eventually went back to editing Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. At that point, I partially blocked them from the page in question. While I could have done a better job notifying them up front, at this point they were clearly aware of the ban, and my partially blocking them was merely enforcing the terms of the ban with no punitive measures beyond what would be covered by a tban from AA2 (a punitive measure would have been fully blocking them, preventing them from editing pages outside of AA2 as well). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dears,

• Beyond My Ken Your provocative approach and response clearly shows your intention and doesn't help the process. I would give you a friendly advice to conduct more constructive approach instead of starting your judgement with accusations and aggression. This is admin page and I do expect all admins are chosen based on their merits to conduct constructive dialog and involvement without their emotions. Thanks in advance.

Jr8825 I am sorry but we are losing context here. You may think that it was genocide and this is your conclusion. I wouldn't argue with this at all, but my point about 1915 events being tragic event that not only happened to Armenians, also includes Kuds, Turks, Assyrians and other minorities, doesn't mean that I am wrong or hostile and it can't be basis to ban me. Again, I would like to reiterate that the terminology of "genocide" itself appeared after WWII.

Specifically for you I would like to give one more example that you are currently involved to find concensus under this topic where pro- Armenian users trying to show ethinc massacares conducted by both side but calling violances against Armenians as massacare, but pogroms conducted against Azeris, they wan use word of "violence".

You are currently discussing exactly same sentence that I was discussing under this link . Where I suggested to use the following sentence for more balanced description of background events:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

However, my suggestion even was not discussed and without consensus the sentence was published in article by pro-Armenian users. That was the reason I thanked you, where you were underpinning their illegal action and reminding them that, "Removing links to our articles on two acts of violence against Azerbaijanis, leaving only links to attacks against Armenians and one mention of violence (when it was clearly widespread), would result in a skewed narrative".

My words and action under NK-2020 and here speaks about my good will. What I do care is a balanced article in wikipedia. I have seen many articles about Armenian-Azerbaijan topic that edited by pro-Armenian users, because they were good at complaining and using weak points in wikipedia rules. I was reported by Armatura, if you will check his activities under this page, you will be able to find more violence of wikipedia rules than under my comments or involvement. I am not going to report him anyway because I believe that Rosguill sooner or later will do it.

In the end I would like appreciate Rosguill for his time and efforts that he is using under NK-2020 topic in order to issue more balanced and unbiased article. He is in the middle of emotional writers, which reminds me my military service, where I tried protect jews from muslims and muslims from jews, because I belonged to both of them and didn't wanted anyone to get hurted because of aggressive individuals. I hope Rosguill will be able to keep same balance, will properly identify aggressive users and eliminate them in order protect other editors. I would like all other admins to support him in this effort. Having said that, I would like to conclude my defence.

Sincerely,Mirhasanov (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

References

• The discretionary sanctions processes are bureaucratic for good reasons, largely because they're above and beyond the tools normally available for individual administrators to address problematic behaviour in the most controversial topics. Users are required to be given specific discretionary sanction alerts (Mirhasanov was, here), and administrators are required by the procedure to advise a user on their talk page when they are subject to discretionary sanction enforcement ({{AE sanction/topicban}} exists just for this) which Rosguill did not do before parblocking them under the auspices of arbitration enforcement. Telling them they're banned in an edit at ANI is not good enough for a DS ban to be enforceable, and the block is a bad one, purely procedurally. That being said I don't think this is good enough to overturn the sentiment of the ANI thread and nothing that's been written here convinces me that a topic ban is not a valid response; Mirhasanov should be banned properly, but we can't enforce a DS ban that was not properly executed, nor should we enforce any restrictions retroactively. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ivanvector that procedurally the topic ban was bungled and bungled rather badly, although on the merits it was certainly justified. In fact Rosguill's response to my inquiry above makes it clear that the procedure here was mishandled even more significantly than it first appears. Mirhasanov was not in fact told about his AA2 topic ban at the ANI thread. Instead Rosguill logged the AA2 topic ban in the DS sanctions log page and pinged Mirhasanov when doing that. That is not a sufficient way of notifying somebody about an AE topic ban, or any topic ban for that matter. You are supposed to tell the editor being sanctioned directly what kind of editing their are now prohibited from engaging in. In case of DS topic bans there are additional mandatory requirements, as explained in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#sanctions.notice, including user talk page notification: "The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process." It's one of the very few times where any rule on Wikipedia uses the word "must" instead of "should". In this case, this very thread exists largely because Mirhasanov was not explained the appeals processs. Otherwise the matter would have most likely went to WP:AE where it properly belongs. IMO, the original AA2 topic ban and the resulting page block should be vacated as improperly imposed. Then, indeally, a previously uninvolved admin should review the situation and re-impose those sanctions, with new start dates/times. Nsk92 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Or, rather, the AA2 topic ban should be re-imposed with a new start date/time. The page block for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war should just be lifted. If Mirhasanov violates a properly reimposed topic ban by editing at that page, then a page editing block could be placed again. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Nsk92 (talk) I just couldn't grab the logic. Could you please help me to understand as I am not good with terminologies of wikipedia. Please note that I never had any privilege to edit anything in this topic. I only participated in Talk page. Is adding anything in talk page considered editing? If yes, what is the difference then lifting AA2 and not allowing me to participate in Talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war?Mirhasanov (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Mirhasanov: Under an AA2 topic ban, assuming that it is imposed properly, you would not be allowed to make any edits to any articles covered by the topic ban as well as to the talk pages of those articles. That means, in particular, that you would not be allowed to edit the page 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and the talk page of this article. An actual page editing block is a more drastic restriction which physically prevents you from saving any edits to those pages. (That's the restriction you currently have for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and its talk page.) But even without a page editing block, with an AA2 topic ban in place you are still not supposed to edit 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war or any other Armenia-Azerbaijan pages, talk pages, AfDs, project pages etc, or to discuss Armenia-Azerbaijan topics at any other pages, including user talk pages. See WP:TBAN for an explanation of how topic bans work. If you do violate a topic ban while you are subject to it, you may receive a more severe sanction, such as a WP:BLOCK. Note that if this current WP:AN thread does not result in a definitive conclusion, you still have the option of filing an appeal of the original topic ban, and the resulting 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page block, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. In fact, that was supposed to be your default destination for appealing arbitration enforcement actions, rather than coming to WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:BN, etc. At WP:AE there is a specific well-defined process for considering all appeal requests that always results in a definitive conclusion (which is not the case at other venues). If you do file an appeal at WP:AE, you'll need to read the instructions at the top of that page carefully first, as the process is fairly complicated. Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

