Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive345

Block of Willbb234

Hello all. I have recently been on the receiving end of User:Doug Weller's wrath. I have been blocked from editing two pages and have been accused of attacking other editors in a personal manner, an accusation for which there are no grounds. Doug also doesn't like being called 'buddy' and apparently this was an issue even though he didn't tell me he didn't like it. Tell me Doug, how do I know that you don't like it if you don't tell me? Communication is key. I wish to be unblocked and I have used the unblock template thrice but to no avail! I also request that Doug retract his accusations that I have attacked other editors. I also believe that I have been treated unfairly by Doug and he has abused his administrative privileges to impose his wrath upon me. Please allow me to explain.

Firstly at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I was happily going about editing and improving the article ([1], [2] among others) when I suddenly awoke the science goblins from their cave. Next thing I know, Tim, Dave and Mr Gadling had logged onto their computers and began their onslaught. Tim was at the time an undisclosed paid editor with a fat COI, something for which he barely received a slap on the wrist from Doug. Mr Gadling threw around accusations and got rather angry and uncivil ([3]) and deleted the discussion as a result of his actions. Dave was alright I guess, he could have been better. Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page! Despite the fact that other editors were engaged heavily in some nasty edit warring, I am singled out! Can you believe it! Doug declined to elaborate on his reasoning (User talk:Willbb234/Archive 5#June 2022) and was very short with me.

Secondly, I then edit Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and I have a little edit war with Ian. We both do three reverts and so do not exceed WP:3RR and once again out of absolutely nowhere, Doug blocks me! I ask Doug on his talk page why he blocked just me but not Ian and I am ignored. Ian didn't even get a warning. If this isn't considered inappropriate behaviour by an admin then I don't really know what an admin can't do now. Ian's edits then get demolished by consensus proving that I am indeed correct, and Ian and Doug are wrong.

I am asking that Doug's actions are brought under the microscope as they are clearly inappropriate and that my blocks are reversed. That is all. Thanks everyone and happy editing :)Willbb234 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Make an unblock request on your user talk page and it will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Take care to read WP:GAB. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this on my talk page with the message “ Hi Doug. I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions. here's the discussion. thanks”. I’m in bed planning to read a bit and then go to sleep. See their talk page. Also User:Deepfriedokra may want to comment as they posted their about the unblock request. I don’t think Ian has been notified. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Malcolm, please see the final statement of my reasoning. This isn't just about an unblock. Thanks. Willbb234 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious if "Doug and his Lego" is the snide comment I think it is; is there another meaning I can't think of? If it is, then let's just close this as a time sink. Also, I realize that eventually a bot archived them, but aren't declined unblock requests supposed to be visible if you make a new unblock request? Reading recent edit summaries and comments, I'm inclined to leave both page blocks in place, and caution Willbb234 that they need to change their approach or blocks could start becoming sitewide. Keep in mind I know about this because I watchlist Doug's talk page, and am friendly with him, so I won't be doing any of what I'm suggesting myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm bemused by the title of this thread (and fairly unamused by "I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions"), so would appreciate being clued in here.. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"The Lego Group estimates that in five decades it has produced 400 billion Lego blocks". Doug is the Lego Group. Willbb234 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Riiiight... well that doesn't make any sense does it :) I've renamed the thread. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

He's not your buddy, pal. nableezy - 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not your pal, buddy. Willbb234 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I declined an unblock. When OP complained on my talk page, I sent them here. I'll let the folks here decide if the partial blocks can be lifted. I think OP is overly invested in the articles in question. There are about 6,000,000 other articles to edit. I don't think the partial blocks are anything onerous.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the vindictiveness, the seeming seeking of revenge noted by Doug in " I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions", inclines me to feel I was right to decline. It suggests a battleground mentality not compatible with this project. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with this comment. I believe Doug acted unfairly and used his administrative tools in a way in which they should not be used. Isn't it fair that I therefore believe that there should be consequences for his actions? Willbb234 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Now, what was I saying about inappropriate use of terms of familiarity? Ah, yes. It was OP's talk somewhere. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence or admission that Tim is paid for his contributions to Wikipedia? If there are none, you should strike that. I don't see much in Mr Gadling's comments that lead me to believe he is angry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline): Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. How do you think it would pan out if your employer saw a comment by you that was out of line with their business philosophy? The financial part of COI is extremely important and could very well be what drives a person to assume a particular position. I have no dog in this fight, and what matters most to me is making sure we are all on the same page relative to PAGs. My question now is whether or not that COI creates an issue for the editor who commented on that article? I will also add that I did not see an issue in the diffs provided but if those edits led to PAs against the editor, then we have a problem. How it is handled is up to our admins to decide, and the latter is why I want to make sure my thinking is on the same page as our trusted admins. Atsme 💬 📧 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to ask for a request for comment at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs because it was clear that we were going round in circles and going nowhere fast. However, I was unhappy about this edit summary. I would be happy to see Willbb234 unblocked, but only on condition that edit summaries and language like this are not used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234, you appear to have been blocked for edit warring as well as the use of intemperate language in edit summaries. Neither alone would be probably be enough for admin action but the two together is what has brought you to this point. I don't really see anything "unfair" in Doug's block and my suggestion is that you just fess up in an unblock notice, perhaps throw in a graceful apology to ianmacm, and see what happens. Complaints about "lego" blocks or leveling accusations of "wrath" are not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As I said on their talk page about an unblock, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. " Doug Weller talk 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234 admits edit warring and even if comments like "what a load of shit, buddy. Are you capable of reading WP:ONUS?" [4] aren't personal attacks they definitely aren't civil. Would you use that kind of language in, say, a workplace with a colleague you don't know well? Probably not, and I imagine that if you did sooner or later your manager or someone from HR would tell you to stop. This block could probably have be lifted if Willbb234 made it clear they understood what was wrong with their behaviour and that they wouldn't do it again, but instead they reacted by claiming the block was down to the "wrath" of the blocking admin and opening this thread in an apparent attempt to get some sort of revenge [5]. I suggest the OP withdraw this, wait a bit, and then file an unblock request dealing with the issues in their behaviour. Hut 8.5 12:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the edits in question aren't egregious, and largely come down to some copyediting, removing "grossly" from "grossly mischaracterized", and swapping "climate change denial" framing for "global warming sceptics". These are recurring sorts of minor POV edits in the climate space on Wikipedia. The word choice of "grossly" is a perfectly valid conversation to have, but rather than have a conversation (Willbb234 didn't use the talk page at all), he edit warred against three other people. Edit warring isn't allowed here. When called on it, he went on offense: Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves., followed by a couple pretty terrible unblock requests. Now we're here, and people are called science goblins, etc. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you stay away from 3RR. Probably could've been a fixed-length block rather than indefinite, but it's the sort of thing that should be very easy to get unblocked from. "My bad. Shouldn't have edit warred and gotten angry. I won't edit war further and will use the talk page to find consensus" yada yada... bam, unblocked. Over at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (oof, wish I hadn't looked at the content of the diffs), it doesn't seem like there's any POV issue -- it's mainly just edit warring again. You went past 3RR there. Being right isn't a good excuse. Doug would've also been justified blocking Ianmacm there, but i suspect what Doug saw was that you were engaged in edit wars on multiple articles, and even broke 3RR on that one. I'm surprised it wasn't a typical ~24h block at that point. Regardless, these are justified blocks. Just stop edit warring. Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be; just report them for edit warring and/or resolve it on the talk page. As above, this should be very easy to get lifted. Or, well, they should've been very easy. Now, with this thread and the lousy unblock requests, admins may want to see a more elaborate demonstration of clue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree 99.9%. Is that a first for us Rhododendrites? 😀 Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1. JBL (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• This all could have been avoided if Willbb234 had handled it the right way. Instead, what would have been a simple appeal has exposed a deeper behavioral problem and a combative attitude that is inherently incompatible with a collaborative project. Trying to play the victim, using condescending language towards others, and essentially tirading around WP is not the way to handle things. They have clearly been around long enough to know better. If they had bothered to take the appeal process seriously, they probably could have been unblocked by now. If they seriously do not see a problem with the way they flippantly approached the appeal process, then that's an indication that there is no recognition of what has gone wrong here and behavior is not likely to change. Past performance is indicative of future results. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been watching this post and it seems that Willbb234 has some issues with WP:CIV Seems to me the next action is to expand the block for the user until they can follow basic expectations of behavior on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my 2¢ worth. Make that $1.00 in consideration of today's inflation – which is really hurting folks on Bonaire, my little island paradise of inflate-the-price. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I endorse Doug's actions and I believe Willbb234 needs to revisit their compliance with policy. Andrevan@ 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the contributions everyone. Firstly, I would like to make clear that I recognise that I acted incorrectly on the two articles in question both through edit warring and civility issues. What I don't believe editors here seem to understand is that I have an issue with Doug's conduct which certainly should be scrutinised in the context of a lack of action against other users. This is why I have an issue with Rhododendrites saying Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be. Sure, in the context of my block that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say but when considering the actions of Doug, this is wrong. How Doug decided to act in these two situations is important both through what he did to me and, importantly, what he did not do to other editors. If Doug was truly acting in the best interest of the project as a whole, and wished to uphold his endeavour to tackle 'battleground' behaviour on this project, then he would take action (most likely in the form of a block) against other editors, Mr Gadling and Ian come to mind. But no, he was not acting in the best interest of the project and singled me out. This is not fair.

I'm yet to see how I performed a personal attack. I lacked civility and as Atsme has said, I believe the language from other editors should be taken into account when reviewing my response; when someone acts rudely towards you, rudeness can be expected back even if it is not the correct thing to do. After all, everyone makes mistakes and loses their heads. Of course, consistent lack of temperament is a cause for concern but one off occasions can surely be excused. What I still fail to see, though, is how I made personal attacks against other editors. I do not enjoy being accused of things I did not do and I believe Doug made a mistake here. Basing blocks off of accusations that are false seems very flimsy which is why I came here after my latest unblock request was refused.

Alright, if users are questioning why I come back here then I will summarise: I believe Doug has unfairly taken sides in the incidents above and I am not satisfied that anyone here has justified his actions. All you lot have given him is a pat on the back and to me that doesn't seem right. Willbb234 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320 unblock request

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.

---

• PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091 § User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR
• utrs:61310
• User talk:NinjaRobotPirate § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)
• User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)

PlanespotterA320 was blocked in February by The Blade of the Northern Lights for Belligerently pushing genocide denialist talking points, amidst an AN/I thread about her comments on the Uyghur genocide. Four unblock requests (permalink) were declined shortly thereafter, before her talkpage access was revoked by NinjaRobotPirate. She submitted UTRS appeals on 7 March, 31 May, and 11 June, all of which were declined, before submitting her most recent appeal on 28 July. Deepfriedokra and I both assessed this appeal as viable, and The Blade and NRP said they would not object to an unblock (with the former's support being conditional on a TBAN from the Uyghur genocide). EdJohnston, however, said that he objected, and I personally found myself on the fence as to whether an unblock would have a net-positive effect. Given that, and given that the original block was imposed during a community discussion, I decided to refer this to an AN appeal, and have downgraded Planespotter's siteblock to a p-block, conditional on only editing her talkpage and this noticeboard. If this appeal is unsuccessful, the closing admin should restore the siteblock (or I can).

Planespotter's appeal:

I do not dispute the gross and innapropriate nature of the comments I made in a futile attempt to "prove myself", I am merely pleading for a second chance - to return to English Wikipedia, to make positive contributions that would aid the Wikipedia's core mission - sharing of knowledge (in the many niche and overlooked/unrepresented in English topics under my areas of expertise, from Soviet aviation to Musical Theater of Central Asia). I don't expect forgiveness from everyone I've tangled with here, and I know I've made a lot of mistakes in the past, but I don't have anything to lose by asking for it and hoping you will give me a chance to turn over a new page in my work as a Wikipedian and allow me to return to make uncontroversial edits (presumably a China-based and topic ban and a 1RR). I strongly don't wish to be subject to a Soviet topic ban since that is both extremely broad and would prevent me from continuing any of my work with the Soviet Aviation Task Force as well as other subject areas where my work is uncontroversial (such as theater arts, adding the public domain photos I've found for Commons to biographies, etc). While I have engaged in edit conflicts in Soviet topics on enwiki, they were generally cosmetic/formatting/stylization based (not political) in nature (just simply happened to occur in the Soviet articles since that is my main area of editing, and could have occurred in a different kind of article if I had been devoted to a different topic). And with a 1RR, there won't be much risk of any controversy in editing anyway.

Regarding my current indef ban on ruwiki that some of you asked about - yes, I was banned on ruwiki, but for completely unrelated reasons. A while ago I filed a request for comment on meta about some of the very sketchy and seemingly coordinated behaviors targeting Crimean Tatar related articles (ranging from a deletion nomination of the article about the Yaliboylu people of the Crimean Tatar nation on the grounds that the very existance of Yaliboylu was a "fringe theory" (I wish I was making that up!), the deletion nomination of the Mubarek zone article accusing Crimean Tatars of making up the whole project as a hoax in their minds to make Moscow look bad (as if Crimean Tatars needed to contrive a hoax for that!), and general troll-ish behaviors that went widely tolerated by admins. In the course of the discussion I became the main subject of focus and was scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb despite begging for the discussion to focus on the issue in the title. Ruwiki then had a discussion about the existance of the discussion where many expressed dismay that existed "impartial observers" were being called in, and expressed desire to see be banned for something, accusing me of "inventing" the problem, "threatening Russian Wikipedia" by saying that Russian Wikipedia would be judged by non-Russian Wikimedians for how it decides to handle the situation. In the course of the ensuing drama where some Russian parties denied the existance of systematic bias against Crimean Tatary in general I found myself refering in a broad sense to some of the users involved in trolling Crimean articles as "chauvanist". The use of that particular word was used as the official grounds to permaban me for insulting other users. I doubt the behavior of the parties I used the word "chauvanist" to refer to would have been tolerated on enwiki for one minute, but such provocations were commonplace on ruwiki - which proliferated as such a hostile environment I realized it would be pointless to even suggestion creation of additional Crimea-related articles already existing on other wikis due to a certainty they would be targeted for deletion by nominators proclaims the well-documented respective topics hoaxes/non-existant. If something similar were to happen on enwiki, ex, some trolls nominate the article about a genocided, non-recognized, assimilated people for deletion proclaiming their ever existing was a fringe theory, I highly doubt ANYONE would be in trouble for referring to the person/people who did it as "chauvanist" or pointing to such pattern of behavior as an example of a manifestation of chauvanist attitudes.

In the meantime, I have still managed to make myself a productive and positive contributer to Wikimedia projects by finding numerous rare/hard-to-find public domain photos for Commons, creating lists of photos to calculate copyright expiration dates and help others find fair-use photos (shared via a google doc upon request), scouring archives for photos to use as fair-use on other wikis, reaching out to other wikis to share historic newspaper clippings with users who might be interested, and other uncontroversial, "boring" stuff.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping Mhawk10 as initiator of AN/I thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. Depending on what others have to say, I could see supporting an unblock with the suggested 1RR + topic ban from China (or maybe just Uyghurs)... unsure how I feel about allowing edits about Crimean Tatars. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The editwars in CT articles I previously got into were cosmetic (formatting/stylization), not a content thing - so there is nothing to lose when I am constrained by a 1RR rule so I can just finish some of the stubs I started but never got around to finishing, plus letting me create a few new biography article (such as one for Midat Selimov. With an unblock and Uyghur topic ban and 1RR combined being on the radar from this whole thing I can't possibly cause any irrepairable damage to wikipedia, but I certainly will be able to contribute a lot of information currently unavailable in English altogether.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock. WP:1RR WP:TBAN Uyghurs. +/- China as a whole. meh. I don't think there will be a problem on ENWIKI about the Crimean Tartars as we have a different corporate culture from RUWIKI. Needs topic ban on Crimean Tartars per Horse Eye's Back At UTRS, appellant adequately pledged to WP:DR for me to agree with unblock.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, enwiki has a VERY different "corporate culture" from ruwiki to put it mildly. Frankly I'm surprised more people aren't outraged that the Yaliboylu deletion nomination was treated with legitimacy and sat open until I noted it in the meta filing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Question. I agree that any unblock is going to have to come with a WP:1RR restriction and a WP:TBAN from WP:GS/UYGHUR, but there are an additional concerns I have based upon the block on RuWiki. PlanespotterA320, would you be willing to explain the content of the now-deleted User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Demonization of Crimean Tatars? I see that it was deleted per WP:U5 (Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) by Beeblebrox on February 2. I'm not able to see the content at this point given that I'm not an admin, but the U5 CSD criterion is used for writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I barely remember that Demonization of Crimean Tatars page in my sandbox. I'll often put random stuff in my sanbox for convenience (ex, a commonly used infobox partially filled out to copy-paste) and take notes for things that didn't quite fit in the articlespace yet/wasn't ready yet. I do remember some of the things I listed out were examples of photos of Bosnian Nazis "accidentally" labeled as Crimean Tatar in Russian media (which I have a hard time beleiving to be a true case of mistaken identity due to the Unit insignia prominent on the hats clearly indicating a Yugoslav origin, accompanied by a searchable archive number for checking Germany's official records which supply the official captions for such photos). I also listed a few myths and facts (for example, listed names of deported veterans as examples to counter the myth that those who were Red Army veterans weren't deported) I had no opportunity to contest the deletion. Anyway, I now have a new Crimea-based sandbox, where I just have a bunch of lists of people who MIGHT be worthy of wiki articles, maybe or maybe not on enwiki (but certainly for crh wiki), a draft of the article about the CT civil rights movement that I still haven't finished, and a couple unfinished biographies (please don't delete it! I hope to finish that article someday)

  The information regarding the block on ruwiki is readily available and it is rather transparent in its retaliatory nature (for starting the meta discussion) based on comments from users saying gems accusing me of gaming the system, even blatantly saying "Что-то мне представляется, что из таких борцов «за свободу слова» почти каждый рано или поздно оказывается в очень неприятном для них положении." where the fact that I described a user as having "chauvanistic behaviors" was nothing more than a weak pretext to carry out the block sought to silence me. You can view the discussions and comments from the Russians for yourself - I guarantee you that if it happened on enwiki, I would not be the one getting blocked.User forum discussion Admin noticeboard. If my use of the word "chauvanist" was the only reason for the ban they would not have cited the NPOV rule in my ban (since they see creating the discussion as a violation of community consensus and a non-neutral creation, despite the fact that the very purpose of the meta disucssion is to discuss the lack of objectivity), nor would they have stated that I was "threats" against the Russian language section as a whole for simply saying that Russian wikipedia was subject to judgement from meta!. TLDR - I start meta discussion that ruwiki doesn't like. Ruskies want me gone. I describe somebody's behavior as chauvanist and say that ruwiki is subject to judgement from meta. Admin on ruwiki who obeys the cabal of users involved in trolling CT articles uses that as official excuse for the ban.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Mhawk10 That deleted page contained content about how the Soviet deportation of the Crimeans was a genocide, but the current Chinese treatment of Uyghurs is not. I was considering nominating it for deletion myself, but Beeblebrox beat me to it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've undeleted the page temporarily so people can judge for themselves. Note that most of it was written between September of 2019 and May of 2021, with one small addition in August 2021. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin, Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Tamzin: Feel free to re-delete the page since it has been reveiwed by those who want to read it and I have no use for it (it's just a huge embarassment, now that I remember it more now that I see it and wish I had never written it - I was REALLY sick of being told to shut up and all the "be careful/don't be the NEXT Uyghurs" crap). As I have reiterated in this, I intend to stay on the straight and narrow once unblocked and just write "uncontroversial" stuff, certainly nothing like that page.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Support unblock with a WP:TBAN on WP:UYGHUR and a WP:1RR exemption. Planespotter has proven herself an asset to the project outside of that sphere and her desire to work on Soviet-era biographies (where she has previously been quite productive) seems persuasive enough to me that she deserves a second chance at editing. Edit warring should not be an issue with a general WP:1RR restriction. Crimean Tatars may well be within WP:ARBEE (depending on the result of a clarification request), so I think that any potential Crimean Tatar-related issues might be already within a DS area and could be handled easily should the user be disruptive there. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• As the original blocking admin, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Whatever the community or any other admin comes to is fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline This doesn't even begin to address all the other items that were [discussed at ANI] even before this all happened that you refer to above and would have led you to being blocked anyway. If there is to be an unblocked I'd like to see all the points raised at ANI to be tackled, not just the Uyghur area but all the ethnic group and nationality edit warring, ownership etc that would have gotten us to a block anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Canterbury Tail: As I have brought up in this, my editwars and editing in Crimean Tatar content was of a very fundamentally different nature than my purely unconstructive Uyghur edits. One stupid editwar over a hypen and some other cosmetic/stylization things does not negate my ability to continue to write quality content in Crimean Tatar history, where most of the articles I've created (on enwiki) have been accepted without problem (the fact that Russian trolls like to pretend that Mubarek zone and Yaliboylu people aren't real and provoke wikidrama as result of such absurd theories doesn't affect the content on enwiki). While the Russian objections (for utterly absurd reasons) to my Crimea-related articles are well known, and the issue of the hypenization in the one article title is settled, I do not know of any complaints about my many Crimean Tatar articles from the Crimean Tatar community - in fact, quite the opposite, so it feels quite wrong to lump my largely positive Crimea editing into the same basket as the stupid, unproductive, and impulsive pointy edits I made to Xinjiang-related and others for such reasons (like the talkpages of US states/disputed territories) that caused the block that was specifically for genocide denial. The blocking admin specifically said that I am blocked on enwiki for my edits in Uyghur articles, not because anyone (sans Russian nationalists) truly thinks I can't be a positive contributor in Crimea articles or wrote from a Tatarophobic perspective, or won't be a positive contributor other unrelated subjects like botany, musical theater, and aviation. As for article ownership, guilty as charged. I watch my watchlist like a hawk and am terrified of any of the articles I've worked so hard on being vandalized or ruined. But I've come to see that often other editors edits are improvements, and I've seen some other editors do some amazing work (better than I would have done) to articles on my to-do list that I haven't gotten to. Nobody owns wikipedia, which I fully understand - and as part of my efforts against content ownership, I have uploaded dozens upon dozens of quality, hard-to-find public domain photos to the Commons so everyone can find them and use them in articles that they write. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• (i) Talk:Bilohirsk#Article title shows me that the user is not capable of editing Crimea-related topics constructively; (ii) that she calls everybody who disagree with her "Russian trolls" is not good. My first choice would be decline; my second choice would be unblock with topic bans from everything Uyghur-related and Crimea-related, broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • 1. Like I have explained before, that kind of editwar in a Crimea article was cosmetic (limited to the name of the article). It could not happen under a 1RR. 2. I am a bit insulted by the notion that I am not capable of editing in Crimea constructively considering the numerous Crimea-related articles created and stubs expanded that I have worked on over the years without any kind of problems or controversy on the enwiki side of things. In fact, many of the articles I've published on enwiki about Crimea have since been directly translated to numerous other languages; the articles about people from Seit Tairov to Yuri Osmanov has been translated into various languages from Greek to Turkish; the article about Mansur Mazinov has been translated to Kazakh and Armenian Wikipedias. As far as concerns about content itself, I don't think we should take the "concerns" of the shall we say, creative historians, at ruwiki who invented objections to such articles on patently absurd grounds in contrary to the numerous citations present) 3. I think that the characterization of people who say that Yaliboylu people aren't real/never existed and Mubarek was a hoax invented by Crimean Tatars to make Moscow look bad as "Russian trolls" would be supported by consensus here at enwiki, which has less tolerance for such absurdities. 4. With a 1RR, I can only be a net positive contributer in the Crimea subject matter which will allow me to work on unfinished articles as well as creating new ones such as biographies for Midat Selimov, Yusuf Bolat, Memet Melochnikov, etc. A few stupid disputes over spelling don't erase net positive contributions from so many articles already created, expaned, and that could be created in the future.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    Moved to decline as the only choice, clear demonstration of battleground mentality. Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    • I don't see Wikipedia as a battleground or an us vs them thing. I hate how you instantly jumped to the "battleground mentality" conclusion when I simply tried to defend my overall work as an editor (which I don't deny has been tarnished by some stupid edits). My hostility to people on ruwiki who invented some pretty fringe conspiracy theories about the Crimean Tatar nation that I outlined in the meta post are not my average feelings about my colleagues here, who I continue to work with off-wiki to help improve content across all wikis in the search for public domain photos.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    PlanespotterA320, you might have done some good work in the area. But the question is, are you able to handle conflict and work with other editors when there is disagreement, and are you able to follow our policies and guidelines? In some cases, where editors have strong feelings about issues as you seem to about Crimea relates ones, it's hard for them to edit productively in an area without causing problems. I agree with Ymblanter that your comments in that discussion are concerning. While you're entitled to your view about something being an occupying power, if it's not something well accepted in sources it's unlikely it's helpful to make the claim in a discussion, and it's even less likely to be helpful to keep arguing about how you're right. I also remember this dispute Template talk:Crimean Tatar Surgun era#Revert where you kept trying to change a link to De-Tatarization of Crimea so it wouldn't shown the hypen. From that discussion and the corresponding ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Non-agreeable and unresponsive user as well as the threads at Talk:De-Tatarization of Crimea (where all the threads except 'Indigenous and related' are about the issue), you had or I suspect have a fundamental disagreement with calling it "de-Tatarization" instead of "detatarization". Of course it's fine to have a strong disagreement with something, but once it's clear community consensus is against you and is unlikely to change, there comes a point where you have to accept that and move on, and ensure your editing in articles and templates reflects the community consensus where relevant rather than your own view. IMO the discussions and especially your editing and reverts on the template reveal it took way too long for you to do so about the hyphen. In fact, IMO removing the hyphen in the link in the template is whatever, I don't think you should have but it's fairly minor. More serious is when that was rejected, you tried to pipeline it with names that didn't make much sense since they only reflected part of what the article covered. That's the sort of editing which is highly problematic, where you feel so strongly about something that in an effort to achieve it you make edits that are clearly harmful. I'd note that while I think you moved on, since your block happened about 20 days after your last comment on the hyphen issue, I wonder if we can even be sure you have moved on. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    • @Nil Einne: I don't deny I had some very strong feelings about the hyphenization and the word "Tatar" itself, which has a derogatory origin and is commonly misunderstood in the Crimean context to be a noun and not an adjective, as this is an issue that I am very emotionaly invested in. But at the end of the day, I consider that article title a closed issue, water under the bridge, and would certainly not risk my ability to continue my work here that I have been desperate to pick up where I left off (expanding unfinished stubs and creating new articles). And I would like to again reiterate that a Crimea topic ban would not only be unnessesary due to a 1RR rule preventing editwars, but woudl inevitably result in a lot of "collateral damage" to the wiki (and not just enwiki) in the form of articles left as stubs and articles left unwritten that I highly doubt anyone else will be getting to writing anytime soon.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

      • And this is what we've seen from you time and time again, you're seemingly utter belief that you have to edit Wikipedia because you're the only one that can save it. This attitude has come up time and time again, every unblock request, every time something like this comes up, that you're the only one that can do it and by not unblocking you we're inviting vandalism, damage and disruptive editing. This keeps coming up. You have to understand why some of us can't look at that attitude and think you're suitable for the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
        • If you or any other editor for that matter would like to expand any one of the wikipedia articles related to Central Asian theater, Russian aviation, or Crimean Tatar return, I would be happy to provide all manners of assistance in a sandbox on another wiki as well as research help. But it is an objective fact that enwiki's coverage of Soviet Central Asia and Soviet Aviation is in a very poor state compared to other language counterparts. I cannot change it single-handedly, but I can improve it article at a time.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Many people in my original block discussion oppposed a full block or expressed support for allowing me to be unblocked in the future. I hope their comments (which I will quote here) will be taken into consideration.
• "on the WP:UYGHUR area. I'm not opposed to an additional sanction of a one-revert restriction for behavior outside of the problem topic area, but I'd prefer to give a formal warning before being putting restrictions on all of the user's editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"
• "Support topic ban on on WP:UYGHUR for six months. Pious Brother (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"
• "I support a topic ban, for six months. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022"

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps would "2-step" unblock be an acceptable compromise for those who aren't confident in an unblock yet? Something like first letting me edit my sandbox in enwiki to draft articles for a month or two, and if nobody has objections to the drafts, then go to a 1RR unblock with a Uyghur topic ban+edits closely monitored by admins? Wikipedia has nothing to lose from just letting my sandbox some drafts for existing stubs, but a lot to gain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline based on the comments in this thread, they're not ready. Already combative and bludgeoning. Levivich (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I haven't intended to insult anyone here on enwiki. My comments refering to certain editors being trolls were refering only to a specific few users of a different wiki who pushed unsubstantiated (and not to mention incredibly racist!) conspiracy theories claiming that the Yaliboylu people weren't real (I doubt that kind of attitude would be tolerated with the article about any first nation band!) and that the Mubarek project was a hoax invented in the minds of Crimean Tatars to make the Russian government look bad. It was not in reference to the users who I disagreed with on enwiki about article titles in enwiki, who were part of a legitimate disagreement that I went way too far in and should have followed consensus in upon conclusion. I fully contest the notion that I have not made some net positive contributions or am physically incapable of being a net positive contributer, evidence of which can be found in the form of numerous articles I've co-authored linked on my userpage. It has been many months since my block and I am absolutely itching to add so many of the public domain photos I've uploaded to Commons over the past few months into articles on enwiki and get back to finishing some of the articles I've started.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I didn't say you insulted anyone. In fact, I haven't even read what you've written, I've just skimmed it. You've written more here than everyone else combined, and it hasn't even been 16 hours yet. If this is how you're collaborating now, it will be the same when you're unblocked. You will bludgeon content disputes as you are bludgeoning your own unblock request. Clearly, you haven't learned how to collaborate in this online text-based setting. You haven't learned to be brief, to respect the time of others, to not respond to each and every person, etc. You don't appear to have enough self-control to refrain from writing too much, and you aren't sensitive enough to how much time you're asking for from other editors, etc. I'd suggest some reading: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:COAL, WP:PEPPER. When I vote on an unblock request, I'm looking to see if the person can edit without being disruptive, without taking up an inordinate amount of time from other editors. What you're proving to me so far is the exact opposite. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Then I think you should read a little more before jumping to a conclusion solely based on length of commentary. Answering questions, clarifying comments, and replying to statements about you that are grossly innacurate characterizations of me are to be expected. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here - if I don't write much, certain people will be very dissapointed that I ignored/"doesn't even begin to address" everything that some want specifically addressed. Do I have a habit of writing long-ass spiels/talking my head off/not being concise? Sure. But there are a lot of factors at play here, and I tried to help reduce reading needs by providing links to diffs (so people wouldn't have to search many archives) and quoting comments from them. I do not intend to disrupt the block/unblock process - and I came with the not unreasonable assumption that any editor would read the relevant subsections instead of simply judging them based on length before making a judgement, and expecting those who have serous time-based concerns to abstain if they are unwilling to read and consider relevant materials and context. I made a point of reading the essays (which as essays, not ratified codes, and the first one clearly said "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided.").--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Strong decline and no more appeals for a year. I was hoping they'd take the hint and not reply, and I could later change my !vote, but it went the other way. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline per Levivich, Ymblanter and the gigantic and repetitive walls of text that this editor forces others to wade through. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to make one point as a non-Admin in regards to topic bans: The disruption of the Uyghur space was incidental to POV pushing in the Crimean Tatar space, it wasn't disrupted because there was a specific animosity against the Uyghurs but to make a point about the Crimean Tatar (as demonstrated by User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Demonization of Crimean Tatars#On another note). So any topic ban which covered the Uyghur space but not the Crimean Tatar space would appear to be remiss as it doesn't address the actual issue or prevent other areas from being used as outlets for the editor's feelings about the Crimean Tatar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline the responses here don't fill me with confidence, as they consist of long walls of text replying to every comment, often with a battleground tone. Unblocking people who do this kind of thing tends to deter other editors from contributing, and people who don't do block-worthy stuff are far more valuable to the encyclopedia. Any unblock should definitely come with a topic ban from Crimea and the Uyghurs, but the mere fact that we would be imposing topic bans from two completely unrelated fields suggests the problem is more fundamental. Hut 8.5 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline per Ymblanter, Cullen, et al. firefly ( t · c ) 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline as the bludgeoning is not giving me faith that they get it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline per everyone else, and the fact that so much of her recent talk page history consists of complaints. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Maintain ban per the user's comments towards Levivich, as well as the previous commenters above. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Withdraw I fucked up this unblock request (it wasn't clear that bludgeoning meant writing a lot not something else), I get that I won't be wanted here and most have not faith in me. If possible, I would like to at least edit my userpage and talkpage so as to be able to list some resources to help other wikipedians and reply to questions for me (such as about copyright) locally instead of having to reply on meta or commons talkpages.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2022 (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.

Demi Lovato

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.

---

It appears that Demi Lovato (talk) has changed her pronouns back to she/her (not trolling, look it up). It's a very contentious topic that I'm pretty sure has been the source of several AN/I threads, and I suspect there will be many impatient Republican IPs awaiting the pronoun change, so I think the guidance/presence of a few admins would be helpful. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Admins don't make content decisions, this is probably better suited or WP:BLP/N. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely belongs there. Also I swear I just heard Peter Griffin saying "Oh my God, who the hell CARES" RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

More concerned about the Republican IP comment. Seems rude, unnecessary and targeting of editors based on their political beliefaSlywriter (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see it that way, but thanks for your criticism. I struck out the comment. I should have been more clear, but I was referring to people on that side of the political spectrum who don't accept non-binary identities. I understand if that doesn't excuse the comment. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

All good. You aren't wrong about the keyboard warriors, just don't paint all Republicans with the same brush. Despite social and mass media takes to the contrary, rational and empathetic Republicans do exist. Anyway, see you on BLPN for the real discussion. Slywriter (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect.
• Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior.
• Lugnuts is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles.
• Lugnuts is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee requests comment from the community on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed

Geonotice request for Wikimania meetup

I added a geonotice request for an August 13 WikiMeetup during Wikimania. I'm afraid I'm late to the planning party. Thanks for your kind attention! KarenJoyce (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Complaint about homophobic behaviour and tendencies of user: ftrebien and others

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.

---

As seen in these edits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1102127374

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1102119326

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_monkeypox_outbreak#Precise_statistics_vs._qualitative_description_for_MSM_case_%25

User is doggedly and persistently hammering any scrap and statistic they can find about disease affecting gay men.

User is adamant and persistent on pushing out of date and harmful statistics that no longer apply and it is unacceptable. This is an unbiased neutral public domain and pushing out of date facts to the general public is not ok. Those facts no longer represent the current situation in an accurate or fair way and I demand they be removed and be replaced with current up to date statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayshdbd (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• The reporter (Ayshdbd) appears to have violated WP:NOTAFORUM in Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak#Incorrect statistics & Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak#User: ftrebien. This user also posted two messages to Ftrebien’s talk page, but appears without the intent to have a discussion and rather to make accusations. [6] & [7]. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've block as an obvious sock of User:Zvfibkoj. Please note there is an open SPI case as well for OP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was just about to say this is a bad faith report created by a sock see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zvfibkoj. 15:04, 3 August 2022 (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.

Carlos Hank González

SEO effort by paid COI account to distance one Carlos Hank González (businessman) (new page title created by COI) from Carlos Hank González (politician) (new article entry by COI) has generated this disambiguation issue. Also noticed that the original Carlos Hank González article has a history of critical commentary being removed by a single purpose account. Not sure, what, if any issue there might be with this kind of editing, but perhaps it warrants some attention. Acousmana 13:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: perhaps WP:COIN would be a better venue? I'm undecided if the article names work better this way, or if the renaming should be reverted and the disambiguation solved by a hatnote (as is currently the case in eswiki). If the rename stands, the dab links to be fixed are less than 40, so it's not a too complicated task. As an aside, this is why I didn't name my children after relatives... –FlyingAce^✈hello 06:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@FlyingAce, thanks for that, yes, WP:COIN probably better, will repost there! Acousmana 09:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of "sock" exemption for 3RRNO

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Discussion on changing the wording to that exemption. Since admin have to deal with that and other exemptions to edit warring, please join the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

COI editor will not disclose

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.

---

EBUBAKIR (talk · contribs) is a pretty obvious COI editor associated with National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. That's clear from their edits and drafts, and particularly from this edit: note the use of the first person plural pronouns. I've sparred a bit with this editor over some content, so I am a bit loath to place a block myself; I do believe that a p-block from article space, for instance, is appropriate. In addition, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is, given their response on the talk page where I asked them to disclose. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

roger. willco. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I got there first, blocked from article space. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller is to fast for me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Was thinking about it. They lack competence, adding information to articles not about the article subject and edit warring to keep them there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

They are pretty hot to trot. A site-wide NOTHERE block may be in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2022 (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.

Concerns about a Block and two 3RR violations

On the article Vijayanagara Empire, I'm afraid I have run into a now-subsided very severe edit war between a normal user (User:Jai14) and an admin (User:Discospinster). Both users have violated the 3RR rule, and the admin has blocked the user for repeatedly introducing unsourced content, though I'm mostly concerned about the reverts. The dispute in question, which regards to phrasing and languages primarily, should have been raised on the talk page of either of the users by either of them. From what I am seeing, this is a content dispute and not vandalism. I haven't taken a position on what is the right move here, but I do believe that this should have been brought on to the article's talk page earlier, and I'm questioning if the admin . I take a neutral position in this case.

I originally brought this up on ANEW, though my report was removed by a non-admin claiming my report was "malformed and ridiculous". InvadingInvader (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Jai14 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh he's a sock??? That explains EVERYTHING. Thanks for letting me know!!!! InvadingInvader (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Next time please read the blocking admins explanation as well. Reverting vandalism is 3rr exempt. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I understand that, but the block reason for the initial block of Jai14 was unsourced content, not vandalism. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
        • InvadingInvader, please read what it says in WP:VANDALISM. Here is the second sentence: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." I think two things are in order: an apology to Discospinster, and I'm glad you did so on their talk page, and a re-reading of our various policies, if you are going to revert, give warnings, file edit warring reports. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

          Well said! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

          I understand...I was just reviewing what was happening on the edit summaries and log of changes, as well as what was being changed (I did not make any reverts at all), and I was concerned/questioning that this might not meet the criteria and might have been edit warring rather than vandalism. The realization that the account was a sock completely flipped my view on this incident. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This Groovers

Resolved

I believe @This Groovers: edit summary at Montreal Canadiens, went over the line, per WP:BULLYING & WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think this might be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1978 Los Angeles Ravagers. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I see. I checked myself over & it appears I'm still alive :) GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• In the mean time, a couple of admins have bumped into each other a little blocking them, reverting them, deleting pages, revdel'ing the edit summaries, and notifying WMF. I think all is sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope, the individual receives the help he needs. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • "still alive"-- i'm glad. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not certain, but @Zach3430: might be a sock. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

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

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued out-of-process DRV closures by King of Hearts

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.

---

In 2021, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts, I asked this board to review two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts, an administrator. I argued that King of Hearts closed the discussions in accord with their personal preferences rather than according to consensus. The closer noted that "editors generally agree that King of Hearts should take more care in closing discussions".

They have not done so, as the following example shows. In Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15 with respect to Chronovisor, King of Hearts closed a DRV regarding a deleted article with the result "Redirect and restore history". They did so even though there was evidently no consensus in the DRV for restoring the history: Two people including the DRV nominator were in favor of doing so (Thryduulf and Uanfala), one person was against it (Hut 8.5), and another person (5Q5) appeared to be at least critical of restoring the history, noting that better sources were readily available to write a better article about the topic.

When asked about this by me and Flatscan on their talk page (permalink), King of Hearts did not answer queries about the lack of consensus to overturn the deletion and undelete the history. Instead, they made arguments on the merits about why they believed that the history should be restored in such circumstances. This indicates that they meant to use DRV as a means to cast a supervote to enact the AfD outcome they preferred, rather than to assess whether there was consensus to overturn the closure.

Disregard for consensus is of particular concern in administrators, who are trusted with recognizing and acting on community consensus. Our deletion process only works if we follow our agreed-upon rules: at AfD, articles are only deleted if there is consensus for it, and at DRV, AfD closures are only overturned if there is consensus for it. I therefore ask the community to review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15 with respect to Chronovisor, and to discuss whether King of Hearts should continue to close DRV discussions. Sandstein 06:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I took part in the discussion, so I'm biased, but that closing statement does make it clear the closer picked a side in the discussion rather than determining consensus. And as for the claim that there's no reason to delete the history, a reason was given by myself in the DRV and other people in the AfD - the content is very poor quality and not suitable in any article. Hut 8.5 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: Is the content so problematic as to fall into WP:REVDEL territory? If, instead of bringing it to AfD, someone had simply redirected the article unilaterally and then you subsequently brought it to AfD/RfD (I'm not sure what the right venue is) asking for the history to be deleted, do you honestly think you would have achieved a consensus for that? The problem with interpreting any AfD consensus is that usually the discussion is centered around whether the topic deserves a standalone article rather than whether its history needs to be erased, so you cannot conclude that a "delete" result at AfD necessarily supports the latter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  It would be reasonable for you to leave that as a comment at the DRV, but it's not reasonable grounds for closing the DRV. I don't agree that the edit history needs to be preserved unless it qualifies for revdel, and there isn't AFAIK any policy which says so. I still haven't seen anyone claim the edit history is actually useful in any way. AfD participants/closers have discretion on these things and I think it's reasonable to delete the content if we know it's not something we want in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 12:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I find the edit history useful (that was implied in my DRV nomination, why would I have bothered with it otherwise?) That's for the same set of reasons that article histories are useful, but in particular I also disagree with your earlier comment that the text in the history was rubbish. Sure, it could do with some copyediting, and some bits could be dropped, but there's a good core there. If the text says, for example, that the photo of the crucifixion the priest allegedly took during his time travels is the same as the photo of a particular modern-day statue of Jesus, then surely, even for the benefit of the most gullible readers, there's no need for it to lay any more stress on the blatantly obvious? Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding the WP:Revision deletion criteria: repurposing them for AfD delete and redirect was proposed and rejected at WT:Deletion policy/Archive 45#Alternative proposal (December 2015–January 2016). (I posted a similar comment below while this section was closed, and KoH replied there.) Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I maintain that the status of the article history is not something sacrosanct, as Sandstein posits. Consider the following:

• It has long been accepted that articles can be userfied or draftified upon request by any admin, as long as the admin considers the rationale justified, without the need for consensus.
• There are no restrictions on what can be done with drafts. They can be edited (including turning them into redirects), or moved back into the main namespace. Of course, the catch is that if moved too soon into the main namespace, the draft would be subject to speedy deletion under WP:G4.
• However, a redirect is not "substantially identical to the deleted version", and thus is ineligible for G4. Therefore, there is no difference between restoring the history underneath a redirect vs. the more convoluted route of userfying it, redirecting it, and moving it into the main namespace, which is allowed under current practice.

If the community wants to tighten up the policy around restoring article history (e.g. during userfication/draftification), then I'm happy to support an RfC around it. But as it stands, it doesn't make sense to discriminate between different types of history restoration, because they are all fungible through normal editing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You again fail to see that this isn't about whether the history of this article could or should be restored in the abstract if somebody wants to work with it for whatever purpose. That would be a separate discussion that could be had (even if, as noted above, the content is of very dubious usefulness). It is about you closing a DRV with a statement to the effect that there is consensus, which there is not, to overturn the AfD's decision to delete the article and its history. By doing so, you are misusing your authority as a DRV closer - and, by undeleting the history without a basis in the community consensus required by the DRV process, you are misusing your administrator tools. Sandstein 08:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been careful to not use the word "overturn" in my close, but it looks like I wasn't clear enough. I've revised my statement to be more explicit: There is a consensus to redirect, and I am exercising my discretion as an admin (based on the points I listed above) to restore the history. If you believe that admins should not have the discretion to restore the history underneath a redirect, then please explain which step in my logic is flawed, or, if you believe that admins should not have the discretion to userfy/draftify a deleted article, then please point to the policy/guideline that says that or propose a change in an RfC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of like the Irish Sea border trilemma actually: Philosophically, you may want to allow userfication while disallowing the restoration of history underneath redirects, just like the UK wants a hard border somewhere with the Republic of Ireland. But I am telling you that this position is simply untenable with our current set of policies, because these two situations can be easily transformed into each other and there is no good place to draw the border. (I'm just playing devil's advocate here, since that is not even my position anyways, even in the absence of practicality requirements.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @King of Hearts, I wasn't involved in either the AfD or the drv but spotted the discussion on your talk page. I think there is a point being missed, in that you expressing administrator discretion to overturn Sandstein's reasonable afd judgement, in the absence of clear consensus, may create somewhat of a concerning precedent. Personally, I didn't observe a view in the afd that the content was salvageable or of sufficient quality that retention of the history would be beneficial. A redirect as it stands is not itself problematic and it could be argued that an afd judgement of redirect (default history being kept) would also not be a poor outcome if considering WP:ATD, but the general consensus in the afd was that the article should be deleted first and foremost. The drv discussion did not have compelling consensus that this was a bad closure, in my view.

Sandstein's observation seems a fair one to me: It is about you closing a DRV with a statement to the effect that there is consensus, which there is not, to overturn the AfD's decision to delete the article and its history. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not about overturning his AfD judgment. I am simply accepting a reasonable request to restore the history underneath a redirect, because there is no reason to hide random revisions underneath a live page (whether an article or a redirect) unless WP:CRD is met; just because the article was previously deleted (for reasons that are primarily not about content) doesn't change that. It isn't necessary "that retention of the history would be beneficial"; rather, history should only be deleted if retention of it is harmful, because the natural state of things is to preserve all revisions unless they fall under CRD. Regarding your last statement, please take a look at my revised close and see if it is more amenable.

Remember that this isn't about DRV. Currently, someone can simply make a polite request on an admin's talk page to restore some article's history, and as long as the target is allowed to remain up (e.g. userspace/draft or more rarely redirect, but not a substantially similar mainspace article which would fall under G4), the admin can choose to grant the request. Maybe this is due for an overhaul, as this is not well-documented in formal policy even though it is widely practiced; WP:USERFY is only an essay and doesn't go into too much detail about the specific requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, this is purely about DRV. To restore the history of pages deleted at AfD (except "soft deletion"), by policy people have to go to DRV. That's the actual undeletion policy as described at WP:UDP, and is also explained the same at WP:RESTORE and at WP:RFU. Admins are not allowed to restore the history of a page deleted at AfD if a user requests it (they can userfy/draftify it, but not restore it in article space). Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The result of the AfD was (clearly) delete, and you have overturned this at the DRV by restoring the history in articlespace, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so. This is surely not a difficult concept? Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fram and Black Kite: Please take a look at my thought experiment above. If I userfy/draftify it, then which of the next two steps is prohibited? Turning it to a redirect? Moving the redirect to article space? Note that there is nothing that actually prohibits moving a userspace draft to article space a priori; rather, it runs the risk of G4 after the fact, if not substantially improved. But obviously G4 does not apply if an article has been turned into a redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

But you didn't userfy it. I'm unsure how many times multiple people have to point this out, but you restored it in article space, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so at the DRV. The fact that the history in question was a mishmash of mostly unsourced unencyclopedic speculation which benefits no-one at all is actually irrelevant here, though it does beg the question of what purpose that restoration actually achieved anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just WP:BURO: I could have moved it to Draft:Chronovisor, changed it to a redirect, and moved it back to Chronovisor. Which of these steps is problematic? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? "Which of these steps os problematic?" It would probably lead to a desysop, if you insisted that it was perfectly allowable to misuse your tools in this way. It would be a use of the admin tools to get your preferred outcome (redirect with history) over the AfD consensus (delete, then redirect), with a wikilawyering route to avoid the in-your-face policy violation and replace it with a sneaky one. Fram (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Calm down, this is just a thought experiment. Let's replace the last two steps with two other people, i.e. Person B changes it to a redirect, and Person C moves it back to Chronovisor. What policy is violated here? What I'm trying to say here is, article history has always been porous partly as a result of this userfication/draftification "loophole" if you will, leading to significant differences in policy interpretation as Uanfala mentions below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't patronize. "This is just a thought experiment", yes, and in that scenario you would be asking for a desysop. Hence my repeated use of "would". If you can't accept that someone explains what would happen if you actually executed that thought experiment, then what's the point? Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. If these steps are carried out independently by multiple actors, is there a problem anymore? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If I noticed a user requesting undeletion + draftification/userfication of articles deleted at AfD and unilaterally moving those pages back into article space – under redirects or otherwise – I would ask them to stop and escalate to AN/I if necessary. I would hold the undeleting admin(s) blameless unless there was evidence of collusion. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Someone replacing a deleted + redirected article into an undeleted + redirected article in this way would normally be reverted and warned about disrupting Wikipedia. If consensus was for deletion, then that should be either respected or overturned at DRV (by consensus, not by an admin who doesn't seem to know policy and when this is pointed out reverts to "thought experiments" instead of acknowledging that they were wrong in their claim. Fram (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

KoH, there was a discussion among you, Jayron32, and Black Kite at the 2021 AN. You cited WT:Deletion review/Archives/2013/May#History-only undeletion, but they made it clear that your interpretation was disputed. Did you remember this? Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I started the DRV, so I'm likely biased, but just a few quick notes. First, apart from me, only two participants commented directly on the AfD close, one arguing for overturning, the other casting some doubt on the need to. Second, I think it's clear to everyone now that redirecting is the best outcome for the page, and the argument is solely about whether the history should be deleted or not. I'm not aware of any policy that would allow the deletion of article histories for alleged poor quality (if I'd just redirected the article and then asked for a deletion of its history, no admin in their right mind would have obliged). Third, there appears to be a split in the community with regard to the views of such situations: the distribution between the two "camps", as well as their relative numbers, can be gleaned from some better-attended recent DRVs, like this one from May. Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"I'm not aware of any policy that would allow the deletion of article histories for alleged poor quality". Er, the article was deleted with clear consensus at the AfD, and there was no consensus at the DRV to overturn it. Yes, one could create a new redirect, and there would be no issue with that. It appears that KoH has made his own policy up before on this subject [8] and it is probably time that they stopped doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The AfD closed as "delete", but I thought we'd all agreed this closure was wrong? Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any consensus at the DRV that it was wrong, and there's definitely no consensus that the history should have been restored, that was a decision purely taken by the closer. As you can see from the link above, they have previous views on this. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm obviously in one of the camps, but I'm happy to go along with the other camp if either: 1) admins are restricted from restoring history for any reason, including userification/draftification, without consensus; or 2) reasonable, enforceable restrictions are placed on the what actions can be taken with respect to drafts, along with a clear set of requirements for moving them back to the main namespace. Otherwise, a la Irish border (see above) it is simply not feasible to prohibit restoring article history underneath a redirect while allowing userfication/draftification at will. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you should place conditions on the reversal of your supervote to restore the history against policy. Loopholes or not are not an excuse to keep your wrong action in place. Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A significant amount of people disagree with you, as seen at the last AN (which ended up preserving both my closes). Instead of having this issue boil up every few months, don't you agree that it is better for the community to come together to create a clearer policy around article history? Insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one and that anyone else is acting against policy gets us nowhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Or alternatively - here's a wild idea - you could just close DRVs in line with the consensus in the discussion instead of supervoting, in which case there would be no issue at all. I note the same issue with the closure of numerous AfDs has been previously brought up. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec, Black Kite said it shorter and better) In that previous AN, in the first instance there had been a merge, which is a completely different discussion. The second one was for someone to work at it with new sources, and the conclusion was "While it was made at the wrong venue, and KoH did not adequately articulate the rationale for undeletion, the procedural errors are not sufficient to overturn what would otherwise be an normal REFUND request." Again this is different from the current situation. Furthermore, you weem to have only retained that they weren't overturned, not that they weren't overturned despite correct procedural objections. To continue with procedurally wrong closes because previous ones were (for different reasons) not overturned is very poor practice. "Instead of having this issue boil up every few months, don't you agree that it is better" for you to stop making such closes? If you believe the policy to be wrong, WP:VPP is thataway. Fram (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. As King of Hearts noted:

  I have been careful to not use the word "overturn" in my close, but it looks like I wasn't clear enough. I've revised my statement to be more explicit: There is a consensus to redirect, and I am exercising my discretion as an admin (based on the points I listed above) to restore the history. If you believe that admins should not have the discretion to restore the history underneath a redirect, then please explain which step in my logic is flawed, or, if you believe that admins should not have the discretion to userfy/draftify a deleted article, then please point to the policy/guideline that says that or propose a change in an RfC.

  The DRV close was reasonable. King of Hearts did not close the DRV as "overturn". He exercised his administrative discretion to restore the page history under the redirect, an action that all admins have the discretion to do. The DRV nominator Uanfala made a good faith request for the page history to be restored as they found it useful. If Uanfala had made the userfication or draftification request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it would have been granted because the page did not contain copyright violations or BLP violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion notes:

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

  This sequence of events could have happened after a WP:REFUND request:
  1. An admin restores Chronovisor's page history to Draft:Chronovisor.
  2. A redirect is made from Draft:Chronovisor to Time travel claims and urban legends#The Chronovisor.
  3. A second redirect is made from Chronovisor to Time travel claims and urban legends#The Chronovisor with an edit summary noting that the deleted article's page history now is in draftspace at Draft:Chronovisor.
  There are no policy violations in this series of actions. There is no functional difference for readers between having the page history live in mainspace at a redirected Chronovisor or in draftspace at a redirected Draft:Chronovisor. Having the page history in mainspace is preferable for editors so that editors do not have a level of indirection to get to the content. As the closer of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts wrote:

  On the other side, editors also criticize the time spent on minor complaints about procedure. Editors are reminded to consider the encyclopedic outcomes when challenging actions, and to avoid process for the sake of process when benefits to readers are negligible.

  Restoring the page history benefits a good faith editor (Uanfala) who finds the content useful and does not negatively impact readers. King of Hearts' actions are sound, policy-compliant, and well within administrative discretion.

  Why I support preserving an article's history when possible: When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.