          I believe it is broader than just articles and their talk pages. It's all pages, including templates, portals, etc. Plus, adding/modifying any content related to the topic area in articles which are themselves not about the topic area. (see WP:TBAN) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

          • Yes, of course, you are correct, it is all pages and all content related to the topic covered by the topic ban. My list was supposed to provide typical examples of what's covered. Mirhasanov seems to be a fairly inexperienced user and until his recent brush with various noticeboards, the only pages he edited seem to have been articles, article talk pages and user talk pages. Doesn't seem likely that he'll branch out to editing portals and templates soon. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

    If nothing else, @Mirhasanov: since it appears even the diff that you were pinged to doesn't have the link and reading above it seems you may not be completely sure, a "topic ban" is explained at WP:TBAN. Ivanvector links the template above, but have a read of {{AE sanction/topicban}} for information on what this ban entails. The reason for the ban Rosguill gave in response to my question above. Piece everything together and you should be able to construct the standard set of information you would've received for a DS topic ban.

    As I say above, I agree the sanction itself perhaps doesn't need to be vacated, but Rosguill, especially given the editor did not have this information, and the last sentence of the template is You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you., maybe when the editor does that the first response to them shouldn't contain and have nothing further to say to you. When one imposes a discretionary sanction, they have to endure some level of reasonable questioning about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

    ProcrastinatingReader, sure, that was a mistake. The disciplinary case as a whole skirted the line between "standard ANI complaint" and "DS case", and I messed up by invoking DS and then assuming that ANI norms would apply. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 Arbitration Committee elections: self-nominations now open

Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections. Self-nominations will close on 17 November 2020 at 23:59 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's jumping to post their self-nominations. Perhaps they're all waiting for the last day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems pretty typical for candidacies to trickle in before a flurry in the last few days, last year being an exception to the recent trend (see User:SQL/AceStatsByDay) — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As soon as I said something, someone dove in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Still only one candidate, with only 2.5 days a week to go. It certainly makes the choice easier: thumbs up or thumbs down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To encourage more editors to self-nominate, I offer to the next one to do so a slightly worn copy of Wrestlemania: The Art of Surviving Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac wins! Now all I have to do is write the book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hah! I look forward to receiving it; I've been looking for something to level out my wobbly sofa. Primefac (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to actually read it, that'll make it much easier to write! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, will people nominate themselves. If there aren't at least 7 (preferably more) candidates in this race, I'll feel obliged to run again, & I swore I would not be a perennial candidate. (I'd rather be writing articles. Seriously.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the way the question pages tend to run, it is strictly correct from a game-theoretical perspective to nominate oneself on the last day. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Negative contribution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that this User:GorgeCustersSabre has issues with IP-users, as he always reverted their edits at once without even check them. For instance, in this article Razane Jammal, he reverted edits to keep imdb sources and others related to fixing the references. However, I would like to ask someone to take a look at the edits, and to write that user that his contribution here is only negative as he only reverts edits and does not write anything. 118.217.90.121 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I edit in good faith. Please assume the same. You make a generalisation on the basis of very few edits. Check my tens of thousands of edits. I edit pages by IP addresses and regular editors. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a LTA sock puppeteer. Let me know if more IP editors show up, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing further on the /20 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BAG nomination

Hi! This is a procedural notification that I've requested to join the Bot Approvals Group. Your comments would be appreciated at the nomination page. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

BAG nomination

This is a procedural notification to note that I have requested to join the BAG. Your input is welcome at the the nomination page. – SD0001 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to inform User:Necrothesp on their user talk page that an action they took seemed to violate WP:INVOLVED, but they insist that they were not involved and that my claim is ludicrous. I am not asking for a reversal of any action or for any sanction, just for the informed opinions as to whethet their action fall under "Incolved" or not.

History:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Keep vote, 7 October 2020 (closed as delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, Keep vote, 19 October 2020 (closed as delete)

Ongoing:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Territorial Army units (2012), Keep vote, 12 November 2020
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Regular Army regiments (1994), Keep vote, 12 November 2020
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Reserve Units (2020), Keep vote, 12 November 2020

Then the involved action, the restoration of the deleted List of British Army Regiments (2008), 12 November 2020: followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Regiments (2008), Keep vote, 13 November 2020.

I tried to discuss this at User talk:Necrothesp#Involved, to no avail. Can someone please enlighten us whether this restoration is indeed an involved action or not? I wouldn't be here if the defense was "yes, I'm involved, but I consider it uncontroversial", but the claim of "no, I'm not involved" seems too farfetched, and worrying. Fram (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. This clearly was not uncontroversial. It had slipped under the radar and I restored it as I believed it should be taken to full discussion at AfD and not simply disappear into the aether. The fact I have an interest in this subject area or even that I do not believe these articles should be deleted is irrelevant. AfD is the appropriate place for discussing such deletions and it has now been taken there. I certainly do not see facilitating discussion as conflicting with my role as an admin. In fact, I see it as part of that role. The problem with prodding is that it allows no discussion. That's why it is explicity and clearly stated that it is only to be used for uncontroversial discussion, that any editor can remove a prod and that any admin can restore an article deleted after prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, from a non-admin POV, Necrothesp did something above and beyond just removing the PROD tag, yes? SportingFlyer T·C 13:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I restored an article that had been deprodded (and which I had never been involved with before), as WP:PROD specifically states I am entitled to do (An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion.). I do not think that WP:INVOLVED is relevant to correcting an article inappropriately deleted without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:INVOLVED is relevant for any admin action. Any admin is also allowed to close AfDs and delete the articles, unless you are involved. Any admin is allowed to act on AIV reports and block editors, unless you are involved. That's the golden rule of all admin work; only use it when you are not involved. Voting keep in 5 AfDs for clearly related articles, including 3 on the same day, makes you involved. Fram (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't dream of closing an AfD in which I'm involved. This is a completely different issue. It's merely facilitating discussion. Which is a good thing, surely. I question the logic of claiming that WP:INVOLVED simply covers an admin's area of interest or expertise. I comment on many AfDs relating to military articles. Does that mean I'm not allowed to act as an admin on any related articles, even when it's as obvious as restoring an incorrectly prodded article? That's taking WP:INVOLVED too far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
        • You surely can see the difference between a broad subject as "the army", and 6 closely related articles on order of battles, and more directly 4 closely related articles on British army units in a given year, where you voted "keep" in 3 of them, restored the 4th one, and then voted "keep" in that fourth one the next day? "Facilitating discussion" is a good thing, but we have a method for this for the two groups of editors who don't get to restore prods: non-admins, and involved admins. I don't doubt your intentions here, but good intentions don't mean that you can just ignore wp:involved and/or claim that you aren't involved (your defense seem to switch between the two positions a lot). Fram (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
          • What you're saying seems to my mind to be rather contradicting WP:COMMONSENSE. If my intentions were good (which they clearly were), discussion is good (which it clearly is) and I wasn't abusing my position (which I clearly wasn't), then why are you insisting that some sort of rule applies that would make it far more complex to do what I did? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it's actually written down anywhere, but to my mind WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply if the only action is to restore a page deleted via WP:PROD. Since we explicitly allow anyone to contest a proposed deletion nomination, I would say restoring the page is well within the intent of the authors of WP:PROD. Literally the point of that process is that if there's any opposition, the deletion doesn't go ahead and instead it goes for further discussion; in this case, the opposition has just come a little later than normal. (If we really need to do things by the book, then somebody re-delete the page in question, I'll undelete the page as someone who's undoubtedly unconnected to the topic and couldn't care in the slightest, and everyone's honor will have been served.) ‑ Iridescent 14:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, please don't redelete and restore it. The question is not what to do about this already restored one, but what to do when Necrothesp or others find themselves in the same position: claim "I'm not involved" (like Necrothesp does), claim "I'm involved, but this action is allowed anyway" (which seems to be your position), or claim "I'm involved, so I'll go to WP:REFUND instead". I don't care whether two or three is preferred (well, I would argue for 3, but no problem with 2 if that is the consensus), my issue is with the "well, it's a different article, so I'm not WP:Involved here", which seems false and which you don't really address. Fram (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • To confirm that of your options I think (2) is the one that applies here. Although restoring a page deleted via WP:PROD is technically an admin action in that it requires the admin toolset, it falls under routine maintenance (since it would have been performed without question had a request been submitted at WP:REFUND even if the undeleting admin personally felt it wouldn't have been kept), and as such it shouldn't be considered an admin action for WP:INVOLVED purposes, any more than fixing a broken link on a protected page would be. ‑ Iridescent 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Iridescent; there's not really a question of administrator judgment when it comes to a PROD. They can be (and are) restored at any time, for almost any reason. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I understand Fram's objection; probably best practices would have been (3). But since it's just a hoop to jump through, I probably wouldn't quibble over (2) for future situations. —valereee (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• If it is determined that someone undeleting the article in question is fine (i.e. there is no request for reversal here, and if someone else had done the undeletion there would be no objection), then functionally Necrothesp did nothing wrong or objectionable; 1 and 2 are functionally equivalent (using the numbers noted above), being "involved" means "I shouldn't have done this", and if there is no objection to the results, we should not worry too much about the action. I may decided differently on more contentious issues like closing a 50/50 discussion that could go either way, or blocking a user, but this is such a minor issue I don't understand why there's a hub-bub about it. It's making mountains out of molehills. --Jayron32 16:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Would you also be fine with an admin closing an AfD and deleting an article if they had voted in the AfD, even if the AfD was unanimous? I thought that that was an uncontroversial rule, that admins should never do this, even though the end result is what would have happened anyway. Admins (or so I thought) were supposed to be neutral parties, and should avoid even the appearance of using tools in cases they are involved in. Furthermore, admins (or again, so I thought), should be able to judge conservatively when and where they are involved in, and avoid giving even the appearance of not caring about this. In this case, the admin flat out denies even being involved with the issue, making the question of whether an involved action was acceptable moot. Oh well, apparently the mores are less strict than I imagined or remembered. Fram (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