  Cunard (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That sequence would be even worse. Draft space is not intended for indefinite storage, and keeping an article in draft to have the page history kept is a wrong use of what the draft space is for. Making edits to redirects to point editors to drafts should not be done. Fram (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• This was a mistake. I see no consensus to change the close at DRV and a clear consensus to delete it at AFD. I can see sometimes userying or draftifying articles if there is a snowball's chance, but the DRV close seems somewhat like a supervote rather than a read of consensus. Not the worse offense of that crime, but still. The discussion seemed to go off a bit in a tangent, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day DRV is about finding out if consensus was ignored, or if there was some fatal flaw due to the closer (wp:involved, etc) that warrants relisting or overturning. Without clear consensus, it defaults to the existing close at AFD, which wasn't followed. The AFD was pretty clean and the close seemed appropriate, so the DRV close is out of process. If we are trying to demonstrate a problem with the closer (KoH), we need more examples to establish a pattern. In short, vacate the close, let someone else close it, KoH needs to recognize the mistake so they don't repeat it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I did not participate in the AfDs or DRVs. I would repeat what I said in the last AN discussion about this, but with more emphasis, and ask that King of Hearts should consider desisting from closing DRVs for the time being. There is no shortage of other things they can do with their admin tools.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Well, I don't think that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15 counts as a consensus to restore the page history - the concerns raised against are not frivolous. Or really, any consensus. Just because we require consensus for deletion does not automatically imply that lack of consensus on a deletion review requires undeletion - WP:DELREVD implies it only for contested speedy deletions, not for every kind of deletion. I think that "did the AfD have a consensus to remove the page and its history altogether, or just to remove the article but leave the history intact" is a legitimate DRV question, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• I participated in the DRV so I'm not neutral here, but I don't see anything wrong with that closure at all given that it reflects the policy-based arguments made in it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• The "policy-based" arguments from a discussion where no one, from either side, linked to or referenced any policies or guidelines, and where it since has become clear that the closer didn't know the applicable policy at all and just based their close on a misunderstanding of WP:REFUND? Fram (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• The redirect and restored history is an overturn of the AfD result, regardless of KoH avoiding that wording. I do not see a consensus to overturn at the DRV. (This is a restatement of my comment at KoH's talk page.) Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why the heck are we here?

First, in my experience, both Sandstein and King of Hearts are long time trust-worthy closers. I'm really sad to see the above.

So I looked at the AfD, it's pretty clear delete/redirect - which is pretty much what the closer said. The DRV doesn't find anything to overturn in the close and then redirects at an admin's discretion.

Why the heck are we here? A poorly worded close? - jc37 12:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The redirect is not the problem. We are here because King of Hearts undeleted the article's history, thereby overturning the AfD's "delete" result, even though there was no consensus to do so in the DRV. By doing so as part of the DRV closure, which is supposed to reflect consensus, they also falsely asserted that there was in fact such a consensus.

Their recent amendment to the closure (itself problematic because it alters an administrative decision under review without making this clear with a strikethrough) does not alter that. Worse, it asserts an admin's "discretion" to restore deleted article content merely because they believe it should not stay deleted. In fact, no such discretion exists. Admins are bound to community consensus as expressed in the AfD and DRV processes.

King of Hearts' assertion makes a mockery of our deletion process, according to which admins may not normally decide on their own to delete (and undelete) pages. They must obtain the community's consensus for such actions, except in certain situations such as WP:CSD. King of Hearts' disregard for these constraints is extremely concerning. Sandstein 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. so for you it's solely about restoring the deleted history.

I'm torn. I totally get your point. And I get the point about WP:REFUND too.

I don't think the spirit of the rules were broken though. Especially since your close was pretty much delete, but could be turned into a redirect. Whether the article history stayed deleted or was "refunded" is kind of immaterial, especially since you said ""...if somebody writes it up there (with sources)", which sounds like a merge, and so kinda presupposes the article history will be restored so that the editor(s) would have the raw materials to build such.

I also think that that DRV was a local consensus at best, and didn't show much of a consensus to overturn anything. But if it is treated as a request to redirect (per your close) then honestly, no harm no foul.

The problem then, is that's not what the DRV close said - it may be what he did in implementation - but not what it said. And I'll agree - if you're going to undelete something (refund or otherwise), be ready to explain it.

I think we've all had poorly worded closes at times (my fingers don't always share everything my brain is thinking lol). So for that, sure, I could see you asking for a clarifiaction on the close and him re-doing it.

Now in all of this I'm doing a LOT of agf here. other stuff could be going on here, with you, with him. but in the end I'm hoping that he just wrote a shortcut of a result in saying redirect, instead of saying a result of no consensus to overturn, but redirecting upon request at admin's discretion. And I think we could all move on.

At least I hope. - jc37 13:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially in the light of this, which I mentioned above. I'm sure that most o KoH's DRV closures are fine, but you cannot simply twist policy round to suit your own opinions. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is making mountains out of molehills, and I see nothing here that requires any meaningful sanctions for anyone, other than process-for-process-sake Wikilawyering. --Jayron32 13:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We are here because we're dealing with an unsettled area of policy: when deleting (or restoring) and article history is called for at AfD or thereafter. I find Sandstein's and KoH's perspectives to be entirely valid interpretations of the way things are set up. Many !vote delete based on notability -- it's not about the content of the article; it's about the subject. When I !vote delete based on notability, by default I'm just saying "we shouldn't have an article on this, and it doesn't look like there's a good merge target". I don't intend it to be a lock on the history if there's consensus to add it elsewhere, and if someone finds an uncontroversial redirect target then great. As long as we don't have an article on the subject, I don't care much about the history because, you know, nobody's realistically going to see it (part of why I can't help but sympathize with Jayron's take, too, although I know process is important). Of course, there are times when I'll go out of my way to say that the history shouldn't be retained because it's especially problematic, and in those cases I'd hope it wouldn't be restored without another round of discussion. Was that the case here, or were the delete !votes assumed to mean the content is so egregious that the history needs to be deleted? At the same time, how important is restoring the history, really, if we're not talking about a copyvio? These are unsettled questions, and reasonable people can disagree with the strength of those arguments -- to the point of having contrary opinions on whether something is "consensus on the strength of arguments" or a "supervote". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. If it's "unsettled" (and I'm not sure I'd say it that way, but ok), it's because these things tend to be handled on a case-by-case basis - for the reasons you note, and more. We're not going to come up with every instance of x or y. I hesitate to continue down this line of thought though, because I think it strays a bit from the concerns of both closers and I think it starts to enter into WP:IAR territory.

That said, I think your points are well-taken. - jc37 14:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Except this isn't really about any kind of policy shortcomings. Read the statements made by the two primary parties here. This reads a lot like "I made a decision, and then you undid it." It comes off as personal and singular, and I fail to see any real policy implications here; just hurt feelings over what one person did to negate the prior decision another person made. Let's face it; neither the initial AFD nor the resulting DRV had wide participation or overwhelming consensus for any one particular action, indeed the initial AFD was largely made not because there was an overwhelming consensus, but because there were a a relatively small number of nuanced, ambiguous, and somewhat contradictory comments. A few people wanted to keep, a few more wanted to delete, and some wanted a redirect (some explicitly alongside delete, and some ambiguously). The community (if we treat it as having one voice here) was largely ambivalent through the initial discussion, and the initial AFD closer made a reasonable call based on what they saw as the best, policy based points, but it was NOT a slam-dunk. In the DRV review, THAT closer essentially did the same thing; if we take the time element out of it here, neither admin did anything different: They were each faced with making a decision on how to proceed based on an ambivalent community. If we throw out first-mover advantage, neither made a "wrong" decision. They interpreted community input and policy in different ways, and different is not a synonym of wrong, especially not here. That's why this is making mountains out of molehills; neither admin did an unambiguously bad thing, but the person who happened to act first is indignant only because they enacted their decision first. It's not a thing worth fighting over; and either result as minimal impact on the community. I'm more bothered spending this much energy discussing it, than any mistake either admin may have made. And I don't think either made a mistake. Conflicts can happen even if neither party is in the wrong. When we recognize that is what is happening, it's best to drop it and move on. --Jayron32 15:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This reads a lot like "I made a decision, and then you undid it." There may be some of that there, but to be fair to Sandstein, he's one of our most prolific AfD closers, and I'm sure he's used to people challenging closes and occasionally seeing them undone at DRV. I don't associate Sandstein with being particularly dramatic about those things, so there's certainly something about this particular [quasi-]overturning that struck a nerve. More to your (and Jc37's) point, I wouldn't say it's about policy shortcomings -- it's about something for which we have no prescription, and several arguments here seem to indicate it was crystal clear procedurally (one way or the other) when it wasn't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the reason why policy is not explicitly clear about history restoration is because it is generally not a big deal and people don't make a fuss about it either way, so different admins have done things differently forever and there's never been an impetus to consolidate. But since this is the second time I've butted heads with Sandstein on this issue on AN, perhaps it is worth it to resolve it via RfC one way or another so that we can follow one correct policy interpretation going forward whatever it may be, if only so that we avoid wasting more time as a community on stuff like this in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What I think is particularly out of order is not that you unilaterally restored the history - to be sure, I do think that this is inadmissible and contrary to the AfD's "delete" outcome - but that you did it while closing the DRV. Any administrator closing discussions is expected to assess and act on consensus, not their own preferences. This is what I thinks makes this an abuse of administrator tools, and frankly worthy of a request for arbitration. Sandstein 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sandstein will of course do as he sees fit but I hope he doesn't proceed to arbitration at this point. The difficulty I see here is making the case that the previous AN thread was mis-closed. I think it probably was mis-closed, but I didn't challenge it at the time and I don't think anyone else did, and the then closer is now a sitting arbitrator. I wouldn't want to be the one making that case.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that the previous AN thread was a wrong assessment of consensus at that time, but now we can more clearly see a pattern of misconduct and come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 18:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I was inactive at the time, but I felt that the close downplayed the numerous concerns when I read through the discussion later. I think that this isn't ripe for arbitration yet, but I would submit a statement if someone else files a request. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think everyone should hug and slap each other silly with large trout. Then move on with your lives. Sometimes people close things wrong or read it wrong or do something they think is a good idea. We'll all be more careful in the future. Right folks? I was hauled before AN plenty of times and sometimes I was right, and sometimes I was wrong, or very wrong, but in this case, I don't see what harm was done or whose lives were made worse? Andrevan@ 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Whereas I do think history restoration is a big deal, and I do see harms. Restoring the history is undeletion --- it's reversing an admin action. And doing that without a consensus to say it should be done is wheel warring. I feel that attempts to frame this as a minor difference of interpretation are rather wide of the mark.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not saying that I agree (or not) with your assertion, but I'll merely note that you may wish to re-read WP:WHEEL. - jc37 17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it categorizes as wheel warring. Wheel warring would be if Admin A did something, Admin B did something that had the effect of reversing Admin A (in this case, closing a DRV), and then if Admin A reverted Admin B. In this case, it might be a mis-close, or a supervote as some have said - an affirmative read of a DRV that seems out of sync and effectively an overturn of the original AFD, but not a simple reversal of the AFD absent process. On the other hand, there is reasonable discretion and the policy doesn't specifically say that restoring history at DRV shouldn't be or isn't done. Correct me if I'm wrong. Andrevan@ 17:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not wheel-warring, but you should absolutely not be reversing another admin's actions unless they have clearly done something wrong or there is community suport for it. There was neither here. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, there looks to be a DRV where some editors did express support to overturn to redirect, and some editors didn't, and KoH judged there was a reasonable argument - so it's not like KoH just decided randomly to cowboy restore this history. Andrevan@ 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Close (DRV, King of Hearts)

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.

---

As Sandstein noted in his opening statement, I seconded his concerns at King of Hearts's talk page. I am disappointed that I have been denied the opportunity to participate here by Floquenbeam's close. As an example of my potential contributions beyond my opinion, I have a rebuttal to KoH's reference to the WP:Revision deletion criteria: repurposing them for AfD delete and redirect was proposed and rejected at WT:Deletion policy/Archive 45#Alternative proposal (December 2015–January 2016). Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I would have liked to participate in this discussion as well. At least 4 people brought up 3 separate KoH DRV closes on his talk page in the last two days; so this isn't just about the Chronovisor close. I also disagree that there was any "consensus" here that the complaints are unmerited/trivial/NOTBURO/whatever -- I see 8 editors agreeing the DRV close was problematic, with just 3 appearing to endorse it and 3~4 basically saying they don't see what the big deal is. Much like the last time this exact issue was raised, a significant majority of editors have advanced reasoned, policy-based concerns about these closes; why not allow others a chance to weigh in? JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I stand corrected on that point; however, that was merely my explanation for why having the history restored would be a good thing in general, rather than my main justification for why my actions were supported by policy and common practice. In any case, it's clear that there are two opposing interpretations of policy which come to different conclusions regarding my actions. I think towards the end of last night we were going around in circles saying the same thing over and over again so I don't think continuing to argue about this specific case will be productive at this point. Anyways, the WP:SHED closure made me realize I really just do not care what happens in this specific case anymore. I will not consider it wheel-warring for any admin to unilaterally re-delete the history, so long as they genuinely believe that hiding the revisions benefits the encyclopedia over having them publicly visible, and are not just doing so to make a WP:POINT or to express an opinion about my actions. I myself will continue to believe that having them publicly visible is slightly better having them hidden, just as blue is a slightly better color than green for the shed. But if someone cares about this more than me then go right ahead.

What I care about is avoiding situations like this in the future. And I think clearer policy guidance will be beneficial (see Rhododendrites's point), so I invite any help to draft an RfC. But that is a discussion for WT:DP, not here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I did wonder how long Floquenbeam's "close" would stand. How is it OK for a sysop to post pure snide or snark on the AN? Were this place's rules written by adults?—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  (ec) I also strongly disagree with Floquenbeam's facetious "closure" of the above thread, which I believe illustrates the same sense of irresponsibility as the DRV closure at issue here does. I am disappointed that Floquenbeam chose not to heed the advice by Barkeep49. I believe that the discussion above indicates quites clearly that many, if not most, of the people commenting here recognize that King of Hearts's DRV supervote to overturn an AfD outcome they did not like was a misuse of administrator tools and of the trust placed in administrators to act according to community consensus. If this is not properly resolved here, such as by either King of Hearts undoing or the community overturning the DRV closure, it will need to be resolved at WP:RFAR. Sandstein 07:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  As someone uninvolved, the mis-close is an example of a mistake at worst, with no negative impact to anyone that I can discern, but not a 'misuse of the tools' which implies either a bad outcome or some bad intention in my view. KoH has indicated above he is OK with someone overturning his action, which suggests reasonable remorse and introspection. I think maybe Sandstein could also drop the WP:STICK and I endorse Floq's close. You are both long-time, experienced, good faith users. Andrevan@ 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think Floqs close is at all facetious. I think he's quite serious in his belief that the thread was a waste of time and I do think there's a point there worth considering, even if I think he missed the underlying point of the thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  There are ways to convey that view without being rude.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The close is obviously premature and I've reverted it. Floq's view that this is all a waste of time is legitimate but not widely held. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2022 (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.

Continued discussion

This isn't, IMO, a waste of time. I think the underlying problem is that we do a very inconsistent job with article histories. I think we all agree that:

• If an article is deleted, it's history is too.
• If an article is redirected and the redirect is reasonable, it, and the article history, will survive at RfD.

Now some of you may see no inconsistency here, but I most certainly do. Barring significant issues with that history (copyright etc.), we should generally keep the history of anything that results in a redirect--even if that redirect happens later. It can help with the recreation of the article if things change (new sources, new guidelines etc.). I'd prefer we just normalize restoring history when a reasonable redirect replaces an article.

IMO the problem is that redirects are rarely proposed in AfDs. Part of the problem is that AfDs are for the discussion of deletion and the nom will often get yelled at for proposing a redirect. So those always start at delete and the nom, who generally knows something about the area (otherwise how did they find the article) feels like they can't propose a redirect. But they want to avoid the drama of a "redirect war" and want a community discussion instead.

Net effect, KoH was outside of normal process with what they did, but I think it draws attention to a real inconsistency in how we do AfDs. Maybe part of the ARBCOM requested RfC could address the issues mentioned above (being okay with AfD noms allowing suggestions of a redirect or merge, discussing if a redirect done after an AfD should allow the history to be restored). So I'd prefer a small fish be sent to KoH and suggest they take a role in any RfC on the topic rather than going around normal process in the future. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could have closed this a lot earlier if KoH had said "OK, I can see the problem here, I won't do that again". However, from what they've said above, they still believe they were correct to undelete the history and supervote on the DRV. It was a mistake, and KoH could have admitted it and undone their close in five seconds. But ... no. So here we all are, wasting even more electrons. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  It used to be the case that reasonable admin discretion in closing a deletion discussion, meant reading through it, and weighing and discarding arguments, not simply plugging numbers into a formula. If 2 editors said 1 thing and 1 editor said something else and you had reason to discount or underweight the third comment based on logic or policy, that was fair, but sometimes there were oversteps or mistakes in doing this. You aren't expected to be right 100% of the time. I think about 80% is the best anyone should reasonably shoot for. It's only with 20/20 hindsight and a bunch of backseat drivers on a noticeboard that it might be clearer now that this one was flawed. So to your point, KoH should probably endorse the position, whether he agrees or not, that this was a 20% case, especially because the actual impact seems pretty small, and we can all move on. Andrevan@ 17:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Andrevan, you keep talking as if we're reviewing one or two recent contested decisions. Is that what you think?—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Er, I didn't say that, I think my main concern is that we should be focused on outcomes, not whether the letter of the policy was followed, or whether some admins feel that it is a reversal of them. That just feels territorial. Andrevan@ 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: FWIW, I intend to follow Hobit's advice above about a clarification RfC, and in the meantime I won't be doing any more history-only undeletions that rely on risky interpretations of policy. I won't undo my action because I do not believe doing so will improve the encyclopedia, not that it matters too much one way or another. If you or anyone else thinks that hiding those revisions puts the encyclopedia in a better state, feel free to do it yourself, as I've stated above. Otherwise it just becomes process for process' sake, an action taken even though no one actually has any idea why it should be done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Would it help if we told you why it should be done? I do think Flatscan explained it well but maybe if we said it again in different words?—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  It would help me. You've given process-based reasons that I understand (and even agree with). But as much as I value process, I don't think the encyclopedia, itself, would benefit from deleting the history. And, as I argued above, it might even hurt. Is there something outside of process issues that you have in mind? Hobit (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  You see, that is the problem. You are providing an emotional response to a logical matter. While it's fine to have emotions, obviously, closing discussions requires one puts them aside, and putting your own opinion to the side, and following consensus. And if you can't do that, then you don't close it and let someone else. That's ok, there are many topics I won't close because I have too many opinions on it, but if I were to and let my emotions rule the day AND insist on closing a discussion, I would expect to be right here where KoH is. I find King of Hearts's explanation above lacking for the same reason. Admin are required to be objective and unemotional when determining consensus from a discussion, or don't do it at all. KoH still isn't getting it, even after all this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have said it before, and I will say it again: I am more or less apathetic to the outcome of this page, and in the future I won't do these kinds of undeletions while policy is unsettled. Anyone is free to re-delete the revisions as long as they believe they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia, however they choose to interpret that. The initial topic for this case was whether there was a consensus to delete the page revisions. If that really is the case, then surely it wouldn't be hard to find a single admin willing to defend that outcome on its own merits.

  Ultimately, process exists to provide efficiency at a macro level. Without process, it would either be the wild west or we would spend hours discussing every little detail. I am fine accepting that process will sometimes give results that don't make a lot of sense; that is the price to be paid for efficiency. But I'm not going to implement an outcome myself when I haven't seen anyone caring to see it happen. If somebody goes ahead and does it, then that is all the evidence I need and we can move on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can't agree that Hobit's intervention here is "emotional". I think he's asking a question that we've already addressed in related discussions, but it's a question that seems reasonable framed in mild and unobjectionable terms, and I think Hobit's giving voice to feelings a lot of editors already have. Why would we delete the history behind a redirect? Or, which is the same thing, why would we restore the history behind a redirect in the first place?

  In some cases we restore history because it's the simplest way to preserve attribution after a merge. Flatscan's done a lot of useful thinking about that particular use case. Where the history isn't necessary to preserve attribution, the only other reasons to restore it are (1) to enable non-admin editors to view the history, (2) to turn the redirect back into an article with one click, or (3) to enable copy/pasting from the now-deleted text.

  The operation we miscall "deletion" prevents the disputed text from reappearing in the encyclopaedia by removing its history. That's the only effect that "deletion" has. So any of those last three justifications for restoring the history amount to an end-run around any previous delete consensus.

  Getting stuff deleted from Wikipedia is hard. It's a lot of work. We can use CSDs for clear-cut cases but those are narrowly construed. We can use PROD, but there are a large staff of self-appointed PROD patrollers who will deprod on the slightest pretext, and besides, anyone can contest a PROD after the event and get the disputed content undeleted. So you have to go to AfD and make the case, in an environment where editors are very happy to upbraid you and find fault if you haven't met some quite exacting standards of diligence, and then get a supermajority of !votes and substantial time investment by the nominator. The experience is bruising and exhausting and it takes an utterly disproportionate amount of volunteer time. Any reasonable definition of the word "editor" outside Wikipedia would mean someone who improves written content by cutting text, but here on Wikipedia even judicious pruning is very difficult.

  But then someone drives by and restores the history because meh, why not, don't see the harm. We'll just do an end-run around your little delete consensus here because I feel like it. And actually, now you've called me out on it, I don't feel like un-doing it and I don't have to.

  Put simply, this amounts to waving your middle finger at community consensus.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  The initial topic for this case was whether there was a consensus to delete the page revisions. There was, it was the AfD, which you overrode with a supervote. That is the issue, not the revision history, which I think by now no-one could care less about. S Marshall's last sentence just above is relevant here. I'm out of this disucssion now, as it's cearly not going to achieve anything. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  If AfD consensus is a consensus to delete page revisions, then the DRV is not only to review whether the decision was correct, but also to assess whether the reason still applies after changed circumstances such as creation of a redirect, or a proposal to merge to another page. "If a merge is not an option then there is no reason to retain the edit history" is incorrect: other sites, including other language versions of Wikipedia, use Wikipedia content under a licence requiring attribution, and the "permanent link" in the sidebar should if possible link to a revision from which attribution can be accessed. 82.132.185.128 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I think Dennis's comment about emotional was directed to KoH, not me, though I can't tell for certain. In any case, I do think the issue of what happens to the history of a redirect is worth discussing, though far from critical. What happens with this one isn't, IMO, hugely relevant. But we should have a larger discussion as I think we are at a silly and what I see as an inconsistent place (deletion at AfD followed by a redirect resulting in history being deleted while a straight redirect leaves the history. And we rarely (never?) make people perform edits they believe are wrong. So someone should free free to delete the underlying history, or not. But expecting KoH to do so when they've made it plain they disagree with that, isn't productive. Hobit (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(EC) I think S Marshall's comment nicely encapsulates the opposition people have to restoring history of deleted pages. When we !vote for deletion at an AfD, we are !voting to remove a whole article from mainspace. If we wanted to retain the ability to restore the article in any of its prior forms we would advocate for draft/userfication or redirection-with-history, and participants in the discussion would be aware "undeletion" of any version by a non-admin was a possibility. It should not be used as an undiscussed "compromise" between deletion and keeping or a way to sneakily circumvent deletion.

In the original AfD, one person early on suggested a redirect (to time viewer), one person raised merging as a secondary option (but with the caution that both the target and the article (if retained) would merit TNTing, indicating the content in the article and its history was likely unusable), and one person !voted to "delete and redirect". Then there were 4 straight deletes and 2 keeps. Redirect-with-history was most certainly not a possible outcome here and shouldn't have even been suggested in the DRV, since no new info was actually uncovered here (the existence of a "better" redirect target wouldn't have made a difference, as none of the AfD participants cited the unsuitability of the redirect target as a reason for deletion). That DRV editors decided to relitigate the AfD instead of dispassionately analyzing its closure doesn't change the fact that there was clearly no consensus to undelete the history. JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay if the redirect is kept, the range of outcomes is what has changed. Delete because of a notability guideline does not mean keep the history hidden if there is a redirect (or somewhere to merge to), or break attribution where content has been re-used externally - "a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution" requires the page at that URL to exist. Take these delete !votes out and consensus to hide the history never existed. 82.132.186.189 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

? "Delete" means "delete everything, including history". It doesn't change meaning when there is a possible redirect target. And it especially doesn't change meaning when redirection is suggested and rejected/ignored. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If I support deletion of an article, based on notability guidelines, then the article is redirected, that does not mean I prefer a redirect with history hidden to a redirect with history kept intact (and usually I don't; exceptions are privacy requests or reasons for which revision deletion can be used). 82.132.184.201 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit: Thanks for your calm words. But I think the actual reason for my reluctance to re-delete the history myself was not due to any personal beliefs, but rather that I saw it pointless to do something that nobody actually wanted to see done. @S Marshall: I disagree with most of what you've written, including your characterization of the purpose of deletion as well as the last part, which misses the point of what I was trying to say. However, I can sense your earnest belief in how much you value the removal of revisions from public view, a valid position to hold even if I find it unreasonable, enough so that I can no longer say that "nobody cares". Enough to convince me that we're not living in some Kafkaesque nightmare where a meaningless exercise is carried out to the benefit of no one just because "that's the way it's supposed to be". Congratulations on your new red bikeshed. If anyone wants a copy of the history, please email me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, thank you for reverting the undeletion and for reverting the DRV closure in the relevant part. This resolves the immediate issue with this DRV insofar as I am concerned.

I remain, however, very concerned about the prospect of future DRV closures by you. Your statements above continue to express an unwillingness to be bound by the community-instituted deletion process and community consensus as expressed in AfD and DRV discussions. And you continue to highlight the importance of your own editorial judgment (to the effect of "what's best for Wikipedia") in these matters, whereas in fact administrators closing deletion discussions are required to follow the community's judgment about what should be deleted rather than their own judgment (except where the deletion process assigns discretion to them). I therefore strongly recommend that you refrain from closing any more DRV discussions to prevent the recurrence of threads such as this one. Sandstein 09:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As I've insisted throughout this discussion, this is a history undeletion issue, not a DRV issue. At the time, I would have done the same if someone simply created a redirect and asked me nicely to restore the history underneath. I have committed to not restore history of articles deleted at AfD into the main namespace without an explicit consensus to overturn, which was the main issue with the DRV here and the two DRVs from 2021. I know perfectly well how to assess consensus, as evidenced by my thousands of successful XfD/DRV closures over the years. It is simply this one point where I interpreted policy as allowing discretion on; I now realize my interpretation is in the minority, and therefore won't be taking admin actions based on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the concerns here are that you've insisted throughout this discussion that this is a history undeletion issue, when it's not and never was. Levivich 15:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I close discussions based on local consensus (what is explicitly said in the discussion) and global consensus (policies, guidelines, and established procedures). I had simply misjudged the existence of global consensus for one policy issue. If you think it is a general issue with my DRV closures, then please present an example of where you think I was off the mark, which does not involve "history undeletion" as described above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

To help assuage Sandstein's concerns about my statements above in this subsection: When process dictates a result that I don't see the benefit of, I can simply choose to do nothing. It is purely a one-off that in this case it meant not re-deleting the history. In general, however, it just means I won't close any discussions or take any admin actions where I think it would harm the encyclopedia to do so; instead, I may participate in the discussion to sway the consensus towards my view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

To add: We've both been admins for over 15 years. We've each closed a very large number of consensus-based discussions over the years without incident. Through no fault of either of ours, you happened to come across an unrepresentative sample of my closures. If you look at it objectively, for both of us, very few of our closures have been overturned or caused major controversy relative to the number of years and number of discussions we've closed. I have perhaps said some things in this thread that could interpreted in a way I didn't intend, but if there was really a general issue with my ability to evaluate consensus it would have shown up in my track record long ago. So let's have some faith in each other and be good colleagues from now on? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I broadly agree with this latest comment by you. I also hope that we can work together well and collegially as administrators in other contexts, and will do my best to make it so. I am also not aware of specific issues with your AfD/DRV closures except for the ones identified here and in the previous AN thread. But what you describe as a matter of policy (mis)interpretation is, to me, a fairly fundamental matter of administrator responsibility and trust. I expect administrators to understand that they are bound by community consensus and process. That they are not at liberty to restore content deleted by AfD consensus merely because they disagree with the deletion, and much less so when closing a DRV, where their task is solely to determine consensus in the DRV discussion before them, not to impose their own view of what is best for Wikipedia. Because we seem to continue to disagree about our understanding of what the problem is, I am honestly sorry to say that I, personally, do not trust you to close DRV discussions responsibly. I'll have to leave it at that. Best regards nonetheless, Sandstein 08:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Closes of deletion discussions only escalate to DRV if something has already gone very wrong, so it's extra important that the closes there are unobjectionable. If you find yourself in the position that folks are repeatedly raising reasonable objections to your closes, then you should give some serious thought as to whether your actions - however well-intentioned - are really doing more good than harm. —Cryptic 15:09, 5 August 2022 (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.