    That would be inappropriate, but I think the key difference here is that AfD involves determining consensus. An administrator can theoretically close against a unanimous !vote (it's been done, it's wild). There's no consensus-determining process in PROD, either with deletion or undeletion. That's the whole point. It can be reversed at any time. WP:INVOLVED requires a dispute, and there is no dispute. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this specific situation was mooted when Iridescent said they would - essentially - take responsibility for the undelete, thereby taking Necrothesp off the hook. It looks like the above discussion seems to agree it was such a small violation of INVOLVED as to be nothing more than a technicality. I move that this be closed, but a meta-discussion should be opened on the appropriate WP-talk page, if one is so inclined. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• This falls under the "any admin would do the same" exemption in WP:INVOLVED (paraphrasing from memory). Any good-faith WP:REFUND request to restore a PRODded article is automatically accepted; it's nonsense to force a user capable of performing the undeletion themselves to bother another administrator with an automatic-yes request. It's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• That "involved admin" section does not apply anyway, as it applies to disputes or controversial actions. And as others have stated reversing a PROD is not counted as a controversy, and is (almost) always allowed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• A question to which the answer is clearly "no". Administrators should not act in disputes in which they have been involved. Where was the dispute concerning the article that was restored? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A series of AfDs on very closely related articles, in which the admin has participated with a clear opinion (no problem there)? This looked like textbook involvedness to me, in which case even uncontroversial edits should be avoided. I get the answer from some people that yes, they were involved, but no, that's not a problem in this case. That's why I from the start didn't ask for a reversal or sanctions or anything, but for clarification. I don't get the "no, they weren't involved" answers though. If this doesn't count as being involved, then what does? Fram (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • What happened to: In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion? Any administrator with any knowledge of the subject would indeed have come to the same conclusion - that this was not an uncontroversial deletion and therefore should not have been prodded in the first place. I do not consider that I was involved in this article in any way except in my knowledge of and interest in the subject area (commenting on similar AfDs is irrelevant to this article), but even if I had been, this surely covers my actions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Nothing happened to that, that part has been covered already at this discussion. The problem is your claim that you are not involved because "(commenting on similar AfDs is irrelevant to this article)"; in that view, you could close any AfDs for these articles unless you had commented (or deprodded) on that specific article. It doesn't work that way, once you have shown a clear position in these AfDs, once you have indicated your opinion on the content, you should consider yourself involved. Your opinion is then clouded, and should not be trusted to use the admin tools neutrally. That you still consider yourself as uninvolved on this article is truly worrying, after having made comments like "Ah, the last desperate flounders of someone who really, really wants something to be deleted and knows it probably isn't going to be. "[106] (this was a response to my statement on your non-policy based keep, and the AfD closed as delete eventually).
      • "I do not consider that I was involved in this article in any way" is an extremely narrow reading of what makes someone involved. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (emphasis mine). If you have voted along the same lines in all recent discussions about similar articles, including 3 very closely related ones on the very same day, then you are involved with this topic in general, including the article you restored, no discussion. That you were allowed or correct to restore it despite your involvement is a defensible position, as I have repeatedly indicated above. That you still claim to be uninvolved is a serious problem though. Fram (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
        • That you still consider yourself as uninvolved on this article is truly worrying... Really? Odd, since most other commenters here seem to agree with me. In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Correct. But as other commenters have pointed out, where was the dispute? Deleting a prod or restoring an article deleted after a prod is not a dispute. It's merely pointing out that deletion is not uncontroversial and if the prodder still wants it deleted it should be taken to AfD for full discussion. There's no dispute involved. You are clearly misinterpreting WP:INVOLVED and expressing concern that I (and others, it would appear) don't agree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • So a discussion about content isn't a dispute? AfDs are a dispute about what to do with article content, and you had clearly taken a side in that dispute. CLaiming that "there is no dispute" is simply strange. Fram (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
            • No, there was no dispute over the article prodded. I should also point out, for the record, that you have yourself voted delete on every one of the articles cited above except this particular one and have actually been the proposer of two of them for deletion. Your refusal to accept the legitimacy of my action, although it is accepted by other commenters here, is looking less than neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
              • I never claimed to be neutral or uninvolved. I already indicated that I participated in these AfDs. I also from the start indicated that I didn't dispute that, even as an involved editor, you could restore it (though I disagree that it is a smart thing to do, and for appearances sake it is better left to others). And I notice that while some editors completely agree with you, some others here have agreed that while you were allowed to restore this even as an involved editor, you were nevertheless involved (e.g. Valereee and Iridescent). Just like I would be involved if I were an admin and e.g. had closed the AfD for this particular one as "delete", even though I had not been involved with this article or AfD. My participation in other, very similar discussions (and at the same time) would make me involved. Fram (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• My two cents: I do not see that Necrothesp violated any policies or guidelines by undeleting the PRODded article. The first line in WP:INVOLVED states "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." It doesn't sound like there was any dispute here about that article, except that it was deleted under PROD (in which case, it would have to be restored in any case). WP:INVOVLED goes on to state: "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Restoring a PRODded article is straightforward, our guidelines are clear that a PRODded article can be undeleted at any time, for nearly any reason. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any administrator who wouldn't restore that article if requested to, as such whether or not Necrothesp is "involved" by expressing opinions in this specific topic area is frankly irrelevant. This all seems very clear to me...unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious? Waggie (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• As mentioned...I'm not sure where the objection is coming from, since this is, as clearly stated above, explicitly allowed in the PROD rules. As such this really should be closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was not an attack page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion_to_Islam_in_Pakistan . This page is now deleted and it is even protected against re-creation.