Another tranche of mass-created geostubs

In random-articling I came across a group of some 500 Bangladeshi placename stubs all sourced to GEONAMES alone and created in bulk over several sessions by one editor. I understand there might be the possibility of getting these deleted en masse rather either PRODding or AfDing each one. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not much use without details...? Which ones, who? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Probably there will need to be consensus to delete en masse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we need significantly more information before we can determine what is the best course of action. Unless they meet a speedy deletion criterion there will need to be a consensus to mass delete (but given Mangoe is an experienced editor I presume they would have just tagged them for CSD if they did), and that will not arise without a clear indication both exactly what the issues are and what the scale of those issues is. The first thing to do is to look at a sample of them and determine whether they are mostly correct or not (GeoNames' accuracy is best described as variable) - if they are correct then we should probably look to better source them rather than delete them, especially if there is potentially useful information in there articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we seem to be doing these as regular bulk AfDs so I'll be going over there. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I have not seen an AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh about putative populated places, so we will need more information. What is the specific article you came across? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh should be notified as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I assume that was intended as @Mangoe:? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for enforcement of topic ban

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.

---

Some days ago, I alerted Johnpacklambert to a possible violation of his topic ban on religion and religious figures broadly construed. I assumed that an administrator would see the discussion on Mr Lambert's talk page and take action, but nothing happened, so I "pinged" Ritchie333, the admin who placed the ban. Ritchie333 did not edit for some days. When I saw that they were editing today, I left a note on their talk page. They replied that they preferred that another admin deal with it. Soon after, Cullen328 stated that Mr Lambert should not have edited the page, but did not impose any sanction. When questioned, they said in part

It seems like you are lobbying for a block. Please be aware that blocks are to prevent disruption and are not meant to be punitive. According to blocking policy, blocks should not be imposed if there is no current conduct issue of concern. The edit in question was made eleven days ago, and the behavior has not continued. The precise wording of the topic ban has been clarified, and the editor has apologized. In addition, the editor has received significant sanctions in another matter in recent days, and frankly, I did not want to pile on.

Mr Lambert's topic ban on religious topics has been in place since September 2021. The terms of the ban were clearly stated at ANI and repeated on his talk page. It is his responsibility to know what the terms are and to follow them. He has been blocked once already for violating it. The edit in question took place before the topic ban newly imposed by the Arbitration Committee. The two topic bans are completely independent. The violation of the religion topic ban does not seem to be in doubt.

Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement lists some of the reasons for imposing blocks beyond "to prevent disruption". It is my understanding that topic bans are typically enforced by a series of escalating blocks. I do not understand why this case should be any different. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• The topic ban in its imposition also admits that the exact limits can be hard to determine, and clearly says there is an option to revert inadvertent edits. I have on multiple occasions apologized for this actions and stated that I would revert it if I could. I want to sincerely apologize for this. I was not trying to evade the ban, but incorrectly remembered it as stating "religious leaders". I apologize for this incorrect mention and will try to avoid any edit to any article that can be considered a "religious figure". There are some other things about this article that makes it fuzzy on the edges, but I accept this is an acceptable application of the ban and would offer to reverse this edit, except it was done back just after it happened. I am very sorry about this. I was not trying in any way to go against the topic ban and am very sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I stand by the warning I left on Johnpacklambert's talk page and my reasoning there. For what it's worth, Polycarpa aurata has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Has JPL reverted this breach? GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because it was reverted almost immediately after it happened. I have on multiple occasions said I would revert it if I could, but since it was reverted (because of a bad formating placing an inadvertent line break in where none was intended, not because of an issue with the substance) I cannot actually revert it. I would if I could, but it was reverted by another editor for totally different reasons, and so I cannot actually revert it. The two other editors who first saw the notice on my talk page on 25 July 2022 both argued it was a minor edit and not worth the huge fuss about. As I have said, I am very sorry, and would revert this, but it was reverted before I could. It was reverted about an hour after it occured, and over an hour before notice was placed on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend we take no action, as this wasn't an earth shattering incident. Human beings aren't perfect & can sometimes slip up. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Update - The reporting editor, has been blocked as a sock. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2022 (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.

Im sorry if Im missing something obvious here, but what is the basis for the block of the reporting editor? Where is there evidence that Polycarpa aurata is World's Lamest Critic? Or is any user reporting John Pack Lambert to AN(/I) automatically a sock? Id think that after multiple DYKs there might be more than being summarily blocked and having talk page access revoked without even a single unblock request. nableezy - 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

An administrative action review request was filed in response to what I believe is a premature closure of this AN report. You are encouraged to comment there. I have no questions about the blocking of OP (which I also marked within the request's scope), as the blocking admin has IMHO sufficiently explained themselves. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure revert assistance needed

I erroneously closed a mass FFD nomination at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 23, so I decided to self-revert the closure. I need help restoring the nomination templates to every nominated file page and removing the close notice on their talk pages; I assume admins have tools to restore the notices quicker than manually. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I think; you might need to restore one or two that I missed. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to test behaviour of Irish judges

In Irish news today ([9] [10]) it was noted that a research project at NUI Maynooth created 75 articles about Supreme Court of Ireland cases in order to test whether Irish judges were using Wikipedia to research case law when writing judgments.

It appears that most articles in Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases were created in this project, coordinated by User:AugusteBlanqui. Most of the involved users can be found at [11] but this is not a complete or exhaustive list.

I'm a little non-plussed about Wikipedia being used this way, but the articles seem mostly OK. Just running it by my fellow admins to see if there are any views. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if anyone has questions. We had feedback from Wikiproject Law and NPP. I am familiar with WP:NOTLAB and these articles first and foremost are a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Before this project there were only about six articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, could you post links to the discussions you say took place at Wikiproject Law and at NPP please? Could you also describe your relationship with the project - I'm not asking you to give anything away about your private identify, but was this work done as part of your job? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Wikiproject Law outreach: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23#Irish Supreme Court cases

NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Irish Supreme Court cases articles

This project was incidental to my job.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I guess I am not understanding what the issue is here? If we have decent articles due to the actions of this group, I don't see how their motivation is relevant. NOTLAB seems to refer to things like breaching experiments or test editing. It's also not our concern if Irish judges use Wikipedia for their research- it may be a concern to the people of Ireland, but not us. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. The research looked at the impact on citations in legal decisions of a case having a Wikipedia article. The articles we created help fill a lacuna on Wikipedia--the almost complete absence of Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is an odd posting. If you read the newspaper article properly, the issue is that Irish high court judges – and/or their clerks – are quoting/paraphrasing from Wikipedia articles on historical major Irish legal cases. If anything, the Wikipedia editors who created these articles are to be commended for the quality of their work. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any problems here. I spot-checked a few of the students' user pages. They all seem to be totally up-front about disclosing the relationship (example: Chocolate2206) so no issues there. I can't find any policy that this violates. On the contrary, it seems like it was a net positive to the encyclopedia by getting some articles written about subjects we should be covering. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So there was "AN-scope" in the sense that if there'd been a major dearth of disclosure then we'd have to decide to waive any concerns (or not) due to the net improvement of the encyclopedia. Especially since it could be a paid breach depending on how it was done. But Roy's noting that the relationships were noted. In which case we have better articles and no worries, the ideal combo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Here's the preprint on SSRN fwiw — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is group academic use of Wikipedia done correctly. Ambitious undergrad college professors trying to organize miniature classroom edit-a-thons should take notes from this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! We strove to put the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Many things motivate users to edit Wikipedia. This is one I’ve not heard before. However, there’s been no harm to the encyclopedia, we’ve got some quality articles from it and hopefully, we'll get more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is great, thank you to the researchers for doing this project. I'm particularly pleased to see the team's transparency in the approach and the quality of the articles (good enough to be plagiarized!). Stifle probably should have talked to the researchers before asking for opinions at AN. Finally I'll add: how Wikipedia law articles influence Irish judges is absolutely something we should care about at Wikipedia, it's not just something of concern to the people of Ireland. For the people of Ireland, this shows their judges are relying on Wikipedia. For the people of Wikipedia, it shows the same thing: just how much influence these articles have on the real world. That's why our policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are so important. What we write here can change the world. It's paramount we get it right. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Judges shouldn't be using Wikipedia this way, but it's outside of our realm. They should be using the existing law books, which take a little longer and is in the best interest of good law, but again, outside of our realm. As long as the articles are good articles, I don't see any problem with the creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Similar to WaltCip, I'm wondering how we can get all the other universities to run their own even larger versions of studies like this. I learned about this from Ori sending me a link to <https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior>. It looks like there's also some coverage at <https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727> too, for anyone interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm just going to plug the proposal for a new multilingual sister project (WikiLaw) since it's incidental to this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• There's very little written in the paper itself about conducting research via Wikipedia, the ethics involved, or about what apropos policies and guidelines we have in place about it. The authors do pay small service to saying they made sure the articles were notable and not plagiarized but this is just barely addressed and not within a dedicated section. I would have liked any person who reads that article to have a good understanding of what would be considered proper vs improper editing of Wikipedia and that this project operated within those bounds. E.g., It would have been good to have a link to m:Research:FAQ, Wikipedia:Student assignments, and any number of other policies and guidelines too. As it stands, I think it reads will encourage others to do research without much thought on the benefit or harm it might cause to Wikipedia itself, similar to situations in the past that caused large disruption. There's other issues as well. This kind of editing clearly has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns and it seems to me that some of our best practices listed for WP:COIEDIT were not followed. E.g., the organizer was editing the pages themselves. Also, as far as I can tell, there's no "top-down" summary of the project on the author's page and Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases itself seems to be the primary method to find the edits related to the project. I do see the messages that students left on some of the talk pages but this "bottom-up" approach is an unsatisfactory way for other editors to know the scope of the project. There should be a super easy on-wiki way to answer the questions like 'What pages were create/edited as part of this project?', 'When did it start/stop?', etc, and a summary of the research itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  What a bizarre take. We don't ask any of that of anyone else who creates articles. I'm not sure if you understand what they did: they created articles. It's something literally anyone can do. And the articles were about court cases, not even a business or anything possibly promotional. And COI??? You think the students had some financial or other relationship with the court cases? And why wouldn't the organizer edit the pages directly? Furthermore, the articles were well-done. Is "thank you for writing good articles" too much or what? Just bizarre. Levivich 14:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The real question here is: why are Irish judges and/or clerks using Wikipedia to do research? (If they are.) Is there not an Irish equivalent of Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis for them to use? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Likely new Fox News RfC

Two users, Andrevan and Awesome Aasim are intent on creating a new RfC for Fox News. If either attempt gets off the ground, it is likely to get hundreds of responses, be very contentious and to need another panel close like the last RfC in 2020. Discussions are being held at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to workshop the format in order to minimise disruption. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a draft here where I have tried to address all objections and this user reverted the addition[12] while no specific objection has been substantiated to it. I started a thread on WP:DRN but I self-withdrew after this reasonable request from another involved user[13]. I do not understand why this thread now has been posted or this one [14]. I guess it's not really WP:CANVASSing but the user is currently ignoring my question as to what was wrong with the draft I posted. Andrevan@ 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I just opened the RFC. Thank you all for the help and feedback and collaboration on improving it. I think the work made it much better. Andrevan@ 17:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's already created, and as bloated as the Goodyear blimp. It's pretty obvious that it's the 2nd verse of this song, including the same chorus lines; i.e., my politics are better than your politics, my sources are more reliable than your sources, yada yada.^[stretch] In the dog world we call it kennel blindness. I'm sure it has nothing to do with political bias, or the upcoming midterms in November in the US, or any kind of intentional plan to keep pounding away at FOX until the hegemony of the asshole consensus finally prevails, (a brilliantly expressed perspective by one of our own and well worth reading.) And there's so much more that I will spare our trusted admins by simply ending with my very best wishes, & happy editing! There's important work to do. ~ Atsme 💬 📧 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean the asshole consensus comment as a personal attack, so I am AGF, but note that some might interpret that less charitably. FWIW, there are serious concerns about Fox News' promotion of misinformation and failed fact checks. If you have concerns about other outlets with evidence that shows them failing fact checks, doctoring photos, pushing mis/disinfo, etc, please do inform us, so we can downgrade them appropriately. Andrevan@ 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What you're asking for was already provided at RSN, multiple times, and it's ignored – do a keyword search in the archives and you'll find it throughout RSN. As for the hegemony...that phrase was absolutely not intended to be personal or accusatory of anyone or any particular side of the argument. It's just what happens. If you haven't read the article yet, I highly recommend it, if for no other reason than context and perspective. Following is an excerpt with the terminology: Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe it's time to check your own shoes." Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, it is currently at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science, though it might've been more appropriate as its own individual subpage given how long it is going to get. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

SunView-Desktop.png resized by bot to be unusably small

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SunView-Desktop.png was originally 1,152 × 900, but a bot resized it in 2017 to an unusable 357 × 278 blur because the bot thought it was a "non-free image." However that might just be a categorization issue: the original uploader (in 2005) stated that they made the images and "all rights are released. Do with this as you wish." That original version has also been redacted from the history. Could an Admin restore the original version of the image? Thanks! - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

SunOS appears to have a proprietary licence so is non-free, so a non-free classification of the image would be correct.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but the image has been resized to be far too small to be useful for illustrating the software, so still thing the original needs to be unhidden. If that needs to be reduced in size again, it should be done by a human who can judge if the result is acceptable. GretLomborg (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've resized it manually (to the same size the bot did) so it's at least recognizeable, but. The actually-copyrightable portions of the image were already smaller than that. Does anyone who can view the original version have an objection to just restoring that and tagging it {{non-free no reduce}}? —Cryptic 14:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That bot's resolution is set way too low. That image is unreadable at 357x278, and 1152x900 is still under 1 megapixel. It doesn't need to be reduced at all. Levivich 15:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't reduced for usability's sake, it is used to allow Fair Use of someone else's property. The rules are pretty much handed down by legal when it comes to things that have legal consequences, such as claiming Fair Use of an image that isn't free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information

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 concerned with @Epiphyllumlover's topic-specific and almost single-minded goal to add information to WP having to do with marriage equality bills amounting to polygamists getting married. These additions have been rejected by community consensus, including an RfC closed two days ago on the Respect for Marriage Act article. Epiphyllumlover's additions to the RFMA article included a section about polygamy, which the community agreed was UNDUE. The editor then added back the info to the lead, which I revered. They have been reverted on The Heritage Foundation's article just today by @Hipal, who said the info had "SOAP/POV problems" (with which I strongly agree). Other additions of polygamy information added to articles within the past few days include Mike Gallagher (American politician), Tony Perkins (politician), New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Wisconsin Family Council, etc. The list continues. WP should not be a soapbox for editors to add fringe views to multiple articles. Especially creating the perception that the Respect for Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, something that does not exist in the article or wording of the current bill whatsoever. While a long time WP editor, I don't hang out on the admin boards much and have never proposed a topic ban (at least that I can remember), but if this is the venue for it and is an appropriate discussion to have, I absolutely would propose and support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover on polygamy information related to politics. Any input appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Also, a quick note: No ownership issues about the RFMA article on my end. I was notified of the RFMA RfC on a noticeboard I follow. I have made exactly two edits on the article, both from this week, one of which was a minor copy edit. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC))

• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)

I hadn't looked into behavioral problems with the content being added to The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epiphyllumlover's revert to emphasize polygamy seems problematic [15].

Looking to other articles, I removed to Epiphyllumlover's addition to Tony Perkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There appear to be many more questionable edits. I think this should be taken to WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions Epiphyllumlover has been alerted multiple time on WP:ARBAB and WP:ARBAP2. The American politics sanctions certainly apply, with the remedy being WP:ACDS. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Thank you very much, I appreciate that! If the behavior continues I will open a discussion there. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover is currently notifying WikiProjects about this discussion in a way that seems to focus on content-related discussion rather than user behavior. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I'm not sure which type of responses to this discussion here Epiphyllumlover expects from the WikiProject participants. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They've notified a number of individual editors as well as WikiProjects. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As this has now extended to specific users' talk pages ([25]), I have asked them to stop for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Asking sadly didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, I haven't reviewed all of the contributions. I am neutral on the matters but there was a clear community consensus that emerged in the RFC. I think this user has been civil and thoughtful enough that simply warning them to abide by the consensus that this is fringe/undue material might be a good first step. Andrevan@ 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Andrevan. Thank you for the thoughts. I want to AGF, but I also think there's a concerted effort to push a specific agenda, especially as they're topic banned from other issues (abortion). The discussion on the RFMA was thorough, and they were notified many times about community consensus and about fringe material, but have simply ignored those notifications. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Andrevan. We're not at a ban yet. If just pushing on the same subject repeatedly in a short space of time resulted in topic bans we would have orders of magnitude more topic bans in place. Same with leaping to topic bans just because an editor has restrictions in some other topic area. PS: Polyamory is not a "fringe view". The view that the specific piece of legislation under discussion would legalize polygamy apppears to be an incorrect one, though; it is at least not well-supported in sources. That's a good reason to exclude content about it from the article in question, but not a good reason to summarily remove someone from the topic area without longer-term and more serious problems in this topic area from that party.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: I have't read the previous comment) I am not expert in RfC legislation, if that even exists, but I find it strange that a RfC is final even in the presence of new sources? This is especially strange given that much of the opinions in the RfC were based on the sources presented at the time. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is not appropriate evasive of community consensus in my view. It should be taken to the talk page and discussed. It's not like any time has passed at all and things have significantly changed, either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I haven't read the previous comment) @Andrevan: but therefore one needs to know if Epiphyllumlover even failed to respect the RfC once. I don't think that he/she has, because most opinions in the RfC referred to sources and it seems that he/she used new sources. I cannot see how this is not relevant to this procedure that accuses Epiphyllumlover not to respect the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC led to a consensus that the material was undue and not sourced appropriately. Epiphyllumlover could start a discussion about the new sources, but they should not just start adding the material to more places immediately after the RFC concluded. Epiphyllumlover must take to heart what the RFC result means for what they are trying to add. Andrevan@ 22:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dominic Mayers three separate editors called the topic "grossly undue" weight with that exact wording. Not a single editor voted in favor of the information remaining. I think the discussion of new sources two days after a topic has been deemed undue weight by 100% of participating editors could be appropriate, if a discussion happens on the talk page. Adding information back seems intentionally evasive. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I did not read the last comment from Kbabeh) @Kbabej: We both gave our opinion. I don't have anything to add. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the editor has a prior topic ban in another politically/religiously charged area, we should expect them to exhibit caution and follow the indication from the RFC was was indeed pointing out that this information was undue given the sourcing, new sources means a new discussion, not to disregard the RFC and community consensus especially given the other prior topic ban, Andrevan@ 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not comment on that. I speak about what I know. I don't know about the previous history of Epiphyllumlover. 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The ANI history of Epiphyllujmlover's topic ban issued this past May are archived here, here and especially here. Kire1975 (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed most of Epiphyllumlover's recent contributions re polygamy/Respect for Marriage Act. Is Epiphyllumlover repeating the behavior that resulted in the abortion topic ban? --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I found this bit of soapboxing in a BLP particularly problematic. The edit summary used at Respect for Marriage Act [26], writing about both sides to maintain neutrality & better references to insure the addition is not undue demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of policy that is disruptive to topics under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover, for the reasons stated above and the fact that other methods haven't worked to get them to abide by Wikipedia's policies and !votes. Moncrief (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree a topic ban is warranted here. All this seems incredibly WP:TE from Epiphyllumlover. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, I think folks were hoping for you to say that you will abide by the consensus to stop adding this material, not that you will postpone until Congress adjourns. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, I'm confused why this discussion should not move forward "until after the bills is passed..." The issue I have raised is you adding UNDUE content against consensus; it has nothing whatsoever to do with if the bill passes or not. Whether the bill gets shelved or passed with unanimous support is irrelevant to this discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

... That isn't how it works here. That's such a nonsensical request that I am actually questioning your motives now. @Epiphyllumlover: You know that Wikipedia is not the place for us to share our opinions on pending legislation, right? Like.. whether this bill has passed or not really should have zero bearing on how we cover its contents. This really shouldn't be on your mind, and it gives the impression you are really here to stand on a soapbox. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you would make such a bizarre and unwarranted statement makes me think even more that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you still even now don't understand the purpose and the policies of Wikipedia. We should wait until the bill is passed to write an article on pending legislation? What on earth are you talking about? Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• For context, Epiphyllumlover was an incredibly tendentious presence on abortion-related articles. His agenda-driven bludgeoning stood out even by the standards of that controversial topic area, finally resulting in a topic ban ([27]). I would view the current concern about anti-LGBT editing not in isolation, but as an extension of their disruptive effort to push a partisan right-wing agenda on Wikipedia. A broader topic ban from American politics, including LGBT issues, would be the minimum appropriate sanction in my view, although their extensive track record would more than justify an indefinite block for disruptive and tendentious editing.
  I know that we typically focus these discussions narrowly on the "rights" of the editor facing sanctions, but I would implore you to consider the good-faith contributors who have to deal with Epiphyllumlover, and to attach some value to the immense amount of their time, effort, and goodwill that Epiphyllumlover has wasted. (For clarity, I'm commenting here as an editor, not an admin, as I've interacted with Epiphyllumlover on abortion-related pages). MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given their comments here and the comment from MastCell, I must now support the topic ban for Epiphyllumlover. Andrevan@ 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am struck by the straight-up dishonesty in this discussion (on top of the initial coatracking). --JBL (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am highly concerned by the earlier edit here about waiting until passage of the bill. That edit seems to indicate that Epiphyllumlover is unfortunately interested in POV pushing here, and I would support a broad topic ban on American Politics as suggested by MastCell above. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Moncrief (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. —Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban on whatever area is being suggested here. However, he already has one topic ban - see here, here and here - and is all but asking for a second one here. He is not willing to WP:LISTEN to anyone or change his own behavior. A topic ban as proposed will only be giving him what he's asking for. In order to prevent whatever agenda driven disruptive editing chaos he plans to inflict next, the only answer to the problem is a full WP:SBAN. He has been like this for years. A time limit on the sitewide ban won't be sufficient, imo. Kire1975 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please be advised that Epiphyllumlover plays the long game. His first contact with ANI here was a request about how long silence becomes consensus on wikipedia. Multiple people came forward responding to that request resulting in a TBAN. Just because he has not made any posts since three days ago does not mean that he has learned his lesson by any means. As suggested by multiple more users above, this user is a partisan troll who refuses to stop being a disruptive editor until the end. My question is: does someone need to start a separate section with a subheading with the formal request for the SBAN and/or TBAN as here or will an administrator see all the support for it in the comments above and take action? My concern is that if it's split up then the discussion gets split between multiple posts in the archive and it becomes unnecessarily more complicated should this history need to be referred to again in the future. Kire1975 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this up, @Kire1975. I had the same question, as I have not opened a discussion proposing a TBAN before. --Kbabej (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  An SBAN is probably excessive, as User:Epiphyllumlover is able to edit constructively in other areas, such as with pages on Wisconsin. Still, a broad TBAN from American politics will help to stop the disruption. Most likely they have genuine feelings about the topic they are trying to impose on the articles, and are not just trying to troll us. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Which other topics is Epiphyllumlover able to edit constructively in? Kire1975 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Update: Given that Epiphyllumlover is now filing many disruptive WP:SPI reports targeted at the people who object to their behavior, I would consider that behavior sufficient for an SBAN to be applied. At the same time, everybody in this discussion needs to cool off a bit so that we can return to some kind of productive editing. Playing the blame game is not going to get us anywhere. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:74AC:AAF4:27FA:628B (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question: There seems to be a consensus for a TBAN covering American politics. How can this be implemented and this discussion wrapped up? --Kbabej (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  A valid question. An uninvolved admin can enact the community tban if they judge there to be consensus here. Or you could try WP:AE as well. Andrevan@ 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm reviewing the AE page and it seems (at least to my reading) there must be a current TBAN existing the editor has violated. I'm not sure where to get the actual TBAN enacted, though. Proposing a TBAN is new area for me! --Kbabej (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yeah, well, this is the administrator's noticeboard, so maybe one of the watchers of this page would deign to enact the community TBAN as discussed above. I suppose you could also email the Arbcom directly. Or, perhaps someone endowed with the power to do so would wish to deny the request without prejudice to a filing of a new case. Andrevan@ 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan:, before the topic ban sets in, a few thoughts. When I asked to delay the discussion, I thought August recess started with the month of August. Later I looked it up and learned when August recess really starts. Yes, that would actually be too late to be a reasonable request for a delay. As for staying off of Wikipedia, I felt betrayed because I thought I had assurances, which I should not have relied on. At the time I last posted, I had not read the discussion above (until now) because I did not feel too good about it. I assumed that this would be a case of mobbing, and thought that if I posted, I would be an enabler, but looking at it now, I see that SMcCandlish and Dominic Mayers (and also, at first, you) were supportive. I hope you can respect that not everyone is hardened to the furious pace of social media, and that it wasn't wrong for me not to respond at first.

Had this not been taken here, I would have been willing to submit to either a second RfC or a second discussion about the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, the full, non-paywalled text which you can read here. I thought that a Representative talking directly would be enough to pass WP:UNDUE; also the pundit host who Rep. Gallagher made comments to is legally married to Adam Wise. He is not the sort of pundit who would make (or leave unchallenged), a fringe social-conservative proposition.

Some may wonder about my sudden interest in polygamy legalization; for me it was a new topic and I had never paid much attention to it. So it was a new topic for me and I got to learn. I also discovered that Wikipedia's existing articles were out-of-date, and could be improved. I continued researching it some after getting off Wikipedia; it interested me. Yet by now the excitement of a new topic is gone, and I am tired of it; there doesn't seem like much else to learn.

I still think that not being topic banned is a lost cause, but hope at least that you can all agree that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe sources, and people using this website should not have to be afraid about adding their material to an article or discussing it on a talk page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC clearly decided the information was UNDUE. Given your past history of topic bans and extremely combative editing, you should have opened a discussion on the talk page about the contentious material. The fact you chose to not do this and thought by adding it to the lead instead of a section was not going against consensus makes me wonder if you should be editing at all, much less on contentious American politics. Whenever the recess happens doesn't matter; the topic at hand is your behavior in adding material that has been deemed by community consensus to be inappropriate. We do not need an RfC the day after the first closed, especially with you not even opening a talk page discussion.

What does this mean: "As for staying off of Wikipedia, I felt betrayed because I thought I had assurances, which I should not have relied on."? It seems to me you are implying an editor/admin/etc said if you stayed off WP for a few days you'd circumvent another TBAN? That seems... unlikely at best.

Your comment has only made me realize the TBAN for American politics is absolutely needed; it has removed any lingering doubt I have, as you seem to still be advocating your position instead of moving on to other areas. --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC clearly decided on content that was not about Gallagher, nor his position. Rep. Gallagher said something different than the social conservative groups. The social conservative groups were against same-sex marriage per-se, whereas Gallagher said, "All I'm asking is for the Senate to make a simple three-word fix, make the bill internally consistent" ... "Should that happen, I would vote for it if it came back to the House, and I think others in the Senate and the House would as well." Also, he rejected the slippery slope argument that the social conservative groups used. My assumption was that the new, different information could be added due to WP:BRD. That is why I used the talk page after you reverted it; I was on step "D".

I meant assurances, both implicit and explicit, from people writing at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act. The general, implicit social contract is broken by resolving content disputes with topic bans. Yet this is a form of social media; it seems that social contracts are broken more often online than in real life interpersonal interactions. My comments on this noticeboard are for this discussion, not for changing the article. As I said before, my interest in this topic has waned.

This proceeding and others like it are damaging to Wikipedia, in the same way that Congress would be damaged if the House decided that Gallagher should be censured for making the comments on Guy Benson's show. If Gallagher was punished somehow for it, that would make it hard for the legislators to talk through possibilities for bills in the future; even unrelated bills.

Generally, people trust green colored sources; and trust that by using them, they won't be accused of being WP:Fringe. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is very much like USA Today, since they have the same corporate parent, with the same print and web layout and many of the same articles. The Perennial Sources page states, "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment." The Journal Sentinel is similarly centrist. By affirming that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe sources, you and others who are in the process of banning me can help reduce the risk of damaging people's confidence in Wikipedia's system of identifying and classifying reliable sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, the information you added back was wholly polygamist in nature. While you're trying to obfuscate you circumventing the RfC, the information from Gallagher was a coatrack on which to make your polygamist points. You wrote: "Gallagher stated that the text of the legislation would require federal recognition for marriages between more than two individuals, should someday a state change legalize marriages for three or more people, which he thought could possibly happen someday."

So no one offered you assurances. Your "implicit and explicit" comment shows you do not understand how WP works. The community already discussed the topic and came to a consensus. If there was a contract that was broken, it was by your behavior by adding the information back a day later into another section. This discussion is not a content dispute. That was already settled. This discussion is about your behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Gallagher's concerns about polygamy were different than those of social conservatives, such as Vought and Carroll from the RfC. Gallagher's concerns did not involve a slippery slope, and did not tie polygamy to same-sex marriage. The social conservatives used a slippery slope argument, and have ipso-facto tied polygamy legalization to same-sex marriage equality for years.

Another difference from with the RfC is between Gallagher and Somin. Somin interpreted the polygamy issue as something social conservatives were concerned about due to the slippery slope, whereas Gallagher stated that polygamy legalization was a realistic future possibility, even though he rejected the slippery slope. Gallagher's approach was a practical one, rather than the hands-off, theoretical approach used by Somin. Also, Gallagher dealt with Act & polygamy as the major topic in his appearance on the show, whereas Somin dealt with it in an article mainly concerned about constitutional issues. Earlier, concern over the article giving "more weight to the claim than Somin does" had been a major concern for IP editor 2603...

As of right now, I understand enough about how things de facto work to know that I will be topic banned, because turning content disputes into a behavior-issue accusation is an effective way of achieving a desired outcome. Yet because of the explicitly supportive comments made by Dominic Mayers and Andrevan, along with SMcCandlish's earlier affirmation that "Polyamory is not a fringe view", I didn't think my actions were harmful to the social dynamic, and felt betrayed when accused. The RfC was about adding the section which was linked to in the RfC itself, and about having a section devoted to the Act's implications for polygamy. The RfC did not address the question whether the article could mention polygamy at all. I hope you can understand that it took me a while to process it, and that is why I stayed off.

Your statement, "adding the information back a day later" is not correct. I added different information a day later. I would not have added the same sort of information back a day later out of respect to the RfC and its outcome. Can you affirm that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe, even though they talked about polygamy and the Respect for Marriage Act?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I will not engage in a red herring argument about polygamist info you claim to have "wan[ing] interest" in. If you still consider this a "content dispute" instead of a discussion of your behavior, I think that proves the point of the TBAN consensus obtained above. I'm going to leave this conversation with you at that, except for following up to request closure and application of the TBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, please don't interpret my comments of giving you a chance and trying to be kind and understanding, as support for your activities. This is a lot hand-wringing about what is or isn't fringe, what is or isn't "part of the RFC" but the point was that you had an RFC, the RFC clearly said "no, stop adding this," and then you added a bunch of similar stuff. Can you promise to stop doing that? If so, there's no need for a topic ban. None of the stuff you want to add about same sex marriage possibly leading to polygamy should be added anywhere, unless you have a discussion on the talk page that editors support adding it. It's too similar to the RFC outcome for comfort, and what I didn't know when I was being kind and indulgent is that you have another similar topic ban. So, here's a chance to fix things. Can you promise to stop adding these political polygamy views altogether? If not, I do think the topic ban is merited. Andrevan@ 01:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Even with your support, I expect to be topic-banned anyway. Yes, I will not add present-day related political polygamy material to the English Wikipedia articlespace, and will not advocate for the inclusion of the previously contested sources. Time frame for this would be six months or a year, whichever you prefer. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the TBAN shouldn't matter when it's applied, as you wouldn't be adding the info anyway. Even with these assurances, it's clear from the above discussion the editor cannot - or will not - abide by community consensus. The circumvention of the RfC showed that, the combative editing showed that, and the other topic bans show that. The TBAN should still be applied, and despite these assurances from them, consensus remains above. --Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Letting everyone here know that I submitted an SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej concerning the Respect for Marriage Act discussions mentions here. I still expect to be topic banned, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oof, Epi, this is not a great look. I thought we were de-escalating, and now you're opening an SPI? I think maybe a siteban might be what the doctor ordered at this point. Andre🚐 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: In a clear and obvious case of abusive retribution and retaliation, Epiphyllumlover has filed an SPI investigation against me here. I am not surprised given the extremely volatile way in which they engage in editing and circumventing community consensus. I will try and look for the information, but if anyone is aware of any past retribution from Epiphyllumlover to editors who have started or engaged in TBAN discussions having to do with them, that would be much appreciated. Any help at all, actually, would be much appreciated. This is my first ever TBAN nomination. --Kbabej (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks to @Kire1975's post of the last TBAN conversation on abortion, I was pretty easily able to find Epiphyllumlover had also accused that nominating editor of that TBAN of multiple accounts and opened an SPI against them. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common pattern. If Epiphyllumlover cannot discuss their behavior without accusing nominators of multiple accounts and retaliates by opening SPIs, I'm afraid I agree with @Andrevan that a siteban may be in order. Admittedly, some editors may think I am too close to the situation as the TBAN nominator, although to be fair I had never interacted with Epiphyllumlover before these events. If a sitewide ban is not enacted, the American politics TBAN still has consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of engaging with the merits of the vast number of complaints made against him, he is attempting to wear down his most vocal critics with alarming nonsense and threats of administrative with no basis in reality like this. Just another reason for an SBAN and not just a second TBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Kbabej: please calm down. You cannot accuse someone for being stern with their "legal options" when he's facing a siteban. Nxavar (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed action

I can see that there is general agreement that a topic ban for American politics has some consensus here, but since then Epiphyllumlover has submitted an SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej) against Kbabej, which the patrolling clerk has called a meritless, retaliatory report and closed it. This also happened during the discussion that led to Epiphyllumlover's topic ban from abortion, when they posted this SPI, which was closed "with prejudice" by SPI clerk and admin User:Tamzin. Given this, it is unsurprising that there are now calls for a siteban instead, because this is not acceptable. This will need to run as a specific siteban discussion. Please comment below with Siteban/Topicban/other.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Pinging all editors who have commented above. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• siteban Andre🚐 07:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• topicban I believe the problem here is partisanship, not general inability to be an acceptable Wikipedia editor.Nxavar (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• siteban: On the grounds of WP:RECIDIVISM. Nxavar (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Clarification: I don't believe that the failed SPI attemps are actionable. Being just as aggressive in editing despite a recent TBAN and numerous protests by fellow editors about it: certainly. Nxavar (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• siteban: Epiphyllumlover has already been topic banned once - see here, here and especially here. If he's topic banned a second time, he will only find a new partisan pretext outside of American politics and abortion to be a disruptive editor. Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us twice, shame on us. Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please see WP:WARNVAND. Athought this discussion is not about vandalism, it shows that we must take the tempered route unless absolutely necessary. Banning from American politics in general is already somewhat heavy-handed, but appropriate given that the recent topic ban is also on a topic of American politics. Nxavar (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Epiphyllumlover is not a vandal. He a Civil POV pushing sealion troll. Judgment was given the first time he was TBANNED. The suggested remedies on WP:WARNVAND only discuss warning templates on user talk namespaces. He has been warned that way at least six times here, here, here, here, here and here.

  His attempts to jam up his critics with two unfounded SPI investigations without evidence were heavy-handed. Topic banning him a second time is inappropriately light. Kire1975 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  FYI: Just a few hours after I wrote the above comment and for the first time since starting his account in 2007, Epi has archived his user talk space rendering the above links to the warning templates inoperable. All seven warning templates can now be found in the archive space here. Kire1975 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Siteban. Clear evidence above of civil POV pushing and battleground conduct. It's unwise to pile on additional TBANs when a user demonstrates a pattern of seeking out additional controversial topic areas and then pushing their POV. That said, I'd prefer a TBAN, as a distant second choice, if inaction is the alternative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• siteban. Not here to work collaboratively; POV pushing/tendentious editing; malicious retaliatory conduct; previous TBANs. --Kbabej (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Siteban. Very clearly WP:NOTHERE per the above actions taken in this thread and at SPI now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The IP address geolocates to a non-English speaking country, yet the writer is good at English. This indicates IP masking."^[28] Whatever. If there's consensus for a ban, please make it a sitewide one; I don't believe placing a second topic ban is helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Epiphylumlover seems to engage in civil POV pushing in a range of topics. I do note that they seem to have improved a a lot of Wisconsin-related articles apart from politics. I can't help but wonder: if the initial topic ban were from American politics, broadly construed, would we be here talking about a siteban? Seems like we just did a partial-ampol ban, and are now talking about implementing the rest. No boldtext !vote here, just wondering. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is a history of "POV pushing in a range of topics" an argument against a site ban? Nxavar (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nxavar, I don't see that anyone is advocating for a siteban simply for POV pushing. The POV pushing is the snowball that rolled downhill and became a hazard. The POV pushing, the battleground mentality, the previous TBAN, the refusal to acknowledge consensus, the retaliatory SPI tickets to redirect attention during AN discussions, and the hours put into cleaning up their edits - those are the reasons for a siteban when taken as a whole. To categorize their continued behavior as "POV pushing in a range of topics" seems very misleading to me. --Kbabej (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't oppose a siteban, but I do like to err on the side of exploring other options when it may make sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, what happens when another editor doesn't agree with Epiphyllumlover's view? They have already shown they either cannot or will not abide by consensus, and will create a battleground mentality over not getting to add their POV positions. How much of other editors' time are we willing to waste on someone who refuses to acknowledge community consensus? First abortion, then polygamy - I'm sure this will continue, considering Epiphyllumlover is the topic on AN yet again. The hours put into discussing and trying to educate them have not worked; why just kick the can down the road? --Kbabej (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Have they shown that outside of US politics? (real question -- I don't know). My point is, we're just finishing the job of the initial ban by broadening it to politics. Part of the justification seems to be that this is two topic bans, but the end result is a standard single topic ban. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Outside of the US? On April 6, Epiphyllumlover nominated the acquittal of a Finnish politician accused of hate speech as a candidate for WP:INTHENEWS. I haven't been able to find the full archive yet, but the nomination appears to have been universally opposed at the consensus stage. Abortion, polygamy, hate speech. Civil POV pushing inside and outside the US. I found that after about three minutes going back in his history. Kire1975 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Have you read WP:RECIDIVISM? The fact that he maintained the disruptive editing pattern after the TBAN on abortion is enough justification for a site ban. The restricted scope of the existing TBAN was a second chance that he blew up. Nxavar (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nxavar, have you looked at the history of many policies or guidelines here on Wikipedia? @Rhododendrites has edited and even helped write some of them. I would assume good faith that they have read them and proceed as if they are doing as they stated above and just weighing all options. --ARoseWolf 20:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. If they are not site-banned, then obviously an AmPol topic ban is necessary. The absurd, retaliatory SPI reports are definitely troubling. --JBL (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Siteban. I was reluctant to reach this decision, because Epiphyllumlover had years of apparently productive useful edits. I couldn't find any indications of conduct issues until about 18 months ago. But the more recent conduct resulting in the abortion TBan and now the polygamy issues is wasting editors' time. Quibbling over consensus (the RFC was about a section, Epi didn't add a section) is disruptive, retaliatory SPIs is WP:BATTLEGROUND, and framing complaints about their conduct as a tactic (turning content disputes into a behavior-issue accusation is an effective way of achieving a desired outcome) is simply WP:IDHT. I don't think just an AMPOL ban will prevent these conduct issues from continuing; Epi recently decided Adolf Hitler isn't negative enough and wanted to start an WP:IAR RFC just to add more negative content about Hitler (Masem talked Epi down from that one), so no telling which content area might become a new battlefield for them. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Siteban. I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August (farther up in the topic ban discussion), combined with the retaliatory SPIs, have ruined my good faith in this user. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Even though you don't accept that Kbabej as being involved in the IP editing, there was some funny business involved between two IP editors from different cities leaving nearly the same message on two separate talk pages. I see that you are going to site ban me, and so goodbye everyone, and I don't wish you ill for it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: I opted to G6 the report instead of archiving, but it is still available for administrators.  Administrator note I have left Epiphyllumlover a warning on their talk page about filing baseless SPI reports. The process is backlogged enough and doesn't need retaliatory reports and other junk. It is also an example of disruptive editing and violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pardon my ignorance. What does G6 mean? Which report? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The report was deleted per WP:CSD. However admins can still review the deleted page. Andre🚐 01:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The SPI report? I was wondering why I didn't see it my user contributions history. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2022 (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.

My apologies for adding on here to endorse this conclusion after having missed this discussion (COVID, not keeping up), seeing it only now that the community ban has been enacted. If there is ever any questioning of this conclusion, please do ping me for an indepth view in Catholic topics of just how extremely disruptive, lacking in clue, POV-pushing, tendentious, NOTHERE and retaliatory this editor was, and how they consumed excessive amounts of time from other editors with a bad case of IDHT for years-- here mainly to push an extreme sect of Lutheranism. I'm surprised it took this long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A case of lusophobia by user "TompaDompa"

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.

---

It is something that has been going on for years. The user user:TompaDompa when makes an edition about Portugal, only has the objective of denigrating the country history, inclduing its achievements and its feats. Various examples can be found on the Portugal and Portuguese empire wikipedia pages where TompaDompa even replaced maps of the Portuguese empire with others with less territories. Other examples are denigrating the achievements of Portuguese explorers, including the voyages of David Melgueiro, even claiming that such person did not exist with few to no sources. Its commitment to diminish Portuguese history and feats is more evident on the "List of the largest empires" page. As can be seen in the archives, since 2018 TompaDompa against everything and everyone with only 1 outdated source, does not let any other user have a vote on the matter, insisting that his source is the only one that is correct. And of course the source he supports so much indicates that the Portuguese empire contained only a small part of Brazil at its peak. This is obviously not true, there are several sources that have already been provided by many many other users that clearly demonstrate that Portugal did indeed contain a very extensive territory in South America and had a bigger size than what is indicated in that TompaDompa source. TompaDompa due to its hatred for Portugal is constantly alert and ready to reduce any historic feat of Portugal among several Wikipedia pages. Even in Wiki pages that say little about Portugal such as African countries that contain information about the Portuguese empire, the same user appears out of nowhere always making some kind of edit to diminish any portuguese feat. I’m sure there is a lot more exemples in other wikipedia pages about Portugal and it’s history that TompaDompa has been trying his best to obscure. I even found out that in other Wikipedia languages such as German, the user also has the same goal in mind. In my opinion TompaDompa should be carefully watched and if he continues to do this, he should be banned from editing anything that contains information about Portuguese history. I could sent the links about some of the exemples I said above, but they are so many that it would take hours for me to sent them all. However, if an administrator takes a quick look on what the user is doing about anything about the Portuguese history, will very quickly find out his intentions. There's no single example of TompaDompa adding something positive to the country history. The easiest way to find this incredible commitment is of course in the “list of largest empires” page, and please don’t forget to check the archives. Thank you. Roqui15 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs please? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• TompaDompa's last edit to Portugal was on July 1, which was a good edit of reverting a sockpuppet. His last edit on Portuguese empire was today, with a detailed summary, just one edit, and his previous edit was back in June. Not seeing a pattern of heavy editing or edit warring. Noone has approached the subject on the talk page of either article. I also don't see you approaching him on User talk:TompaDompa before coming here. Sounds like a content dispute, which is not something admin get involved in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unless I am mistaken, Roqui15 is topic banned from "list of largest empires" are they not? Does this include the mentioning of said "list of largest empires"? @Deepfriedokra: --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is my recollection w/o going back to look😭 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  sidebar I'm old. I'm tired. I have trouble seeing. That paragraph is ~450 words. tl;dr. This is not the first time that TompaDompa and Roqui have been at odds. That led to Roqui's TBAN. Maybe we can close this before someone looks up my unblock terms and a boomerang flies? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

His editions about Portugal and it's history are not daily but when he does it, the only goal and objective he has is to diminish portuguese feats, not even trying to add something postive to the country history. The best examples of this can be found in the "List of largest empires page" (and yes I'm topic banned but not be allowed to spell the wiki's name page sounds a little bit too much), however if you really look at it, you'll find out that the user has several other editions in others wikipedia pages with the objective of obscuring portuguese history and feats.Roqui15 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

watching Battlebots. that lloks lot a lot of WP:ABF. done for the day. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see a single example of TompaDompa adding anything postive about Portugal anywhere in Wikipedia. I would forget about this and move on. But oh well, that won't happen. I'm just trying to help make Wikipedia a better place, there's no place here for personal tastes and personal problems against something.Roqui15 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• There was an interaction ban imposed on Roqui15 here: [29], which was closed as per Deepfriedokra's suggestion. Is this ban still in place? If so, this report is pretty much a reason for an indef block, given how many sock are in this drawer, plus the block log and other issues. If it is in place, it will be one hell of a boomerang. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like you are right about the IBAN, Looks like I was wrong about the exoanded TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Since when I was banned from interacting with TompaDompa?Roqui15 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This is what it was said to me: "The discussion has concluded with an acceptance of your appeal subject to the conditions set above Special:Permalink/1051763803#Proposed unblock conditions/unblock discussion. While there wasn't consensus for a one-way interaction ban with TompaDompa you should be aware that any interaction may be carefully scrutinised for any sign of harassment. Happy editing". Roqui15 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The original conditions were laid out here: [30] and in the ANI discussion I linked at [31], DFO (Deepfriedokra) clearly said "Adding WP:IBAN with TompaDompa per TompaDompa's comment below. ". The discussion was closed by Cabayi with the statement "Consensus to unblock subject to the restrictions outlined by DFO.". The restrictions were outlined on your talk page and in that ANI. One of those restrictions was an interaction ban, due to your actions here, and influenced by the fact that you were blocked on another language wiki for harassing TompaDompa. This looks like a pattern, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't indef blocked you yet. This report is completely hollow and looks like harassment to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I may just let Mr. Okra do the honors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Me too! Seriously, without looking at the unblock log, I don't remember. Looks like we do need that IBAN. And the broader TBAN. Back to BATTLEBOTS! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, mat the honor be yours, unless we need discussion for consensus? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean we can just trout OP, clarify IBAN, and watch BATTLEBITSS! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where is the harassement here, I would not loose my time if this post purpose was to harass TompaDompa. Honestly, the real purpose of this post is to help this place (Wikipedia) grow, it still has too many flaws. But Jesus, this is incredible, I never expected this.. I'm out of words honestly.Roqui15 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to just trout. A block is required, and this baseless ANI report demonstrates he is harassing him here, just as he did on the other wiki. I'm curious if there is some CIR at play as well. I'm happy to handle it, and he can appeal it if he wants. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocked for harassing and iban violation. The list of blocks and socks is just too much to not indef him at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  OP gives me the appearance of some sort of COI or agenda, with TD in the way(?) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Welp, I have to agree with Dennis. Endorse indef block. Whether this merits a CBAN or not, I don't know. There just so many trips one can make to the well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Apart from some edits about dinosaurs all of Roqui's contributions have broken or danced on the edge of the TBAN. The consistent hounding of TompaDompa... yup, this is a good block. Cabayi (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Next time I bring an unblock request here, please revert it and slap my fingers with a ruler. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Endorse indef block. Why in the world they were unblocked to begin with is beyond me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Next time I bring an unblock request here, please revert it and slap my fingers with a ruler. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  No good deed goes unpunished. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Don't lose heart, DFO. We need dreamers. There's more than enough cold-hearted bastards like me and Dennis. Here, you can borrow my 🐮 service dog. 🐮 El_C 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's ruff, man -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, I'm not all that wise, smart, or humorous -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2022 (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.

Special Circumstances Blocks

In 2010, the Arbitration Committee released a statement about checkuser blocks and the ways that they may be contested and appealed. In that statement, the committee also addressed the rare practice of blocks that are designated as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. Much has changed since that time, including the introduction of Oversight Blocks and the assumption of responsibility by the Wikimedia Foundation over some kinds of child protection matters. Accordingly, we would like to update our prior guidance.

• Off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, undeclared paid editing, or other spam concerns: The Arbitration Committee has previously established special VRTS email queues accessible to all checkusers where private information relating to such concerns should be sent. Checkusers may issue blocks or take other measures based on information received in these queues. Concerns should be sent to:
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org – for undisclosed paid editing and spam concerns. Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org – for other checkuser-related concerns. If checkuser data is used as part of a block's justification, the block may be labeled as a checkuser block. Otherwise, any resulting blocks should give the appropriate block rationale and give the VRTS ticket number.
• Editors who should be oversight blocked: Evidence should be passed to the oversight team, who will decide whether any block is necessary under policy.
• Highly sensitive and private information: If a potential block is based on highly sensitive information (e.g. a block of an account believed to be, but not actually confirmed as, a public figure), the information can be sent directly to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-enwikimedia.org) for consideration. This is true even if it falls into one of the categories above. The Committee may evaluate the submission and resolve the report itself or decide that it is actually appropriate for consideration by another group or on-wiki.

Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above. In unusual and/or extraordinary circumstances, an administrator may decide to ignore all rules and place a block appealable only to the Arbitration Committee without first consulting one of the groups mentioned above. In this case, it remains the responsibility of the administrator to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee with the appropriate evidence and reasoning for the block (see also the 2012 reminder on this topic).

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Special Circumstances Blocks

RfC issues at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News_Australia

An RfC on Sky News Australia had been launched by FlantasyFlan on RSN regarding the reliability of Sky News Australia. Several editors (including me and Springee) noted that the original RfC had substantial issues with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Following discussion, Blueboar moved part the non-neutral portion of the RfC to the "discussion" section and deleted part of the nominator's statement without moving it anywhere. I had not objected to the nominator moving the non-neutral portion of the RfC, though Springee did object and individual who launched the RfC FlantasyFlan did not appear to affirmatively consent to their comments being altered. Given the objection by Springee and the absence of consent from the nominator, I believe that this action was not in line with WP:TPO.

After this occurred, Blueboar created a new "survey" sub-section on top of and separately from the already existing discussion section, where several individual placed their !vote of Bad RfC. Following the creation of that section, Andrevan !voted in the survey section, Peter Gulutzan !voted as Bad RfC in the discussion section, and David Gerard !voted in the survey section.