I found its copy on the archive.org, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200201000502/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion_to_Islam_in_Pakistan

Your own rules, named "G10", [[107]] says this:

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced."

This page did not threat anybody. It might be threatening for the Christians in Pakistan, but they already know the local situation quite well. It was also very well sourced, not a biographical material and anyways, facts should never be censored.

I suggest to:

1. Recover the page and merge the new current draft into it (this can do also I).
2. Check the moderation activities of the relevant admins, particularly for religious/nationalist/sectarian power mis-uses.
3. Initiate the usual process for this induvidual case (if there is one).

80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Deletion upheld at DRV? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Your reference states that the deletion happened because the author was in bad standing, but they also stated that the page can be recreated by the original content. There is now a draft existing. The most obvious difference between the draft and the deleted page is that it already does not contain the insulting facts. 80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• There were also issues with WP:G12 and WP:G5 . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • G5 is about the page creation of a banned user. But I am not a banned user, so I can create the page - if it would not even be protected against creation. G12 is copyright infringement, but I have no way to know, from where. If I could know it, I could rewrite the content, using the original source as reference, but I do not know. Do you have access to the URL? 80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• There is a draft at Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, which I've not compared to the G10 version. "Your own rules"? I guess that means you are not a member of our community? AN interloper? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know what do you want to say with this label ("interloper"), but I have no wiki account. After seeing this, unlikely that I will ever have one. 80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Interloper, you are required to notify the editors you are accusing. If someone could do that, I'm off to the pulmonologists. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I will do that, and I think it won't have any effect. 80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• The article was subject to a deletion review in June, 2020. The review also mentioned the G10 deletion issue, for which the deleting admin gave a rationale. In his close of the DRV, User:Sandstein, said:

Speedy deletion endorsed, but recreation permitted. Consensus is that the speedy deletion was correct on account of various severe content and socking problems, but that as per the AfD, a neutral article written by editors in good standing could be had under this title. I am therefore changing the page protection from full to semi to allow such editing to take place (e.g. based on the draft that is now available). If recreated, the article can still be made subject to a new AfD.

Since the person wanting to recreate the article is an IP, and the page is semiprotected, they won't be able to. But they can contribute to Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan and at some point, agreement might be reached to restore the draft to mainspace. This would depend on whether the issues noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan and in the DRV can be fixed. Since our deletion process was correctly followed, the IP's charges of abuse of power by admins (who they did not name) are unlikely to help their case: "Check the moderation activities of the relevant admins, particularly for religious/nationalist/sectarian power mis-uses." Previously there was a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jishnusavith/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As an additional point, as I understand it the draft was created without relying on the older article in any way. If the OP does want to contribute to the draft, it would IMO be best if they likewise do not use the older article in any way. The community has already come to the conclusion via DRV that the old article is bad enough to warrant deletion, so it's unlikely there's any real usable content on it. Still if they really feel there is content they can take from the older article they shouldn't do so via the Internet Archive copy. Instead, it would be necessary to undelete the older article probably merging it with the draft, alternatively perhaps a subpage of the draft. (Technically we just copy the contributor list and they could copy from the Internet Archive, but this seems a bad idea.) I'm assuming there were no copyright problems with the older article since I didn't see any mentioned at the DRV. If there was, then it shouldn't be used at all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• From Secial:undelete for the page, which not all can see (unfortuantely):

2020-06-05T22:42:39 Bishonen ... deleted page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (G10: Attack page (TW)) )

2020-02-17T15:14:37 Diannaa ... changed visibility of 6 revisions on page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan: content hidden (RD1: Violations of copyright policy)

2020-02-15T12:37:59 Diannaa ...changed visibility of 10 revisions on page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan: content hidden (RD1: Violations of copyright policy)

2019-11-28T21:14:50 Maile66 ... deleted page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) )

For whatever reason, the g12 revdel's do not show up in deletion log. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.In that case, the IP should not copy any info from the deleted page. Especially since the major editor being a prolific sock who evidently copied from other deleted articles, can't be trusted to have not violated someone's copyright. WP:Copyvios are one area we have limited ability to WP:AGF anyway. The only thing which could potentially be useful from the original article is the references, the OP is welcome to check archive.org to see if there any useful references I guess but they should make sure they are only getting the references and not the content and would need to make sure the references are suitable reliable secondary sources. I don't see anything more to do here. The IP is free to improve the draft by their own work. If they improve it enough that it's a decent article, I'm sure someone will move it back to mainspace eventually. They can also use WP:AFC. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Our rules require that posters notify the person or persons being posted about. If no one else does it, I guess I can later. Courtesy pings 'cause I'm lazy busy in real life. @Maile66, Diannaa, and Bishonen: (They can be the OP's rules too, if they wish to be a part of the Community of editors building the world's largest free content encyclopedia.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry when the OP said "I think I will do that" I just assumed they would actually notify and not just talk about it. I've notified Maile66 and Diannaa. Not Bishonen since EdJohnston already mentioned this thread. I also notified Sandstein since they were mentioned here as the closer of the DRV. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. But as far as what I can see in the record, my original deletion was a year ago, because it had been tagged as "G5 Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Apparently, it was recreated several months later by a different editor, but I've had no part in what happened since I deleted it. Anything else, I don't know enough about it to add comment. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, thanks for the notification. I have nothing to add to the DRV closure. Sandstein 13:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban appeal II (re-restored from archive)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Back in December I requested a standard offer to be unblocked after not sock puppeting for a long time, which I was given, though my topic ban remained. After six months, I made a topic ban appeal which ended with no official consensus, but the reviewing admins agreed that I would need to edit more disputable areas and that I could appeal again in at least another three months. I had been focusing on volume of edits before, so this time I focused on editing in contentious subjects. It has now been over three months and I request that my topic ban be reviewed once again. --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Nosebagbear: who is the only user that partook in both of the discussions linked above --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support largely per this conversation on their talk page. They made a mistake, asked for clarification, and learned from it which is the exact kind of interaction I'd hope to see more of. Their edits since the block was lifted have largely been to talk pages which is good, because it shows productive discussion on controversial topics like Trump and racial tensions in the United States. Id' like to have seen more article edits, but everything I've seen so far makes me believe there's little risk in removing the topic ban even given the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose the ongoing issue is that since the last TBAN appeal, where more edits were specifically given as a need, there have only been 50 edits, most of them on Trump's talk page. The editor isn't behaving problematically, and they've clearly demonstrated some form of patience. It's already DS, but we could specifically authorise for the next 6 months the ability for any admin to reimplement the TBAN. Hmm. I'll have a think Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I recalled the main need being to edit constructively outside the TBAN area. I had also asked you for some sort of quota of edits to ensure this wouldn't be a concern in the future, and received no reply. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Steverci: Could you please comment in more detail on your plans if the TBAN is lifted? Do you have specific plans to resume active editing in on the topics of Armenia/Azerbaijan more or less right away? Or are you just asking for the TBAN to be lifted in order to be able to edit on those topics if at some point later you do want to do that? Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as vandalism like this which no one else noticed for a month. --[[User:Steverci|Steverci’s] (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per a query by applicant, I've restored from the archive - I think that even if we don't grant it, they would appreciate some more specific guidance Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Steverci: - this is purely my own perception, but one reason why we can be reticent to just ask you for x number of worthwhile edits is that such things have a habit of being gamed. For example, let's say we told you to give us 150 beneficial edits elsewhere. 150 typo fixed are beneficial but don't tell us much about your ability to avoid, or, potentially even more useful, handle, conflict. Likewise, 150 edits in a one week burst might just indicate that you can keep calm for that long (though given your resilience through a fairly irksome appeal process, that might be the least of my concerns at this point). I think at this point, per WP:ROPE, I could be considered a weak support for a removal of the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And as it's atop'd, no one will look at it. So . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-opened topic ban appeal II from Steverci

• Please see above, It was previously archived without closure. @Steverci: Your request is live again. 08:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)

• @Deepfriedokra: I think there was a misunderstanding here. In retrospect, I realize the language I used in my closing statement could have been clearer. I copied over the discussion for context and then proceeded to close it (topic ban lifted). Please see here and here. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 01:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Closes need at WP:Move review

Any admins feel like closing some move reviews? Wikipedia:Move_review#Parasite_(film) has been open since September and has not gotten any comments in more than a month (it has been listed at WP:ANRFC for several weeks but remains unclosed). Several discussions at Wikipedia:Move_review#2020_October also need closing. -- Calidum 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of page moves, please could someone look at closing some of the oldest ones at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog? I cleared a few down the other day, but some of the very old ones (going back to September) I'm involved in. A COVID-free elbow-bump for anyone picking up this thankless task. And thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Any takers? -- Calidum 16:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I read it last night but didn't close because I was tired. Still tired, but at least I've slept on the close. Parasite MR will be done in a bit, but I don't have the energy to close RMs right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Email and Pass