As a result of this, the RfC comments and structure has become somewhat incoherent and the meaning of several earlier comments appears to have been distorted, albeit through good-faith efforts but out-of-process to try to fix the neutrality of the RfC. As such, I would request that an administrator procedurally close the RfC, just as we procedurally closed the previous two good-faith but bungled attempts at starting a Fox News-related RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• My attempt at “fixing” the RFC was made in good faith. If I bungled it, my apologies. Do whatever you think is best. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Does Sky News Australia ever cover American politics? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: Yes, it does. Here are two recent examples. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  They also document intra-Republican squabbles, such as this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just concerned that we are deciding on which news sites are reliable & which aren't. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  We should downgrade to "generally unreliable" any site that publishes mis- or dis-information, from any side of the political spectrum or any publisher. For example, we already consider unreliable Occupy Democrats and Raw Story, sites I read regularly but are not suitable for Wikipedia. Andre🚐 20:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I !voted in the RFC and I think it's OK. I oppose attempts to gatekeep opening of RFCs. Blueboar's attempt to fix it seems legitimate and I don't believe it unfairly prejudiced the RFC. I am sure that David Gerard and I would have left the same comment even if the opening message of the RFC was extremely biased in favor of Sky News. Andre🚐 19:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  My opinion on Sky News Australia was nothing to do with the original opening statement, which had already been moved to the comments by the time I saw it. Same with Andrevan's, which was also added after the original opening statement had been moved - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am somewhat concerned that going beyond simply moving the RfC nom's non-neutral comments changed the meaning of the RfC; certainly there are articles published on-line that are little more than captioned videos of TV segments produced by Sky News Australia's broadcast team, but that's somewhat different than the nom's phrasing of this RfC attempts to address the online section of the channel, not its broadcasts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a technical issue that you should discuss in the RFC. Not on AN. Andre🚐 20:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good-faith edits that are nonetheless WP:TPO issues are perfectly fine to discuss at WP:AN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fixing format, layout, sections, etc. are exceptions to that. Others can opine, but personally, refactoring the RFC framing and moving it is a reasonable example of constructive talk page refactoring, not changing the meaning of people's messages. I don't think it would be going out on a limb that FlantasyFlan would rather have an open RFC with his comments moved down, than a closed RFC, but I apologize if I turn out to be wrong. Andre🚐 20:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a trifle and there isn't a problem to action here. Even if we remove the present RFC and start a new one, I assure you I'll say the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• I will only add one more comment… if the best thing is to close the current RFC and open a new one… no problem. But please do so SOON… before too many people have !voted. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar: Why not self-revert this and this, leaving it up to the OP to strike the non-neutral sentence or leave it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• • I will do that next time. But now?… People have already started to !vote, so too late. Either let it run, or close it. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• WP:NOTBURO, it has started and none of the early opinions, are affected. So far, it looks like all experienced editors that have opined, so any technical faults have minimum effect. Let the community have its 30 days to kick it around Slywriter (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing, edit warring and possiblesockpuppetry on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

these particular users (User:007Леони́д and User:Mrboondocks) continue to re-add disputed material without consensus, even after being told so to stop and multiple discussions in the talk page (which haven't achieved consensus for these additions yet), both are quite suspicious, as one has not been active since 2020, and came back with a single objective in mind (edit these articles, this may qualify as a single-purpose account if im not wrong), and the second really looks suspicious, either a troll or a sockpuppet kremlin bot (or a combination of the three), the account is VERY new and has only these edits in the contributions page, the summaries are also very vague ("couldn't be more relevant" or repeating previous edit summaries), i also noticed a strange edit pattern between all of those, they re-add basically the same thing as others do with 1 or two differences, not only on articles but also on talk pages (probably to flood the section with "agree" to get "consensus" to add these contents), as well as similar behaviour (as stated above).

due to them being possible socks, trolls or single-purpose accounts, investigation is needed, as well as, if possible, temporary page protection to prevent further disruption (an IP block would also be an good idea to prevent them from creating more accounts and further disrupting the article). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm a bit surprised by this block. IP has made many useful contributions since March 2022 (more than 400), and behaviour doesn't seem to correspond to the blocked account. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

oh wow, adding a report of Amnesty international clearly making a case of Ukraine forces endangering civilians makes me a "kremlin sockpuppet Mrboondocks (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

that user dint gave me any warning this exact notice that user left on my talk page is this

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2022

He is making a false allegation on me that i was warned several times Mrboondocks (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised @Bbb23 because IP187 had made many good quality contributions to the writing of "War crimes in Ukraine"; they were not a POV-pusher. I don't know anything about SP investigations, but I see that MarquinhosWikipediano didn't have "the necessary proficiency in written English for contributing constructively" [32]; IP187, however, was quite articulate, as you can see also from this report. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Raid of Mar-a-Lago RM and AfD

There is both an AfD and a requested move discussion happening at the same time. Alternate names are already being discussed at the AfD, so I think the RM discussion should be shut down to avoid confusion. I've already commented on the AfD, so asking an uninvolved admin to consider this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Make sure, along with the closing of the RM, that all votes there are present at the AFD - any which aren't need to be copied over in such a way that the closing admin will know how to interpret these votes. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD early as follows: "This is an early closure per WP:SNOW. It is evident that there is going to be no consensus for deleting the article. The dispute is between keeping the article and merging it elsewhere. Whether and where to merge the article to is a discussion better suited to the article talk page, where it can be pursued without the distraction of people commenting on a possible deletion." This means that the RM discussion can continue in parallel to a possible merger discussion. Sandstein 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that an uninvolved administrator close and implement the requested move per SNOW. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor had BOLDLY done the move while I was in the middle of typing a close suggesting there was enough consensus to do the move, but also that there was no reason to not allow the discussion to proceed for longer (and perhaps the full 7 days). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Pretty strong to say there was "no reason". WP:RAPID comes to mind, which is part of our Notability guideline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an overzealous editor who wont communicate.

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 made changes to the DeathDrome page at DeathDrome

I was following rules and guidelines. I made changes and references and basically replaced old bad info with new good info. Then while I was editing some guy came along and messed it all up. He sent me a message saying i could talk to him if i thought he made a mistake. So i tried to talk to him. He only said two things that have nothing to do with what we were talking about. I tried to ask him to explain and he just vacated the scene. At which point i communicated that i was ashamed of his actions. I am now here to communicate this issue with you guys.

The editors name is Mr.weedle. He is refusing to communicate. His changes to DeathDrome wiki need to be undone, as there was no reason to make them.

No one cares about that page, except for me: the creator of the latest DeathDrome Installer, hosted on proboards, our small community at proboards, and the devs of the original game who i am in talks with on facebook. those are literally the only people in the world who care about the content of that page.

so please. look at the edits i made to the page, and how they follow the guidelines and rules and how it does contain a reference.

i tried to ask this guy what he was talking about and he basically ignored me for an hour. and now im writing this to you. he said here ill just paste it here so you can read it.

Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, DeathDrome, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Mr.weedle (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

yes i think you are making a mistake 1. no one cares about this page except me and the people who are reviving this game 2. im still working on it and you just messed everything up. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

also i should say im trying my best to follow the wiki templates and stuff. maybe instead of deleting it you could fix it? also, i dont really think there was anything wrong with the way it was, why did you change it? and what is it you want me to do exactly? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

the changes i made did have a source. you removed the source from the references....... 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hello? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hello are you there? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I am here - as you create content you are expected to ensure you are correctly citing the content. Many of us patrol the wiki and when there is un-cited information, it can be removed any time. There's a few great articles here on how to do so. Wikipedia:Citing sources Help:Referencing for beginners". You can use the version history on the page in question to get you content back at any time, but please make sure you add citations. Simply saying that no one cares about this page" is not a reason to provide uncited content. Remember, it's an encyclopedia for everyone. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) im not simply saying no one cares. im just making a point that you can let me do it and you dont have to mess with it. because worse case scenario, literally no one cares 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i cannot get the content back as i do not have and will not have an account with wikipdeia, and it is my understanding that you have to have an account to do that 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

also the content was cited as i pointed out. i dont understand why you are saying it wasnt? would you please clarify. and also i just sat down at the computer again and have not had a chance to see if you reverted what you have done, so if you have not done that, please change it back to the way it was before you messed with it. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and hypothetically even if it wasnt cited, i was still editing the page. do you see the timestamps? do you expect literally every edit to be perfect? if so then nothing would ever get done. you have to be a little lenient. look at the time stamps dude. youre changing it in the middle of being edited.... 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i referenced deathdrome.proboards.com which had all the info that was being discussed. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and i was editing the reviews that were listed because those are shitty reviews. i picked some better ones and was editing them into the page, adding references and citation when you came along 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeathDrome&oldid=1103304300 will take you back there if you want to pick up your old content. Remember that your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here. Have a quick read over Wikipedia:Manual of Style too for some good guidelines. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here" what are you saying? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

what are you trying to say? i dont understand 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

youre not allowed to do what now? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ok i browsed manual of style. pretty basic. dont see why youre suggesting it. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and what are you trying to say with this "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here"? what are you saying? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i didnt write anything that wasnt objective information available via the links i provided. i even quoted them word for word..... and the info on the revival was just basic objective information..... did you read it? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

youre basically just impeding my hard work, which correctly followed the rules, if you have noticed, for no good reason... do you see that? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and youre not really being responsible cause youre not talking to me in a timely manner. this is pretty b.s. and im ashamed of your actions 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

so i mean if youre not going to explain why you are saying i didnt cite when i did, what else can be done, but to update the wiki at another time, and hope you can find some other thing to do with your time. right? i mean im following the rules and guidelines arent i? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

been sitting here for half an hour trying to talk to you. you are playing hall monitor and you need to undo what you did if you want to do the right thing. youre not helping anyone by removing my quality work. and if you think it wasnt then just explain like ive asked what does "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here" are you trying to say i cant post references to a website i own? or what are you saying are you saying i made stuff up? everything i said is objective easily observable information 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

just remember when you go to bed tonight that you are a freaking nuisance and you irresponsibly avoid conversation so in all likelihood youre tainted with evil. and you made those decisions. no one else 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ill just fix it later. ridiculous. moderator mentality. you are a hall monitor, but you are not responsible enough to do it. you failed to see i was currently editing it. and when i came to talk to you about it, you vacated the scene. shameful 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and i did cite. and there was no synthesis. when there are literally synthesis left on the page now, after you changed it back to the way it was before i edited it today. the way you have just made it now again has synthesis as i understand you to mean it. (remember you never responded when i asked what you meant) 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

im just fkkn ashamed of you dude. im sorry but what in the hell. lol. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

how is it possible you have not responded yet? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

bro i dont have time for this crap im sorry. i tried. and you were totally wrong. i followed the rules. youre just not ready to do this yet. cant even back up the things you do in conversation. you literally said 2 things that had nothing to do with anything, and that was it. shameful. shame on you for doing such a poor job. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

im opening an administrator notice on you since you are refusing to communicate or undo what you did. i will send you an official link on your page when its done 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hold on what? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

that is it. i hope you guys fix this situation!!! god bless you 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TLDR & poorly done up. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Woah... for the record, and only the record. I provided this user with links on how to correctly cite content, the how-to step by step guide, a link to the historical edit (so they could easily get their content back, and a link to the manual of style. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

For starters, don't reference deathdrome.proboards.com. I don't even have to look at the site to be certain the chance it is a reliable source is close to zero. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

And to continue, don't change an actual review by Gamestop to a forum user review (and leave it on the template as a GameStop review). Clear no-no. Also the quote from NexGen was cut in a bit of a manipulative way. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

OP's /64 blocked for 48 hours by PhilKnight for WP:NPA issues. I don't think there's anything else to discuss here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 9 August 2022 (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.

Strange non existant speedy deletion nomination of User_talk:EnergyAnalyst1

Hi all

I'm doing some work with the International Energy Agency as part of my job at Wikimedia Sverige. Recently the person at IEAs user page got a message that it was nominated for speedy deletion, despite being one line of text describing themselves. It seems to have been done by a new account but I can't see their user contributions for some reason. I'm assuming this is some kind of troll account or sockpuppet account. I just want to check what is happening and if it has been nominated and I need to help, or if its just someone messing around.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings The page was nominated and deleted April, the current page was created a few days later and is not nominated for deletion. The reason the user who left the message back in April appears the way they do now is because they've been vanished. PhantomTech[talk] 09:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much PhantomTech, very helpful. John Cummings (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

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.

---

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

---

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Answered adequately. Comment struck Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Struck because they weak opposed/supported indef topic ban below. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.

  I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):

  They’re not really a few dime a dozens,

  per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”

  i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:

  You were accused of pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this?

  You also also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. in this edit. What is your response to this?

  You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?

  Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO

1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.

“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”

2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR

3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,

for example:

When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330

If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.

Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• With some dismay that this has been open for so long, I support a last-chance unban, conditional on an indefinite Syria topic ban. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• The purpose of this comment is to prevent the bot from sending this to the archive without resolution yet again. Can an admin please close this? --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 16:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  or even a non admin? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: Since this involves blocking, how can a non admin close this? I mean how will the closer enforce their closing? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, snap. That's a good question. Curses. Foiled again. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2022 (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.

Lost my user rights.

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.

---

Hi, yesterday I lost my user rights because they claimed that I "played the system" but I did not play the system and I can assure you. I edited economic values ​​in which it was difficult for me to insert suitable links for April 2022, so it turned out that many times I had to edit several times. I have been on Wikipedia for almost six months and there is not a single edit I have made that is incorrect/lacks sources/violates Wikipedia's writing rules. I edited close to 100 countries whose values ​​were not updated for years. I ask that you please consider to give me my user rights again .07:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun71528 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should. You haven't explained why you were making lots of inconsequential edits of no value whatever or why you need the extended confirmed user right. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fun71528 On your talk page you were asked multiple times to explain why you made multiple edits (1, 2, 3) doing things like adding or removing a space where no change to displayed content would have been made. I don't see anywhere that you've explained why you made these edits, could you explain your reason for those edits here? PhantomTech[talk] 08:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited hundreds of country entries that were wrong or out of date for many years. In the country values ​​that I edited and updated for 2022, I also had to insert a source suitable for 2022. I inserted the source of the International Monetary Fund - April 2022 but I had to adjust it to the country code for example: (Slovakia) "IMFWOSO" It took me a while to understand how to do it and I did a lot Incorrect edits. In addition, I also edited from the mobile phone, so many times it was edited by mistake, even though I tried to delete it, it was saved. Like this time you mentioned. But as I said, there is not a single edit out of the hundreds that I have done that is against Wikipedia's tools or is not accompanied by reliable sources of information. I think I have contributed a lot in editing to Wikipedia and it is very ridiculous when I don't have one edit that is incorrect, you block me. Please give me another chance, after all, I've been on Wikipedia for almost six months, if I wanted to "game the system" I would have done it a long time ago... Fun71528 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fun71528 It's possible there may be a misunderstanding about what was done to your account, you are not blocked. Accounts can be given more permissions and sometimes that is done automatically after your account is a certain age and has a certain number of edits. Extended confirmed is one of those, and it is the one that was removed from your account. It was removed a few hours after being given to your account because it looked like you may have just been making edits to get that permission, but that doesn't mean that is what you were doing.

Your can still do everything your account was able to do a few days ago and it's possible that if you hadn't been told that this right was removed you would have never noticed because you only had the specific right that was removed for a few hours. Again, you are still able to do everything that you were able to do a few days ago, including making edits to articles. PhantomTech[talk] 09:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. I note that at times you were making two edits a minute. You've got another chance, no one is stopping you from regaining ECP. Just avoid doing it that way. By the way, at the top of this page it says you should notify people you are talking about, and as I'm the Admin who removed your rights, you should have. Still, no problem as I saw this. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you didn't notify me as required. You have not been blocked. You've had ECP removed for gaming the system. At times you were making two edits a minute. I don't know why you did it now but not earlier but that's irrelevant. And you have another chance. You can regain ECP, just don't try to do it this way. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I promise I won’t . It’s was my mistake to edit without the required knowledge of how to update source and to edit from the mobile phone from now I will do it from the computer , how can I regain as ECP? Fun71528 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you interested in ECP? What articles would you like to edit that are currently unavailable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I usually update economic data … i want to reign as ECP… where I can do that?Fun71528 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC) @DougWeller Can you please tell me where can I reign as ECP or send a request to appeal the decision?Fun71528 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to assume you mean “regain” rather than “reign” for the moment. What articles containing economic data do you want to edit are under ECP?Acroterion (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes sorry my mistake … I want to update Turkey (the ranking are not so accurate )and a few more countries that need to be update to 2022.Fun71528 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

And why can't you just ask someone to do it on the article talkpage? Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

First you can see that a lot of times I did asked and opened discussion and didn’t get answer . Second There are many, many pages that are not updated and are not correct. Almost all of the entries out of the hundreds that I edited were not correct. Fun71528 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's just one article that you need to edit? A better approach is to ask that ECP be removed from the article, and then reinstated, if necessary. You do not need ECP, and your actual consequential edit count is far short of the ECP threshold. You can ask for ECP to be reinstated once you've proven that your experience gained through substantive edits gives you a mastery of Wikipedia policy that makes you able to edit in difficult topic areas. That's the point of ECP, which you have not attained. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say I have just one article I want to update… I just gave an example…Fun71528 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC) But it's not fair, I'm not "gaming the system". All in all, I want to request an appeal. I deserve to be ECP because I've made hundreds of edits and in general I've never even made any edits in a way that violates Wikipedia's rules... Can't I talk to someone and explain to them?Fun71528 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You won't have the ECP privilege returned in the near future because you clearly lack the experience and understanding of Wikipedia policy that is the point of gaining the ECP privilege. Please stop wasting our time and yours, and take the time to properly understand how to productively edit Wikipedia. As for appeals, this is the place, and you're doing a poor job of convincing us. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have over 500 edits, all of which are correct, it's just that there were some edits that were meaningless, that's my fault and I explained it. So you're saying that you actually removed the option for me and you're not even ready to discuss it?.... you say I don’t have an experience but I’m almost half year on wiki…Fun71528 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You lost a user right that you had for 5 hours and used to make 5 edits. You're portraying this like some great injustice was done. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2022 (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.

Please create a page for 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘂𝘀𝘇 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮

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.

---

After Mateusz Malina just successfully dove a world record in free immersion freediving, I wanted to find out more about him and unfortunately found out that there is no wikipedia article about him. He has held records in Dynamic Apnea for quite sometime now and there is a broken link to his name on the freediving article. There are plenty of news articles discussing his accomplishments that could be sourced in the article. I would be willing to make a first draft, but I'm told that an administrator must create the page, because the name is for some reason blacklisted. Luke (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sinama-Webmaster Hi, you should be able to make the page at Mateusz Malina or make a draft by following the Article Wizard. It's possible you ran into issues if you copy and pasted the name from somewhere. If you decide to use the Article Wizard try copying and pasting the name from here: Mateusz Malina PhantomTech[talk] 04:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been able to edit the page now. Thank you. Luke (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2022 (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 rights and renamed user

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 have re-named myself from "NotReallyMoniak" to "NotReallySoroka". I would like to ask an administrator to update the AWB WP:CHECKPAGE and WP:RAL. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2022 (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.

Discussion at Talk:Ezra Bayda § ezra bayda

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ezra Bayda § ezra bayda. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could take a look at this. I tried to give a general response, but I might've have missed something or given some wrong info. It seems that this could be something covered under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The article was nominated for deletion more than a week before the post was made, and it could be that the person claiming to be Ezra Bayda saw that but didn't know how to participate in the AfD. Pinging Missvain as a courtesy since Missvain is the one who started the AfD and is also an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Marchjuly. I will allow other admins to review this since I'm involved, in a way. Just a head's up to everyone: the user claiming to be the subject blanked most of the page, removing the crime-related content. It's since been returned. I have protected the page for a week to allow for safe examination of the article while it undergoes AfD. Missvain (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Vincelord. Autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights 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.

---

Three months ago I lost my new page patroller user rights because of articles I created. I was told to wait until now to appeal. Since then I've made over 2,000 edits. I've corrected mistakes. Added categories, DEFAULTSORT. links to other articles and added edit summaries to my edits. I feel I should now be able to review new articles once more. Vincelord (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions: (1) User talk:Vincelord#Autopatrolled and new page patroller userrights revoked, (2) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#Vincelord. appeal to get back new page patroller rights. DanCherek (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• here is a link to the previous discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I still see no improvement, despite the claim of 2000 additional edits - which without context, are meaningless. They could be 2000 edits anywhere, to anything, good or bad. There is no substantial work that shows an improvement in the areas that resulted in the loss of said perms. And from a brief glance, it's almost entirely automated/semi-automated edits like adding categories, defaultsort or wikilinks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  So, I went back to June 1st for all of your edits - none are over about 40 bytes, which in itself wouldn't matter except that it doesn't demonstrate you've learned everything. Every edit is adding a category, wikilink or default sort. The only "significant" edit you have is this one which isn't exactly useful in this context, so I'd oppose restoration of perms and request a ban on appealing for at least 6 months. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that a formal ban is excessive here, particularly given the contrition expressed by Vincelord in a thread lower down the page, but a 6 month moratorium is nevertheless a good suggestion for them to follow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Waiting exactly three months and appealing again isn't a great look. What do you need the autopatrolled right for? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I enjoy doing it. I've reviewed over 3,500 articles and believe that I'm good at it. And I have learned not to create unsourced articles myself. I've haven't created any new articles because I have nothing to create. Vincelord (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you have zero justification for getting the autopatrolled bit. It is only for article creators with more than two dozen previous, high quality articles created. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You believe you are good at it, but the community does not, as evidenced by the removal and deletion of your own creations. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have nothing to create why do you need autopatrolled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting this number for 3500 reviews from? You have not used the NPP right afaict to review more than maybe 5 articles and that was years ago. Please link to where you are seeing this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I will be honest, looking through your deleted contribs [33] (admin only), I see 18 articles that probably should have been CSD'ed (and were) instead of you adding categories for. Just in the last month. Some were for reasons you wouldn't catch at NPP, but some were. By adding cats and such, you would be marking them as patrolled, and you would be basically saying "they are ok" when in fact, they are not. This seems to mean if you created an article, you would use this same criteria, which is too low a bar. NPP and Auto are two very different bits. There is zero chance of you getting autopatrolled unless you can show at LEAST 25 good articles you have created without having more than one or two that got bumped. That is the basic criteria for anyone. As for NPP, again, your deleted contribs show that you don't understand what should be patrolled and what should be tagged or sent to CSD or prodded. I would strongly oppose you getting either bit at this time. You might have 2000 edits, but you don't "get it" when it comes to what those bits are for, and the thresholds for inclusion of an article. Some people should never get them, which is ok, but be aware of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree with you. Thank you for your time. I'll stick to simply making small edits to articles and forget about about reviewing them. Vincelord (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  No shame in that, every positive edit helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 12 August 2022 (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 103.161.57.249 is making disruptive edits, making personal attacks on me.

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 103.161.57.249 is making disruptive edits and using personal attacks on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big 14 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Admin, user Big 14 is adding unreliable sources in ideology and political position. I asked him to read properly about WP:RS and WP:V. Already a discussion took place in WT:POI#Reliability of www.elections.in. We have to be very carefull about adding sources unreliable sources for ideology and political position. It seems he's a sock puppet of ZYXTL. Please check admin. Both the users edits are quite similar.--103.161.57.249 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed Big 14 (independent of this report) for blatant vandalism, BLP violations, and personal attacks. No opinion at this time on the underlying content dispute nor whether they're a sock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Great Job Admin!--103.161.57.249 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2022 (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.

Template usage

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.

---

@Truthanado: appears to be on a roll, with dates in content & infoboxes of many articles, by adding the 'birth date & age' mechanism. Not certain, but I think such changes across several pages, should be discussed first & a consensus achieved. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the absence of diffs, I don't understand why this was brought here. What administrative action do you seek?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to go. Mass changes across several pages was occurring & no consensus was achieved for those changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As for diffs? Truthanado's contribs (with matching edit summaries) will show what I'm concerned about. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the actual concern? That they're taking the date already in an infobox and making it into a template? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That they're adding it to them, without seeking a consensus to do so. If this was the wrong place to bring my concerns. Then I won't object to this being transferred over to WP:SPORTS. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Template:start date and age's Usage in Articles section states:

"This template is most often used in infoboxes in articles about buildings or organizations, identifying when they were started/founded/opened or dissolved/ended/closed."

Based on the template's statement, it is my understanding that consensus on its use has already been done, and edits that utilize it are in compliance with the template and Wikipedia guidelines. It is appreciated by our Wikipedia readers ... it's useful to know how long a building or organization has been in existence. Isn't that why the template was created 14 years ago in 2008? Truthanado (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sports organisations. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Are those not organizations? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't use it on sports organisations. I don't know what the views are of the other sports WikiProjects. But, I'll contact WP:HOCKEY & see what their views are. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out the discussion(s) where that consensus was determined? I've searched the WP:SPORTS archive and couldn't find anything immediately obvious that says there is consensus not to do this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find a consensus for inclusion. I think likely be best to open up such a discussion at WP:SPORTS. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an unnecessary escalation of a minor disagreement. Though even calling it a disagreement is a stretch as there was really no time to even build up to that. You gave the user a grand total of 12 minutes between your initial post to their talk page and the note of coming here to WP:AN. I find it kinda useful to have in the infobox, really. Zaathras (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2022 (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 Anonymous1451612 vandalizing 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.

---

This single-issue user has repeatedly vandalized the Spoegwolf article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This should not have been reported here, but, in any event, the user has not edited the article since their final warning a little over two hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the place to report simple vandalism is WP:AIV, which insures a faster response time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 14 August 2022 (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.

Disruptive user

The user Viewmont Viking keeps reverting alot of peoples edits for no reason, if you have a look at his talk page you will see all the sections, he even reverted my edit for no reason. His talk page is here User talk:Viewmont Viking Excluslvez (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely as a WP:SPAM only account. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin close at RSN

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.

---

In the Fox News RFC, a discussion started about both Atsme's conduct towards other editors and her ability to adhere to NPOV. She was extensively involved in the discussion, and then closed it due to being off-topic. I agree that the discussion was off-topic, and in the interest of transparency I'll disclose that I participated in the discussion as well, but the close was still inappropriate because she had a conflict of interest. I request admin review of this closure. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You could've opened it yourself and I would not have cared. It's just that the discussion there is so long, it's easier for cell phone users to scroll with it hatted. Just unhat it, matters not to me. Atsme 💬 📧 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine. It’s not a 'closure', it’s hatting an off-topic discussion. As far as I can see, the hatting was appropriate. You can take this as an endorsement if you wish. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I see. I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for this report and I apologize to Atsme. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 17:20, 15 August 2022 (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.

Article about the writer and journalist Jonathan Power

Yesterday I wrote an article on Swedish W about the writer and journalist Jonathan Power, the references and links I used were relevant, so the article remains - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Power

Today I tried to post an English version, but it got blocked, and a discussion about deletion followed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Power

I think the list on WorldCat alone is enough of relevance for an article on English W, but apparently not - https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n50-021831/

I wonder then, what exactly is needed in terms of relevance to meet the requirements you have. - Jonnmann (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Jonnmann This is best asked at the Help desk as any editor may assist you. Please see the definition of a notable creative professional; you must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this person meets that definition. See Your First Article. Note that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the admin who salted this article in 2015, seven years ago, after repeated recreations and deletions. But I have no idea what the subject might have done in the intervening seven years to make him notable. The creation block may be obsolete now, so I am going to unblock it. That doesn't mean that I now approve of an article for him; I am merely allowing another look at him.

Jonnmann, I advise you to create a WP:DRAFT article, get it referenced and in good shape, and submit it for review. I am advising a draft, rather than simply an article, because in a quick WP:BEFORE search just now I didn't find any independent sourcing about him. And without independent sourcing there can be no article. You asked "what exactly is needed in terms of relevance to meet the requirements you have." The basic requirement for an article about a person is WP:NOTABILITY. The specific requirements for a writer are at WP:AUTHOR. Basically, there have to be multiple reliable sources that are INDEPENDENT of him, writing ABOUT him, in order for him to have an article. As 331dot pointed out, that may be more restrictive than the requirements at the Swedish encyclopedia; every language encyclopedia has its own rules. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• ^^^What she said. Start a draft, then go to WP:DRV since it was deleted via an AFD. If they think there is a snowball's chance it would be kept at AFD, they will allow it. AFC isn't really for these cases, where it has been to AFD, it needs to go to DRV after you are done and you think it can withstand scrutiny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN!

Well, I'll try again then, but unfortunately I can't find more references and links, there is very little text, the rest is on links and references, he's gone under I-net's radar it seems, and if it's not ok, then so be it.. Regards - Jonnmann (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if you don't have "multiple articles, significant coverage, from reliable sources independent of the subject" then you don't have an article. That is the most bare bones requirement for inclusion here, and you can't fudge on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Dennis, I'll keep that in mind, but I'll be back, with something that's accepted, in the meantime I'll write a Swedish version of The Ministry of Silly Walks ;-) Regards - Jonnmann (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Need help from an interface admin

It looks like MediaWiki:Blockedtext is borked. Could an interface admin please take a look at T314747? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be an interface admin to edit in the MediaWiki: namespace, just css/js/json. Even if you did, MediaWiki:Blockedtext is entirely a transclusion of Template:Blocked text, which has bog-standard normal admin protection.

That said, I don't immediately see anything wrong with MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Maybe the user in your bug report's seeing one of the other interface messages that transclude {{Blocked text}}? —Cryptic 01:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but this still needs somebody who knows about this stuff to look at it. My knowledge of templates is limited, and I know nothing about how interface messages work. Clearly there's a mis-match between the arguments being passed by the MediaWiki code and the arguments the template is expecting, but that's outside of my area of expertise. In the meantime, every user who gets a message telling them they're blocked is getting gibberish. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging in User:Awesome_Aasim (will talk page them) who worked on a revamp of much of this earlier in the year. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's clearly the case that a string that ends in a line break is passed to the seventh parameter – try previewing:

  {{Blocked text|$1|$2|$3|$4|$5|$6|$7
  |$8
  |usefullink1=Wikipedia:Blocking policy{{!}}Blocking policy
  |usefullink2=Help:I have been blocked
  }}
  

  which reproduces the screenshot. Wrapping {{{7|}}} in {{trim}} should fix it for now, but Template:Blocked text itself doesn't appear to be the culprit. Nardog (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think this may fix the issue. On another note I'd also replace each of the $1, $2 in the system message with 1=$1, 2=$2, etc. This will avoid breaking the message in case the blocked user or reason contains an = sign, which separates the name of a template parameter. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting. The block in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134015081, where there is indeed a "=" in the log comment. I've only started doing that fairly recently, which might explain why nobody's noticed this before. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, that explains it. The = in the comment must have bumped the parameters by one, making $8 and the following line break the seventh argument. So Aasim's solution must fix it, not {{trim}}. Nardog (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1= etc fixes (at least most of) it. Before I propagate this to the other messages using {{blocked text}}, can I have an example to exercise what {{trim}} fixes, if that's still necessary? —Cryptic 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not that I'm aware of. I hadn't grasped what "bits of the log message inserted in the wrong places" meant, which is hard to tell in the blacked-out screenshot. Nardog (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I mentioned before, I don't know the MediaWiki codebase at all, but this all sounds very fragile to me, in the Little Bobby Tables sort of way. What's going to happen when I put "|3=foo|4=bar" in a block comment? Isn't the right fix to escape every string at the MediaWiki/template call boundary, just like you would when calling something like a Jinja template from a Python program? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, test it and find out. I'm not the only admin who deserves a block log this long. This block put just "testing" in the box. —Cryptic 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I tested this on testwiki: and yes, template code injection works on enwiki with how the messages are currently setup. Pipes need to be escaped but only if they're outside of a template to allow using templates with parameters in block reasons. Fortunately the injection only causes a display issue and can only be caused based on input from a blocking administrator. PhantomTech[talk] 04:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, it would be an interesting exploit if a rogue admin could block everyone except himself. And even better, everyone including himself.No such user (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Somewhat surprisingly, a blocked admin can unblock themselves! I believe this is an intentional feature to prevent just exactly the scenario you describe. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not anymore. But yes, that was the intent. —Cryptic 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Heh. I guess it's a good thing I didn't experimentally confirm it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like something that a module can do. Do we have a module that can escape pipe characters? i.e. you put in {{#invoke:somemodule|main|This is the | character}} and out comes "This is the | character"? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Template:Identity used to make a valiant (but inadequate) attempt, especially given that it predated modules. Enh. There's relatively few block logs in the wild that would trigger this (quarry:query/66673), and hardly any since the message changed in February 2022. Comparing the output of {{blocked text|1=$1|2=fake2-1|fake2-2|fake2-3|fake2-4|fake2-5|fake2-6|fake2-7|fake2-8|3=$3|4=$4|5=$5|6=$6|7=$7|8=$8}} and {{blocked text|1=$1|2=$2|3=$3|4=$4|5=$5|6=$6|7=$7|8=$8}}, I think it should be sufficient to just move 2=$2 before 1=$1. The block comment will still be mangled, but at least none of the other parameters will. —Cryptic 06:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

user harassing me with continuously calling me a sock

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.

---

Hi I recently joint Wikipedia, user @volunteer marek despite of my warnings continuously called me a sock and SPA. here in this talk section. Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine My edits were well sourced with credible organizations instead of this, user continuously harassed me on false accusations. this kind of behavior of existing editors towards new ones not only discourages new editors, but also violates wikipedia Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy, that requires existing editors to assume good faith of new ones. Please take appropriate action. Thank you. Mrboondocks (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you immediately jump into the Eastern Europe topic area? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any wikipedia policy that forbids a new editor to jump immediately to a Eastern Europe topic ?, I was reading war crimes in Russian Invasion of Ukraine, and dint found Amnesty report about Ukraine placement of military objectives near civilian objects so I added there. Mrboondocks (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be best to read up on the Discretionary sanctions, that covers that area. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I supported by arguments with credible organizations.but isnt that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers violation to call a new editor as sock or SPA, without assuming good faith ?

does the discretionary sanctions area about Eastern Europe and Balkans justifies calling any new editor as a sock or WPA ? Mrboondocks (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering the bullshit that goes on in that topic area and that has been going on since Two-Thousand-Fucking-Seven, any new user to the topic area is going to be viewed suspiciously at best. You have no idea how bad this topic area can get, and how frequently sockpuppets show up to continue their nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

yes I get your point, but still it was bullying on part of that user to continuously call me sock, even though my arguments were that of credible sources (eg Amnesty International, ICRC). Such attitudes of existing editors towards new ones creates a toxic environment and discourages new editors to come to wikipedia. You can check my edits at talk page

Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Mrboondocks (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So, I've already done my "moot a noticeboard filing by blocking someone as a sock of Icewhiz" for the day, and I worry if I do another so soon people will accuse me of seeing ghosts, but adding content similar to what had been added by Icewhiz sock 007Леони́д (talk · contribs) less than 24 hours before + quickly getting into conflict with Volunteer Marek and then dragging him to a noticeboard (much like 007Леони́д in January) + Icewhiz is currently swamping the EE and PIA topic areas with throwaway POV sox = ... ? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you see the talk section Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine you will notice I havent got into argument with volunteer marek, he started with calling me a "sock" repeatedly, I just responded in my defence, i dont have to hear any one disparaging me by calling me a sock or SPA. even though I supported by arguments with credible sources, he haven't gave any counter argument, but instead resorted to personal attacks, even though I haven't violated any wiki policy, there is reason why wiki has assuming good faith section in Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy Mrboondocks (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If one is required? I think an SPI should occur. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking one is academic. Any other admin willing to apply the kylie? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin - The user running the account Mrboondocks wants to be

assumed as Icewhiz’s, hence this single edit in the Palestine/Israel area -->[34]. I believe you understand why they do that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, overlooked that. Thanks. That's ducky enough for me to be confident this isn't just paranoia on my part. Indeffed.

@Icewhiz: I get that you're trying to make the point that you have so many accounts that you can do whatever you want, but, thing is, there's lots of admins and blocks are free. And as I think El_C said to you some time ago, you've done much more to hurt your own cause on Wikipedia than any of your adversaries ever have. Just give up already. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi just want to point another thing another user raised similar concern about user Volunteer Marek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=1103011482#Personal_attacks Mrboondocks (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2022 (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.

Deletion RfC moderator appointments

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Valereee (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) are appointed as co-moderators for the discussion. The co-moderators will jointly exercise the responsibilities assigned by the 2 August 2022 decision, which remains in full effect. The panel of three closing editors will be announced on a later date.

Wugapodes (talk · contribs) will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Deletion RfC moderator appointments

WP:RFPP

Probably should ask for this somewhere else, but it looks like the structure of the above noticeboard is screwed up. I'm hesitant to fix it. Can someone else do it, please? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not really sure I saw the same thing(s); is it better now? Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Motion regarding Muhammad images discretionary sanctions

A motion has been proposed to rescind the discretionary sanctions from the Muhammad images case. Maxim_(talk) 12:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocking in an Editathon

Dear administrators, here in Switzerland we just started a international Editathon/Workcamp and some of the participants could edit, but some computers are blocked for registration of a user account. The message of the system is: 178.197.192.0/18 has been partially </nowiki>blocked (disabled). Can you us a solution for the next days (till August 24th)? Thank you! --Hadi (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's first ping the blocking admin, @ToBeFree: The combination of parameters and the block history suggest that ACB might not have been intended. Otherwise, we can probably adjust the block for a short while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. As I see that Admin:ToBeFree is not editing today, may I ask someone else to unblock this IP-Range? Thank you. --Hadi (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like people are there in person waiting for this, zzuuzz. Maybe someone else can act quickly to help them out? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

zzuuzz fixing ping — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hadi:. Done, in the interim. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU zzuuzz and Rhododendrites! --Hadi (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thank you very much for fixing the issue for now. The block is meant to prevent the following type of contributions: [35]

Making the block circumventable by anyone clicking "Create account" seemed counterintuitive to me, so preventing account creation from the range was (back then) an intentional setting. I'd be interested in opinions about whether this currently makes sense, particularly from checkusers. As zzuuzz is a checkuser, I'm perfectly fine with them making the decision; I lack the needed data.

(Isn't this what we have an event coordinator permission for, which we could have assigned to Hadi instead?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It would have been more persuasive if you had linked to abuse from accounts :) I don't wish to tempt fate, but some vandals just don't create accounts for whatever reasons. CU logs tell me that the range is far from perfect, but on balance I don't think it presents much of a risk at this time. If it does light up, I'm sure a CU will find and adjust the block. I have a few of these pages already on my watchlist so hopefully I might pick up any increase, but I'll state for the record that anyone can adjust my involvement in the block (hopefully after the editathon). Event coordinator would seem to make sense (but would still have been typically thwarted by the old ACB block). Maybe Hadi wants to look into that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Heh, true. Well then, thanks again; let's keep the block as it is now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just a simple wikipedian and don't really understand the technical aspects of blocking. In the German WP (my home WP) I have an IP-Block exception (in German: IP-Sperren-Ausgenommener). So I was surprised that I could not create an account for another person here present. I will have a look at Event coordinator for the next event (I didn't know this.) --Hadi (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it appears I didn't either. There are multiple options that can be enabled for blocks; one of them is "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address". This was disabled, so I was certain the block shouldn't have affected you (when logged in) at all. However, both zzuuzz's note in brackets and your description ("could not create an account for another person") state the contrary. I have now checked again and found the following clarification in the blocking policy (#Common blocks imposed):

"A soft IP address block (anon. only, account creation blocked) [...] also restricts any account creation by the IP address or by any user accounts while behind the blocked IP address."

This is counterintuitive to me, as I had disabled the "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address" option. I didn't want the block to affect logged-in users, so I told MediaWiki not to make it do so.

This is not a bug? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Technical details: The counterintuitive behavior appears to have been introduced in 2008, in response to phab:T15611, creating problems like the still-open phab:T189362. I guess the benefits outweigh the downsides, as making such blocks truly "anon. only" would help more sockpuppeteers than event coordinators. That's sad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, would having the event coordinator user right allow a logged-in user to be exempt from the account creation block of their underlying IP? My understanding is that the right bypasses the rate limit for account creation (6 accounts per IP per day) and also allows the user to grant confirmed status to new accounts, but in order to get around the account creation block, they would still need an IP block exemption. I would be happy to be wrong. Mz7 (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing can get around an account creation block. phab:T189362 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. That is not optimal. Mz7 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin help convert a WikiProject into a task force?

Apologies if this is an incorrect venue for this request. I've tried elsewhere previously.

Following a Request for Comment, editors of WikiProject Public Art have agreed to convert the project into a task force of WikiProject Visual arts. In addition to many page moves, a conversion would require folding Template:WikiProject Public Art into Template:WikiProject Visual arts (to reduce the number of talk page banners), without messing up the article assessment framework.

Back in May, I asked if someone from the WikiProject Council could convert the project into a task force. An editor shared a helpful link describing the process, but I do not feel comfortable completing the job without completely mucking everything up. Is anyone here familiar with converting a WikiProject into a task force? If so, could you hop over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Public Art to help out?

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd be happy to assist if the need be, as I read a bunch of policy & guidelines on conversion fairly recently to complete this conversion (Checklist) and hopefully didn't break anything. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Please feel free to hop over to the WikiProject Public Art talk page with questions and concerns. One thing to note: You'll see we've previously discussed how this conversion might impact current task forces of WikiProject Public Art, which further complicates this restructure. For example, the London task force of WikiProject Public Art may need to become a task force of WikiProject London, moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art/London to Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Public Art, etc. Sharing for background/context. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 – ⁠andrybak (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple of edit requests there has been waiting for a response for a few weeks now. I hope that some administrators here would answer these requests. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure review: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass addition of Cleanup bare URLs template

Non-admin Sideswipe9th has speedily closed two ongoing RFCs, acknowledging this was a controversial closure. I've raised the issue at User talk:Sideswipe9th#Please undo your close of the bare URL RFCs, and they refuse to undo their closure, despite my objections to it. As such, I request a closure review, and that the RFCs be re-opened and let run its course.

Sideswipe9th's unfairly characterizing the RFC's opening as based on a one-sided 'dispute' characterized as a two-sided dispute amongst other things and giving undue weight to early opinions. The RFCs were productive, despite heavy ABF bludgeoning from one person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Note, as per the discussion at my talk page I welcome this closure review, though I would perhaps have worded it slightly differently. I believe I've given Headbomb a fair hearing at my talk page, as well as a rationale for why I do not find his arguments for re-opening convincing. I'll happily answer any further questions here, and I will of course self-revert both of the closures if they are not endorsed.

As I said in my closure of the two RfCs (RfC 1, RfC 2), I recognise that it is a controversial speedy close and I would add that I did not do so lightly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that this is a follow up to a previous BRFA on the matter, which explicitly endorsed having an RFC on the matter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

These were good closes by Sideswipe9th. The 2 RFCs were transparently disruptive action, in revenge for the fact I had explained to Headbomb how his bullying conduct and multiple abuses of process at WP:BRFA/BHGbot 9 had not prevented me from getting on with my work, which has been highly productive. I simply followed the core policy WP:NOTBURO and worked around the barrier which Headbomb had tried to place in my way. For 8 months I have been removing redundant {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banners, over 10,000 of them, with plenty of thanks notifications. There was not a single objection or question or even expression of concern until Headbomb decided to resume his vendetta.

The "review" at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive_16#BHGbot_9_review_sought was a disgrace, in which BAG members piled in to endorse one of their own and ignored the abuses of process. They were all so keen to simply back Headbomb that I was denounced for asking them to explain why we would want a big banner at the top of an article which requests editors to fill a ref which had already ben identified an unsuitable. That is a very reasonable question, but sadly BAG was on such an authority kick that they just wanted submission rather than reasoned discussion.

That was my second horrible experience of BAG piling on in support of Headbomb's aggressive follies, and since then I have resolutely avoided the wildly dysfunctional BAG, and tried to avoid the aggressive Headbomb. I have worked with exceptional productivity in cleaning up bare URLs, and it is very sad to see that Headbomb has decided to resume his disruptive aggression in a new space. I thank Sideswipe9th for putting a prompt end to these antics, and am sad to see that Headbomb has not dropped the stick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a gross characterization of my actions and motivations. I've asked you several times to stop that by now. I've acted in nothing but good faith at every step. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Headbomb: your bad faith has been extreme and persistent, and your conduct deplorable. I will not stop noting that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I support User:Sideswipe9th's speedy close in this case. The RfC improperly presumed an unestablished consensus to revert thousands of arguably useful edits, and jumped straight to asking how those should be reverted. BD2412 T 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFCs presumed no such thing, nor did it call for anything to be revert (save perhaps a handful of edits at most). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The second RfC (to which I intended to refer) asked:

There are two questions.

1. Should the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} be done by bots or meatbots?
2. Should bare URLs tagged with issues, like <ref>https://example.com {{deadlink}}</ref> be ignored in this mass removal? Meaning that the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag would be removed in those cases.

This clearly presumes that a consensus for "the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}}" was a foregone conclusion. BD2412 T 03:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. The answer can be it should be done by bots, it should be done by meatbots, or there shouldn't be any mass removal done at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps the question should have been asked more clearly, along the lines of: "Should the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} be done by bots, or meatbots, or not at all?", but even that starts from the proposition that "the mass REMOVAL" of the template is something understood to be supported. BD2412 T 06:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The question "Do you want a drink?" does not suppose you want such a drink. This is a pedantic trivial wording tweak at worst, and not any basis of speedy closing the RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The question "Do you want a drink?" is not the equivalent of the question quoted above; that would be "Do you want tea or coffee?", which does presuppose that you want a drink, as the question above presupposes that the removal is to happen, questioning only how. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine, then assume someone ask "Do you want water or orange juice?" The answers to that question are either "I'll have some water", "I'll have some orange journal", "I'll have neither." You could even answer "Do you have Dr Pepper? If not, I'll have some water." None of these answers are precluded or invalid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Endorse the procedural speedy close. The RFCs very obviously didn't comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL or WP:RFCBEFORE. Levivich 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? And there was plenty of WP:RFCBEFORE done! That's the explicit recommendation of the failed BRFA! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The questions were not neutral for the reasons stated above by BD and in the subsequent discussion. It wasn't a proper RFCBEFORE because nobody signed off on the questions. Levivich 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Should Task X be done by bots or meatbots" is a perfectly neutral question. The answer can be bots, meatbots, or not done at all. If the option "not done at all" needs to be explicitly specified, that's a really trivial thing to add, and not a reason to halt the RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion RfC Closers sought

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

ArbCom is getting ready to appoint the 3 closer panel. Some editors have already contacted the committee to express their interest; thanks to those who have already volunteered. ArbCom would like to let the community as a whole know that we're looking for these closers. If you're interested in being a closer please send us an email to let us know. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Deletion RfC Closers sought

An RfR request

Some time ago, I made a request (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover) for the page mover user right. Today, I received the template notifying me that I acquired the right, when I did not receive the right or a "done" at the RfR page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• If you look at how the template got on your page [36] you will see that an IP editor out of India placed it there, not an admin or bot. ie: it was an act of vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion of more than 15-year history of How to Win Friends and Influence People

In March 2022, parts of the article were removed for being copyright violation. Afterwards, all revisions since January 2007 when this content was first added has been deleted, more than a thousand revisions, for WP:RD1: "Blatant violations of the copyright policy". While I can see how it can be argued that this content was a copyright violation, and that they should be removed from the article, I think it is a stretch to claim that they are "blatant violations" that needs to be suppressed from history at such high cost. If nothing else, the fact that this content remained up in the article for more than 15 years, and not one person thought they were copyright violations, is a testament that they are not that blatant violations: Perhaps blatant copyright violations can go unnoticed in obscure articles, but this is a fairly popular article, viewed millions of time over the years, probably thousands of times by Wikipedia admins. Use of WP:REVDEL like this, which is mainly intended for recent material, seems too heavy-handed; and taking into account how disruptive it is, affecting so many valid contributions by hundreds of editors, I don't think such a large-scale use should take place in this case.--Orwellianist (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Orwellianist: Did you discuss this with Primefac before coming here? (Full disclosure, I was the one who made the revdel request, as a then-non-admin. I think Primefac made the right call for an exceptional case of an 1,800-word summary that described every key point of the book in such a way as to significantly interfere with the book's market potential.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac and Tamzin - this is something of an exceptional case. In general, whether to redact copyright violations is a balancing act between the size and impact of the copyright violation, and the number of intervening edits / amount of time since the violation was introduced. Here we have a large violation that effectively provides a Cliff's Notes for the book, and so while the number of intervening revisions is large, I think the use of revdel was justified. Is there a specific issue you have with the redaction (e.g. not being able to see earlier revision content)? firefly ( t · c ) 13:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Anne Heche

Some additional admin eyes on Anne Heche would be appreciated. She is reported "dead" by many outlets. Technically she is brain dead ("dead" per California law) and her body's tissues are being oxygenated pending organ donation. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times appears to have declared her dead after she was removed from life support, quoting her son Homer.[37] -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...and "legally dead" by the BBC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's sadly just academic now... but the Los Angeles Times does not have the authority to declare someone dead. They can, however, report that a qualified person has declared someone dead.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

She has now been removed from life support after donation recipients have been found. Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Watergate scandal editnotice

I think that the Watergate scandal editnotice should be removed. It says that it is covered by post-1992 American politics, but it happened before 1992. The admin (JzG) who implemented the notice is inactive so I am posting here to get the attention of administrators to determine whether this editnotice is still needed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the history: the year 1992 is transcluded via Template:Ds/topics, which befire this edit in 2021 said 1932; this article is about that 60-year period covered by the oroginal DS topic which had subsequently excluded when the topic was narrowed. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that as I understand the motion [38], whatever confusion the editnotice may cause, the consensus required restriction is still in place until and unless an admin decides to remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there enough pre-1992 AP2 editnotices that it would be worth amending the wording to make this clearer? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I would interpret it the same way. There are still some tangential connections to modern day politics (comparisons of Trump's problems and Nixon's for example, but others as well) such that I would leave it in place, although it is one of those articles that only parts would fall under DS. Many articles only partially fall under DS, ie: BLP for living individuals where the topic isn't that person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected, I would interpret it as remaining in full effect. An option could be added to the template to give the 1932 cutoff for those legacy cases. Or the template could be subst'd with the 9 changed to a 3. I seem to recall this coming up somewhere before; forget what, if anything, came of it though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexa M. Curtis

Hello, I have been hired to make a page for Alexa M. Curtis (already disclosed in my userpage). However, it seems that they had some spam issues in the past with persistent trying after decline and hence the name appears to be blocked. I think their last attempt was over 2 years ago and now she has hired me to try it again. She has a lot more news since then and as an editor with some past experience, I have done my best to write it as best I can to comply with the guidelines and would like a chance to submit to AFC. I have posted the page in my sandbox here for now User:Freezejunk/sandbox. Could you please unblock the name so I can submit it or if you see any issues, you can let me know to fix. Freezejunk (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SALTer seems to have been @JzG [39], but they aren't very active atm. You should check WP:BAREURLS and WP:NYPOST and WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Bare URLs I was going to use the reFill Tool but I found that it is not working on userpage, so this will be completed after page is in drafts or approved. Regardless, the rules allow bare URLs to be used and that should not be a reason for decline.

Regarding NYPost, it seems only the political content are not considered reliable, but this is not a political content. "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics." Regarding Forbes, I went ahead and removed that citation. Freezejunk (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Refill does improve things. Better than refill usually does it is better, but not mandatory. I think you missed the "generally unreliable for factual reporting" part of your quote. That + WP:BLP = better excluded, is my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed NY Post citation. Freezejunk (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Freezejunk, it is not reasonable to ask other editors to wade through 37 bare URLs. Properly formatted references showing all of the bibliographic content are vastly easier to evaluate. I suggest that you identify your three very best independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage of this person in note at the top of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I have added the references and posted the best sources on top. Please review again. Freezejunk (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't care if you are paid or not, but don't ask us to the work for you. Learn how to properly format citations like the rest of us. You would think that is a requirement to be paid to create Wikipedia articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown Please read what I said above. I was not able to use reFill tool , because I am guessing the page is in the user space. Once page moved to draft or main space, I will convert the bare URL citations. I know how to do it and not expecting an admin to do that. Provided that Bare URL's should not be a reason for decline (as there are no guidelines that state you can do that), do you see any other issues as to why you would oppose to unblock the page name? Freezejunk (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did read it. Then use a different tool. Personally, I fill out cites by hand, never have used any of the tools, and I have several articles with over 100 references and a dozen or two in the bibliography section. No admin is forced to act, btw. I did flesh out your first source (which isn't being called in the article, oddly enough), and you are using a very different citation method than the few that I use, but you can see the fields. You can see until you edit since it isn't being called, but it's there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have added the references and posted the best sources on top. I removed the bad source (NY Post) that was not being used. I had removed it earlier when an admin said it is not acceptable. Please review again. Freezejunk (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is no doubt this topic meets WP:GNG, given the multiple feature-length biographies of the subject in various independent RS. I will handle it. Levivich 18:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  With some changes, it's now at Alexa Curtis (entrepreneur). I don't think there's any need for any admin action. An admin could unsalt Alexa Curtis (blogger) if they wanted to, but there isn't much point; "blogger" is not the right disambiguator per most-recent RSes and I don't think it's needed as a redirect. Alexa M. Curtis could be unsalted too but I can't find an RS for the middle initial/name anyway, so I don't think that page should be created (until/unless there's an RS for the middle name). I'm not sure if there are any other relevant salted titles. BTW, I removed DOB, middle name, and "journalist" for lack of RS. Levivich 19:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• At this moment there is a problem at Alexa Curtis (disambiguation) (see: [40]) what makes it impossible to "solve" linking to disambiguation pages by fooling the maintenance bots. The page is locked/blocked/blacklisted. Can somebody change that page into a (protected?) redirect to Alexa Curtis? The Banner talk 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've created the requested redirect at Alexa Curtis (disambiguation). Not sure whether the title blacklist entry is needed any more. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC about ANI

My RfC at the admin noticeboard talkpage may be of interest to, well, admins, so I posted a link to it here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Should've been left open for 'at least' 24-hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The thread is still open, it's just been moved. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have been started. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, this RFC seems like a waste of time, although I'm sure it was done in good faith, I don't think there's anything that needs to be changed about ANI. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Other than the toxicity? the fact that some threads are ignored while others produce incomprehensible walls of text? that threads are archived without closure? that friends/fiends of parties pile onto one side or the other to support/attack as needed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • All of those issues are simply because of the nature of ANI. The RFC is a waste of time. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 15:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

    This is a fatalism mindset. There is nothing inherent about ANI that makes it toxic. Why do other noticeboards manage toxicity well? Why couldn't ANI do the same? And better yet, why don't we try out solutions and experiment to reduce the drama? After all, you aren't gonna blow up Wikipedia if the ANI solution went wrong. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatalism is probably the best mindset to have at and about ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

In recent years, the Arbitration Committee has referred several cases of off-wiki harassment involving off-wiki chat platforms (e.g. IRC, Discord, Telegram) to the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team (T&S). While these cases were not part of T&S's original core mandate, ArbCom made these referrals because these chat platforms are not supervised by any particular project community and allegations often involve non-public information. The Arbitration Committee has therefore asked T&S to further develop its policy and communication options for responding to these cases and has specifically asked T&S to consider updates to the global event ban policy to more effectively handle harassment in virtual, off-wiki spaces.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

Sanna Marin

I would like to request review of my actions regarding this article. Sanna Marin is the young prime minister of Finland. Video was recently leaked of her at a party, dancing in what some people thought was a suggestive or inappropriate fashion. There have been repeated attempts to add this content to the biography, which I consider a violation of WP:BLP as trivial gossip and an invasion of privacy. The incident has been widely reported. I have semi-protected the article. One new editor rapidly edited their userpage to get autoconfirmed and then immediately loaded up the article with a controversy section including this dancing incident. I consider that gaming the system, so I reverted and pageblocked that editor. So, I am asking for feedback from other administrators on this matter. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The semi-protection seems appropriate to me, due to the vandalism, current high profile, and some lazy OTT BLP edits. I can also go along with the p-block in the spirit of semi-protection (per the gaming). Hopefully you'll be able to re-visit the block duration at some point. I don't particularly agree with some of the objections about including some of the material in an appropriate way. Even BBC Radio 4 talks about how she's cool and likes festivals, but there's no mention in the article. On the other hand, a detailed description of her dancing style or sound quality is of no interest. Hopefully the discussions will progress constructively. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Even BBC Radio 4 talks about how she's cool and likes festivals, but there's no mention in the article" - That is irrelevant in the current controversy. No description of dancing style was given (where do you take that from?), and that bit about sound quality is what makes this a controversy. In Finland they were discussing whether the expression "flour gang" was heard or not. Some (the opposition) say it is, while others, as reported by Finnish media, could not confirm that, and actually deny it. In order to eliminate any doubt Marin took a drug test. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What you see a big paragraph labelled 'controversy' and containing full details of what is part tabloid, part allegation, part politics, and plenty of speculation, I see as a small footnote to some details of her personality and public reputation. If there's substance to be had after the test results, I'm sure we'll hear more about any notable long term effects. In other words, try not to overthink this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

My edit was not an "invasion of privacy" This is in the news, everywhere... no longer private, and I have already provided the source links. Actually, it is a translation from the Finnish version of Wikipedia. You have not provided any valid argument to claim that privacy is being violated.