Hi, I'm Maudslayer and I removed my e-mail by mistake, but can't log in now. It was ([redacted]@[redacted]). [redacted] 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maudslayer: passwords and emails are not able to be reset by wiki admins; as your account is relatively new your best option now is to create a new user account. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Block review archived without closing

Block review : Linas was archived without closing and should be addressed. To review: indeff-blocked user Linas is evading that block and contributing as IP 67.198.37.16. Ritchie333 asked if the block should be considered lifted. There was some support on the basis that Linas edits in a technically complex area (mathematics) and makes good contributions but opposition due to it being a third-party block review and that the collaboration issues which triggered the original block have never been addressed. It appears that consensus on removing the block is less than clear so the discussion deserves a definitive close. There is also a question of whether to block the IP address if the block review is considered unsuccessful, so the close should be done by an administrator. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is also a question of whether to block the IP address if the block review is considered unsuccessful looking at the IP's contribs, that would be a completely braindead idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• You could copy and paste it back here, but it seems obvious that there is no consensus to unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  There's no consensus to keep the eight-year-old block in place either. Any admin should feel free to unblock the account if s/he feels that the block has outlived its usefulness. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  That too, and personally I don't think there is no consensus to unblock. The opposition admits themselves that they are quite weak, much of it based on procedure, or preferring an explicit commitment from the editor @ AN. Yet, the support is strongly in favour of the unblock. Actions always speak louder than words, and the IP's actions and productive engagement is clear. And I think it's admirable, if anything, that the IP chooses to stay out of this namespace. The only question is whether editing on an IP is better for them than an account. And since they haven't explicitly pushed for an account unblock, perhaps they prefer the IP way of life. So w/e on the block/unblock, but blocking the IP would be total lunacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  Repeated block evasion is a community ban that needs consensus to overturn. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  There has been some mischaracterization of the prior discussion. Nobody admitted their position was "quite weak". There has never been and currently is not an under the radar loophole in WP:BLOCK and indefinite blocks do not expire. Claiming that there needs to be a new consensus to retain an existing block is not supported by any policy or procedure. Neither is this "just" a procedural issue. The issue with Linas is the issue that was part of a large and complex Arbcom RfC - that of unblockables. The classic unblockable is an editor who provides positive contributions of knowledge but negative interpersonal interactions and for other editors rush in to defend when that lack of civility is questioned. This is exactly the case with Linas but it is even more egregious because they are currently evading a block. The question becomes: Is Linas unblockable because they abandoned their account? Do their copious mathematical contributions excuse their block evasion? Are comments like this, this, this, this, etc. forgivable as long as they are contributing to math articles? Does anyone believe that multiple 'crats encouraged block evasion? This is bigger than just Linas. This is the first test I know of the RfC conclusion on unblockables. It deserves an explicit close and not to slink off into the archives without resolution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  There are smarter minds than me here, so I'll shut up for a while after this, but I just feel the need to stress that this isn't primarily an academic exercise - that's for WT:Blocking policy. This is about a single editor's case. I think too often (I am guilty of this myself) an error is made where people get so wound up in the philosophy they forget about what we're trying to do here. The editor in question has 6 years of history of articlespace contributions and talkspace discussions as an IP, yet the only problem diffs anyone seems to be able to find are the ones from their user talk, in response to the block, after the editor was blocked, aggravated and near-baited. Linas is far from an unblockable, imo - if they were, this convo wouldn't even be happening. They don't seem to fit any of the criteria in that RfC's discussion, eg premature AN/I closes, non-policy based calls for a boomerang and counter-pile-ons by friends who pop up every time the user is being discussed. Crucifying one editor for the sake of a principle that doesn't seem to even apply to them is silly imo. Admins aren't robots that need to mindlessly apply policy. Nobody needs to lift a finger here unless they think it's in the best interests of the wiki. And I seriously question that any admin can reach that conclusion with the evidence presented. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think we can agree that, regardless of whether Linas is unjustly persecuted or a serial offender, leaving the issue twisting in the wind is unfair to them and to other editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: I just skimmed the link you sent, and the RfC leading up to it. It says:

To re-iterate two salient themes of the discussion:--

• The CU evidence must be publicly documented.
• Socks tagged solely on basis of behavioural evidence will not be considered under the purview of this upgradation.

This does not apply here, right? The SPI was on behavioural evidence, and not a CU action, seemingly? Indeed, I think it's a violation of the local CU policy to link an IP to a user? Plus, seems like the "master" is not tagged & no notice was left at AN per the second paragraph, dunno if that's still required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, yes, when I wrote the policy proposal it was phrased that way to prevent people who obsess over SPIs and see socks everywhere from declaring people banned based on a hunch. Logged out socking is a bit different since CUs can’t confirm or deny either way. All of our policies are first and foremost based on practice and document what we do. The principle there is that repeated block evasion requires affirmative consensus to unblock. No one is really denying that this is the same person and there’s next to no doubt. If we’re taking a principles based approach rather than a lawyerly approach you’d expect affirmative consensus to unblock. I don’t think when drafting the policy we ever really considered the eventuality of an individual who evades his block long-term on a static IP where no one denies it is him. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you wrote the proposal the way you did to prevent others from doing the exact thing you are doing right now. Nice. Is there any CU evidence? No? Then there's no automatic community ban because the prerequisites ("CheckUser findings must be documented on Wikipedia before a user is considered banned") simply aren't met. Your "there's next to no doubt" is not good enough, period. The practical purpose of 3X was to save us time we'd otherwise have to waste rubber-stamping uncontroversial ban proposals; invoking it in any other context is unhelpful. The discussion here and in the previous thread clearly shows that there would be no consensus to ban Linas from Wikipedia if such a proposal was put on the table—true or false? Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:, since this is your block from 2012, has anyone pinged you? I don't think so, but there's a lot to read on several pages and I might have missed it, so I apologize if you've already commented somewhere. Anyway, assuming Beeb is willing to let me give it a try, is there any reason I can't just unblock the User:Linas account with the rationale "7 years time served", and then they aren't using an IP to evade a block anymore? Beeb could just as easily have blocked for 1 year, no one would have thought it lenient, and then we wouldn't be having this problem. I'm not saying Linas did everything right here, it's just that this seems excessive and kind of broken and circular. If future problems re-occur, we deal with it. If they don't, yay. Can we cut the knot and try it this way? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it time served if they have been editing as an IP to evade the block? PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sort of, sort of not. Just trying to show some grace and simplify a complicated problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think it's worth a shot. On the other, it may wind up causing more drama given the lack of a clear consensus. I was content to just ignore the whole thing like we'd been doing for the past few years, but here we are again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I was not aware of this. Being so long ago I only vaguely remember this username, so it may take me a moment to get back up to speed and review the current situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Now that I've looked into this I will say from the start that I stand behind the original block. I stepped in as an uninvolved admin and warned them to stop making personal attacks, It's arguable that a warning was not necessary at all as they'd already been blocked for that same reason three times previously. Their reaction to that warning (which, to the best of my knowledge was the first time I had ever interacted with them in any capacity) was "Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? " which was enough for me to issue a block, and since previous timed blocks had clearly failed to get the point across, an indef block was the correct choice as far as I'm concerned. All Linas had to do to get unblocked right away was calm down and make a reasonable pledge to stop attacking others. Instead he swung hard in the opposite direction, trying to make it about me, saying I was violent, out of control, drunk on power, and clearly conspiring with some other admin (although he declined to say who, so I actually never did know what that was about.)
• So, that brings us to now. I don't care for the block evasion, but I am willing to make exceptions when the evasion has been more or less entirely positive and the user seems to have managed to fly under the radar by not repeating the mistakes of the past. That shows the ability to learn and to be willing to collaborate with others, and that goes a long way as far as I am concerned.
• What I'd hoped to see, given the number of people who seem to want to help him find a path back to being in good standing, was some indication that they had realized the error of their ways. As far as I can tell, the issue has never been their actual edits, which, even if sometimes in dispute, were made in good faith. The issue has always been their attitude when faced with the slightest criticism. I think the attitude could be summed up as "It's not me, it's you and Wikipedia's toxic culture, and since it is so corrupt and broken there is no need for me to even try to learn the actual rules." And... I'm sorry to say that doesn't look like it's changed.

Given all of the above I'm afraid I do not support unblocking at this time, the standard offer is about as far as I'd be willing to go, and even in that case I'd expect to see a compelling unblock request from Linas, that showed some insight into their own culpability in getting blocked to begin with. From what I've seen in the last hour or so of reviewing all this that doesn't seem very likely. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking time to review. As a drive-by admin with little time to spend these days, I'm not going to argue, or do anything unilaterally against the desire of the blocking admin. Personally, I think the account should be unblocked, in case someone wants to try to review all these discussions and see if there is consensus for that. If not, I think the fact that they're editing via IP should be ignored. I'm not sure there are any good solutions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

So, the general consensus seems to be that Linas remains indefinitely blocked but the IP address they are editing through is unblocked as long as no admin feels they are disruptive? Sort of double secret indefinite semi-probation? It would be an IAR middle ground, I guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion is block evasion. If this editor wants to contribute, they should post an unblock request from their main account, rather than trying to skirt around it as an IP. If they will not do that, the IP should remain blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to unblock in the previous discussion, and given the IP's complete unwillingness to meet anyone even vaguely halfway (they won't even admit they have socked, let alone post an unblock request), Linas should remain blocked. P-K3 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello I made a Wikipedia page with the name “Genesis Akesson” but I noticed that it’s not shown on the internet even tho I uploaded it and I haven’t gotten any text why my page isn’t showing up on the internet

Could you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesis Akesson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Genesis Akesson, hello. Userpages are not indexed by search engines (such as google or bing). It will need to be an article for it to be indexed by google. You can create a draft article for review at Draft:Genesis Akesson, adding {{subst:submit}} to the page when you want to submit it for review. I advise you to also read our guideline on writing autobiographies on Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone must have held a seminar about "Get your profile on Wikipedia! Astound your friends! Confound your foes!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.