"I consider that gaming the system" - there are not rules regarding what articles one user is not allowed to edit once the required conditions are met, or if a edit of a controversial topic would be considered a violation of any other rule. I saw the article had a missing section, which is relevant today, and I provided the necessary sources to mention what happened and why Marin is accused of drug consumption. ~~~~ Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, you are incorrect on this specific point. Please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Anybody can review the evidence and see that I explained the requirements for autoconfirmed status on the BLP talk page, and then see you make seven rapid-fire trivial edits to your own user page, and then immediately violate BLP policy, which you had already been informed about. Wikipedia administrators did not just fall off a turnip truck.Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Man, I have this account since June, 2021. I had the insane idea of using it for the first time today when I saw the bias on this article, and my edits (previous to this article) were mostly spelling mistakes corrections from the Spanish version (all useful), and an attempt to give shape to my profile page, I still don't know how to add a few features like language, and stuff. You assume it was all on purpose. So, I was waiting for a year and two months with a dormant account so that I could spring into action now and spread "gossips" and an obsession with "dancing styles". False accusations after false accusations, unbelievable. There are no rules written regarding what I can edit or not right after I had the necessary requirements to do so, and you know it. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, your comments make it crystal clear that you do not understand WP:BLP policy and that you are here for the purpose of making a living person look bad by any means necessary. This is a faux controversy about a person's dancing style and utterly unsubstantiated rumors about drug use by a public official. Do you really think that you have the right to cram unsubstantiated rumors into an encyclopedia? If so, you are wrong . Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I only provided information about a current controversy as I said many times. No other judgments. If the information or accusations are "bad" or "negative" that is not my problem. They are public and relevant. The accusations could be false, but Marin took a drug test and that was made because the accusation had a political consequence. If you consider that's an attempt to make a person look bad, then many articles with reports of corruption, and wrongdoing should be removed. After all, the accuser will say someone is guilty, and the accused will claim innocence. What side do we take? None. Only to describe what is being said. However, as I understand, we're not here to make personal judgements of what is "good" or "bad", but to share what information is known, particularly when is relevant for the subject (a political leader in this case is relevant). You keep talking about the dancing, the "dancing style" and "rumors" of drug use. I'm not talking about rumors, and I'm not talking about dancing styles (show me where I did that), but about news and accusations that are in the headlines. It is more than clear that you have an interest for this information not to be available. Total bias, as expected and pointed out by other users. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, you are trying to add utterly unsubstantiated allegations of illegal drug use based on wild rumors to a biography of a living person. If she gets convicted of drug offenses, it belongs. If she gets formally charged, then that probably belongs. But rumors based on maybe somebody although not her saying "flour" as code for drugs in a leaked video of a private party? No. This is an encylopedia, not a purveyor of sleazy clickbait. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, I would like to address your accusation of "Total bias". I have been an editor here for 13 years and an adminstrator for five years. All of my edits are readily visible in my edit history. The only bias I have on Wikipedia is in favor of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. I have warned and when necessary blocked policy violating editors of every major ideological persuasion on Earth. I am very proud to have prevented BLP violations on the biographies of many politicians who support political positions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. As for Sanna Marin, I do not follow Finnish politics and had no idea what political party she represented when I semi-protected the article. My action was motivated by the policy based need to stop rumor-mongering and nothing else. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you know about the "utterly unsubstantiated allegations"? You already have an opinion about those allegations, I don't. I won't share personal opinions about the topics I want to write about. I don't know if I explained myself with enough clarity, but what I share are the news of the incident, not gossips or rumours "some people said she got some drugs at the party". Marin made an official statement about this incident, in the role of a prime minister, She made the whole topic public and official. What rumours are you talking about. The allegations could be totally false, but the controversy is not and public statements are real, they happened. I repeat: the controversy, the public statements. To remove that from Wikipedia is an act of biased editing. You already talk about "bad image". Like it is our work to make people look good or bad. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, have you read and studied the WP:BLP policy? Do you understand it? Do you consider yourself bound by it? Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I did, and this part is the one you refuse to comply with:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." <--and I added many links to the most important newspapers talking about this. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you wrote here "trivial gossip and an invasion of privacy". Marin made an official statement, is that a gossip? The allegations exist. Are those gossips? "invasion of privacy"? The section Privacy of personal information and using primary sources proves your accusation agaist my work is completely wrong. I never did that. I ask for the third time: Where did I do that? So far I've been told things I never wrote. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of content that you think is encyclopedic, Professor Peter van Nostrand: There were speculations on social media that in the video the word ”jauhojengistä” (flour gang) could be heard, while the passage from Petri Nygård's "Hyvästi selvä pää" song "Palvon Lemmyy, otan hennyy" played in the background. According to Iltaleh's Lauri Nurme, police and legal sources say in general that recreational drug users in Helsinki generally refer to amphetamine or cocaine with the word "jauho" (flour). MP Mikko Kärnä suggested that Marin voluntarily undergo a drug test. According to Riikka Purranki, the chairman of the Finns Party, it would remove doubts if the test were negative. According to Iltalehti's Pyry Vaisma, a sound technology expert interviewed anonymously by the newspaper, spectrum analysis shows that the video talks about a "flour gang".According to Yleisradio's sound designer Sami Lindfors, the soundtrack is of poor quality and people hear it in different ways even after cleaning it up. According to the interviewed phonetics professor Martti Vainio, people's expectations affect what they hear. Marin said that she could take a drug test if necessary, but she forbade the use of drugs at the party. In addition, Vainio said that he does not hear anyone talking about the flour gang in the video. What unmitigated garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yep, "unmitigated garbage" is a good description for that - it's nothing more than an attempted hit job based on unsupported speculation and accusation. Fully agree with your actions, Cullen328. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "This is in the news, everywhere"... it really shouldn't need to be said that Wikipedia is *not* a news outlet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to make a joke about how we need a full paragraph on Barack Obama's article on that one time he wore a tan suit instead of a gray one, and lo and behold: Obama tan suit controversy. This is why I rarely edit about current affairs. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh dear, if I couldn't see it was true, I really would have believed that was a joke. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Had they received the DS alert before that edit, I would have simply applied a BLP ban unilaterally. The last thing we need is this kind of garbage in biographical articles. I would be open to, and support, a BLP topic ban here. If for no other reason, than they lack the competency to discern what is and isn't appropriate in a BLP encyclopedia article. I can't see how anything of value would be lost with a BLP tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another August silly-season news story about a politician dancing, that merits at most 3 sentences.

Meanwhile, on wiki, a BLP was semi-protected, and a user then started to game the system to get autoconfirmed in order to edit that article and violate BLP policy. Good protection, good block. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly nobody wants to admit the bunch of censors that you guys are. I wasnt wrong. This is on the news, and will come up eventually on this article to give context if the controversy grows. That text is perfectly fine. That's how it started, and how it became what it is in Finland these days, but what can one say about people who keep on talking about the dancing... not the drug use accusation. Pure fallacies. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website. If she's convicted, it's encyclopedic material. Until then it's conjecture and against WP:BLP policy. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no credible "accusation". There is merely social media gossip about what someone thinks background music might have implied and a word that someone other than Sanna Marin might have said. Then space-filler news stories repeated the gossip and we all had a good laugh. That is not how WP:BLP articles are written. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"will come up eventually on this article to give context if the controversy grows" is pretty much what Cullen328 has been saying this whole time. That is a reasonable expectation for BLPs, and for articles in general. CMD (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I have to say that I endorse User:Cullen328's point of view. This is nearing a WP:BLP violation. For the most of Sanna Marin's term as prime minister, part of the Finnish media seems to have been on some sort of witch-hunt against her, desperate to find something to accuse her of. Sanna Marin has not been convicted or even accused of illegal drug use. Saying the word jauho ("flour") at a private party is not a crime. If anything, it's the people who posted the video who should be accused here, not Sanna Marin. This material simply does not belong on Wikipedia unless there's an actual conviction. JIP | Talk 10:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I also concur with @Cullen328's assessment and actions. Sandstein 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If she had been investigated by the police, or an other official investigative body (and I mean more than a drug test, which came out negative), there may be a basis for including it in the article. If she were officially charged, there would definitely be. If a witness had claimed to see her take drugs, and several unrelated reliable news outlets repeated that statement, there may be a basis to repeat them. If, when running for any elected post (or for nomination for it in any political party) the competition uses this claim as propoganda against her, there may be a basis. Short of the above, don't even mention it. 93.172.237.84 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some reviewers at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

There are several unreviewed requests that are auto-archived by ClueBot everyday and I'm tired of edit-warring with it. Can an administrator please review them and accept or decline them as appropriate? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Close challenge of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting

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 requesting a formal review of the closure made by FormalDude at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting. The request for comment was focused on the extent to which the news section of Business Insider is reliable for news reporting from December 2021-present. I have several concerns with the closure and, following discussion on the closer's talk page, I am bringing it here for community review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

I am concerned with the close for two main reasons:

1. FormalDude, who has previously !voted in an RfC relating to the reliability of Business Insider, is WP:INVOLVED with respect to the reliability of Business Insider. FormalDude, who was a participant in a previous RfC on Business Insider's reliability, where they !voted in support of the publication's general reliability for culture reporting, shows that they appear to be WP:INVOLVED with respect to the reliability of Business Insider. When I reached out to them on their talk page, they defended themselves by saying that the comment was a year old. But WP:INVOLVED clearly states that involvement is broadly construed to include disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. That the RfC in which they !voted in favor of declaring Business Insider's culture section to be WP:GREL occurred just under a year ago does not make them uninvolved.
2. FormalDude's closure is a WP:SUPERVOTE. The entire motivation for the consensus given in their closing summary is their erroneous and novel claim that [m]ost concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. But this isn't an accurate summary of the discussion; evidence was presented in the discussion of a plethora of issues with respect to the website's reliability throughout its entire existence (such as editorial staffing issues, lack of independence from advertisers, making employees sign what amount to gag orders, the acceptance of quid-pro-quo payments for coverage, the widespread propagation of false stories without fact-checking, false reporting on COVID-19 preparations in hospitals, etc.), including RS commented negatively the source's journalistic stature as recently as this year. Editors, such as VickKiang and Chetsford, also offered affirmative arguments against those who supported Option 1, noting that the Pulitzer for illustrated reporting is not actually a prize awarded for breaking news or investigative reporting and that one can win this sort of prize while also (as Chetsford puts it) publishing a revolving door of errors and falsehoods almost too numerous to mention and giving editorial control to advertisers. Rather than addressing any of this in their close, FormalDude falsely characterizes the thrust of the arguments in opposition to Business Insider's reliability as merely there being clickbait published in sections that are not news. As such, the closer's characterization of arguments in opposition to Option 1 is deeply incorrect and borders on being a straw-man characterization of the arguments presented. And, as a result of this, the closer fails to offer anything close to an appropriate summary of the discussion.

In light of the above, I ask that the close be overturned and re-opened for closure by an uninvolved closer.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at this (as an uninvolved non-admin) it seems the old RfC was about the Business Insider "Culture" section, while the newer one is about its "News" section. This is presumably why there were two distinct RfCs. I don't think having a view on one necessarily makes an editor "involved" with respect to the other, so don't think this argument has merit in evaluating the close. (On the other hand, the OP here using the username "Mhawk10" was heavily involved in the RfC, maybe even to the point of WP:BLUDGEONING.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC); expanded 06:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC); amended 06:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• 1) This RfC was about Business Insider's news section while the 2021 RfC that I commented on was about their culture section. 2) DeletionClose review is not for repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Furthermore, I did not characterize the opposition to Option 1, I simply stated that a majority of concerns were about content that was not in the news section, which is nowhere near a supervote. ––FormalDude talk 05:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is AN not DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did not characterize the opposition to Option 1, I simply stated that a majority of concerns were about content that was not in the news section is nonsensical when those very concerns are about whether the source is generally reliable for news reporting. And, quite frankly, a !vote in an RfC based upon your belief that Business Insider is an RS in the context of culture is quite involving when the staff of the two sections substantially overlap. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those concerns are about whether the source is generally reliable overall, not for news reporting. ––FormalDude talk 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are presenting as if you have an emotional connection to your close. Not a good look if you are arguing that your close was impartial. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  If the source is... not generally reliable overall due to company-wide deficiencies in editorial practice (as was the prior consensus, mind you), then what WP:policy or guideline are you referencing that indicates that a closer should assume the reliability of a media organization's news reporting is totally isolated from the media organization's general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like you're alluding to an inductive generalization that assumes the reliability of BI's news section must match the reliability of BI in general merely because the news section is a part of BI. This is not the case, as evidenced by their culture section being elvaluted on its own merits, as well as by other cases where departments are separated out from their parent media organization such as WP:BUZZFEED vs WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. ––FormalDude talk 06:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Not looked at this too closely but this seems like a legitimate concern to have and if a recluse by someone who can't be seen as involved will help the outcome to land properly with participants then that must be a good thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for addressing legitimate concerns, but overturning this because I am WP:INVOLVED seems like pandering. My prior involvement is minor and obviously does not show bias. ––FormalDude talk 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Voting on a similar discussion is not minor and ensuing that an outcome is cleau not involved is most certainly not pandering to anybing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. On the involved point, I think it's a borderline argument. FormalDude expressed an early opinion in the prior debate that they have a clear feeling that BI is reliable, at least as far as the Culture section discussed in that debate was concerned. I think if that debate had ended up being closed the other way (that it is not generally reliable for Culture), that would be an indicator that FormalDude was out of step with the community on this. In fact, though, the close was with FormalDude so their opinion aligns with Wikipedia's in that regard so I'll move on and look at the close itself. Numerically, !votes between treat as generally reliable and apply caveats (which was the prior status quo) were roughly split, and I don't see anything in the arguments that would render either position automatically preferable from a guideline or policy point of view, or which would make me think that WP:NOTAVOTE needed to be invoked. And as noted by the OP above, the argument about "click bait" doesn't seem to align with the thrust of many of the "Option 2" votes. Thus I think the correct outcome is to give each an equal weighting and close as "no consensus", which means retaining option 2 as the prior status quo. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, the arguments for option 1 (generally reliable) might have been slightly stronger but clearly not enough to overcome virtually equal numbers of people supporting 2 who also provided reasonable, sensible rationales. There really is no clear consensus here, instead being virtually split between option 1 and 2, so I feel that it must be overturned and reclosed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So there is no misunderstanding, I'm not taking side on whether FormalDude should or shouldn't have closed, which is an INVOLVED issue. My point is that I don't think any closer that was weighing the arguments could have concluded anything except no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, given the direction of the conversation here, maybe it's best to simply revert yourself and let someone else close. It doesn't require that you agree with the consensus here, but it shows good judgement to recognize it and simply revert yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I participated in the discussion and supported Option 1. I think the argument that FormalDude is involved is borderline - he didn't participate in this discussion, he participated in a slightly different older discussion. I could see the argument to his involvement but I can also see his explanation as to why he felt it was OK. Personally I'd be happy enough to see the close stand, but I can see that several people want to have it be re-closed. However, I do want to opine that if the close is overturned, the action should not be to overturn it to "no consensus," but that it should be reopened to be re-closed by a different uninvolved person and/or group of people. Interpreting the strength and weight of arguments is not a supervote, it is indeed the task of closing a discussion, and it is definitely possible that there was a consensus in the discussion - though, it is also possible that there was not. I did not review every comment and argument. Andre🚐 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. wrt WP:INVOLVED, I agree with those saying FD was not. The prior RFC was about the "culture" section, and ultimately agreed with FD's position. If that constitutes INVOLVED, then we would also, logically, have to treat that prior RFC as having an impact on how the current one is closed, and that's not really justifiable. Different parts of the BI website, different circumstances, different editorial procedures, etc. It's an interesting argument, clearly falls in the grey areas, but I ultimately do not see the merits of the pro-INVOLVED argument. However, I do think FD may have dipped just on this side of WP:SUPERVOTE territory with Most concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. That would elevate a particular minor argument above many other substantive ones which were more convincing to either side. I would just chock it up as a hasty close, something we are all sometimes guilty of, but which should be discouraged in general. wrt the closure itself, I read there as being 9 !votes for Opt 1, 9 !votes for Opt 2, 2 !votes for Opt 3. In strength of the presented arguments, I do not see either 1 or 2 as being particularly persuasive over the other to respondents. There were many substantive arguments for Opt 1 (pulitzer prize, multiple in depth substantive factual reporting pieces on hard-hitting topics, the listed mistakes are the same as any other NEWSORG, they correct and acknowledge mistakes, there have been substantial changes in the post-2021 era of reporting, we shouldn't focus on the clickbait headlines cuz HEADLINES), only some of which were answered by proponents of Opt 2. There were many substantive arguments for Opt 2 (numerous administrative failings in the past, some big unsightly gaffes and propagation of misinformation, quid pro quo payments, etc) which were not answered by Opt 1 proponents. Additionally it is important to consider that many Opt 2 !votes were essentially empty agreements with MHawk, or "you can't trust any news media" or similarly empty arguments. Many Opt 1 !votes were essentially "pulitzer=good." On balance, none of these options was able to achieve any substantive consensus of respondents, so the proper closure would be no consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: Can you point to an argument made by someone besides MHawk in support of Option 2 that showed any evidence of problems with the BI news section specifically (as opposed to just generalization about BI as a whole)? I cannot, but I do see multiple people supporting option 2 who specifically argue about content that is outside of BI's news section. ––FormalDude talk 22:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Several Opt 2 respondents pointed out issues with promotion of the Pulitzer as an Illustrative-category prize (e.g. [41] [42]) which diminishes its value, though it is wrt the News section. Several described issues with factual reporting and inaccuracies (e.g. [43] [44]). Is it true that many of those arguments deal with issues prior to 2021? Yes. But it is up to the respondents themselves to dictate whether or not they believe such events just prior to 2021 (i.e. in late 2020) would affect stories and oversight after 2021, if ownership and editorial board have not substantively changed. To discount such arguments for such a reason would be a SUPERVOTE imo. Overall, I can see why you closed the way you did. I think you absolutely closed it in good faith. It was a tough discussion to assess, that's for sure, with many many moving parts. But I ultimately think nocon is where I would have gone, personally. My only humble advice would be to say more in closes like this so as to not give detractors ammunition for closure review. I know that's counterintuitive. But if you say very little in a close, it looks like you didn't consider all the other things. It's a sticky wicket, since saying too much can also get you boned. But in this case, if you had just plain said more about summarizing arguments, it would have been much easier to defend as an overall fair summation of the arguments presented. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pulitzer arguments were evenly matched and relevant. But none of the arguments about factual errors and inaccuracies point to an article from BI's news section. With no proof or evidence of specific problems with their news section, how can you not prescribe less weight to the Opt 2 comments? ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do prescribe less weight to Opt 2 comments, absolutely. I think the argument, as a whole, was balanced slightly in favor of Opt 1, but not enough to swing it from no consensus to consensus in favor of Opt 1. Additionally I think the factual reporting concerns re: COVID-19 hospital preparation actually is a news section article. [45] That article, in and of itself, seems innocuous. But it suffers from failures to fact check what it says are "reported" figures. In that sense, I do agree in part with critics of BI's reporting. I don't think it's enough to call it "unreliable" but I see why they were concerned. That article basically just takes a powerpoint presentation from 1 or 2 guys and reports it out without much investigation or analysis of the validity of the claims therein. The 2013-2014 issues (e.g. Snowden) are definitely red flags in favor of Option 2, but they are also quite a bit removed from the current editorial staff. I would weigh these extremely lightly in comparison to Opt 1 arguments. Like I said, I think it was, on balance, closer to Opt 1 than Opt 2, but not enough to call it "consensus in favor of option 1" from my own personal reading. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaborating your point for me, I see what you mean. ––FormalDude talk 23:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Clearly, per discussion here and at the actual RfC. There was no consensus for the closure, as it was. Curiouser and curiouser... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Seeing as the closure has now been withdrawn by the closer, should this thread be closed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:28, 23 August 2022 (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.

John Stith Pemberton: Drug addict and Confederate veteran, Yes or No???

Jesus Christ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Coca-Cola_Company&diff=1106415225&oldid=1106415055 142.189.96.88 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. This noticeboard is intended for conduct disputes and similar problems not pertaining to article contents themselves. If this is meant to be a report of a user, you must notify them, as instructed by the red box at the top of this page. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

GabberFlasted, while notification is obviously needed, it strikes me that the edit summary in the diff prior to that linked is a conduct issue deserving of administrator attention. Reasonable minds may certainly differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I figured I would let them plead the 5th on that matter and try to keep the interaction at a minimum so as to not feed the bridge habitants. I was expecting them to get banned at AIV before this ANI went anywhere. I'll take it on advisement for next time. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Confederate veteran and drug addict" is obviously WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to the point of being disruptive if repeated. ie: will result in a block. Edit warring to put this type of contentious material does rise to the level of being an ANI issue, even though it's at AN. So 142.189.96.88, stop adding it back and use the talk page, where I'm confident that a consensus will find it is not within policy to label it this way. This is the only warning I expect to give. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I take that back. IP blocked 1 week for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Attention needed at Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka

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'm here to recommend a procedural close of this RfC. I am not a party to the dispute, but rather one of about a dozen FRS bot-notice respondents. To any admin or experienced community member wishing to undertake this close, you should be prepared to spend a significant amount of time, as the talk page has been made an utter mess by the disputants. I have responded to over a thousand RfC notices via FRS alone in the last ten years or so, and yet I don't know that I have ever seen as bad a case of two-way WP:Bludgeoning and stonewalling on any other talk page. To wit:

• The two principle parties to the dispute have contributed between them well more than 95% of the content of the relevant talk page threads; in the present RfC they each have made somewhere around 30-45 posts each, and the majority of these are large walls of text. The other FRS respondents have contributed perhaps 20 comments between us--every single last one of which has been replied to by one (and usually both) of the two disputants multiple times, thoroughly drowning out all other input with their pedantic bickering. Looking at the talk page revision statistics, we can see that these two both have more than 130KB of contributed talk page content each, and 320KB between them. For comparison, I am in third place with 18KB, and the average among the respondents is probably somewhere around 5KB.

• Heightening the issues is the fact that the vast, vast majority of the content of their debate is borderline relevant to the content determination at best. There is heavy influence of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR on both sides. One of the parties probably could have prevailed very early on in this discussion simply by sticking to a straightforward policy argument regarding synthesis, but instead both have advanced tedious, long-winded arguments that often foreground their perceived personal knowledge and opinions on the sources. Both seem to regard themselves as non-scholar experts on the topic and this seems to mostly have become a grudge match to see their preferred interpretations of the facts prevail. Because of this, any efforts at compromise or principled resolution by following guidelines fail to move either one of them an inch towards the other's position, or any third-party suggested resolution.

• These two have been asked repeatedly by at least four respondents to stop bludgeoning the discussion, and told that they have more than sufficiently made their positions known, and that their behaviour is clearly disruptive and destroying any chance of a consensus outcome, but they both seem utterly incapable of not engaging with eachother in constant tit-for-tat broadsides. The posts of one of the two in particular contain significant evidence of WP:OWN, as well as comments that are at least borderline WP:PA (and certainly WP:AFG violations at the least). But both crossed the WP:DISRUPTIVE threshold long ago and have been told as much. They simply either don't care, or just cannot pull out of this armchair expert dogfight.

I'm aware of the extent of this debate because I have been pinged back by one or the other of these two repeatedly over the last few weeks, and have thus ended up making repeated efforts to referee the matter and build some sort of bridge to a middle ground solution--or at least try to get them to make some limited factual concessions to one-another. Other editors have made similar efforts. It has all been utterly and completely fruitless and I don't have any hope remaining that leaving the RfC open will accomplish anything other than further waste the time of respondents. Unfortunately, if the discussion is closed now, I can't see how the result can be anything but a "no consensus" determination. I'm not 100% enthusiastic with that outcome, because I think forcing the status quo version by default will favor the party who has arguably been the more obstinate and disruptive of the two.

But this is a giant waste of community effort. It is now effectively impossible for new voices to enter or have an impact on the discussion. I brought the matter here rather than ANI because I felt the closure of the discussion by an experienced closer (and ideally an admin) is the simplest solution and I don't have the inclination (nor the time in the coming days even if I did have the desire) to make a case for action/sanctions against the disputants--nor do I think that discussion would be productive. As such, and because no action is being sought with regard to any party, I have opted not to notify them of this request immediately, so that the closer will have time to review the relevant threads without being bombarded by further commentary. If anyone feels this is a breach of the noticeboard rules, please feel free to notify them with my thanks: I will not be able to respond further to the matter personally for at least a couple of days, which makes the timing here awkward, I will grant. But again, I thought this should be seen and addressed sooner rather than later.

In any event, my apologies to whoever has to clean this mess up, but I'm just about to take a hiatus for a few days, and I didn't think leaving this thing live for any longer was in the article's or the community's best interest. Edit: For the record, I've had no previous experience of, nor interaction with, either of the previously mentioned parties, that I can recall, previous to the present RfC. (just realized that is probably worth mentioning). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wow. I think the best course of action at this point is to close the RfC and reopen it with a strict word/post limit on those two editors. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to close that mess. Hut 8.5 12:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Close

I propose that the RFC be "closed as unclosable", and that the two editors in question be page-banned from both the article and the talk page for 45 days, and the RFC restarted. If input from the two editors is needed, they can create sandboxes. Yes, this is a drastic solution to a drastic problem.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd suggest specifying the two editors, and notifying them on their talk pages, now that a ban has been proposed. I believe they haven't been notified yet of this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for noting that Novem: I will notify them myself, given the circumstances. I did let them know about the closure request on the article talk page a few hours ago, but given a proposal has been made that concerns them directly now, I think formal notices are appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Formal notices posted. I will be abstaining from lodging a !vote for the moment, as there is one last effort at compromise being attempted on the talk page, and though I have my doubts about its odds, I feel I should not act to cut short a course of action I urged. As a reminder (and again with apologies), I will be largely unpresent for the next few days, due to serious off-project obligations. Hopefully my thoughts on the dispute are well-represented in the closure proposal and on the article talk page. That said, please feel free to ping or UP notify me if necessary and I will respond just as immediately as I can.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Snow Rise has no say in the matter. I am an experienced WP editor of nearly 16 years standing. I have written the FA India and recently saved the FA Darjeeling for which there is an FSA nomination Snow Rise does not know the first thing about the topic on hand. They appeared out of the blue on the page and have been giving prolix lectures to the both of us. If Snow Rise can prove that I have engaged in original research I will withdraw from Wikipedia and if they don't then they should. It is an open challenge. Either prove it or shut up. I am happy to take this to the highest levels of Wikipedia, and invite an outside expert if need be. I am that sure about how I edit Wikipedia. I have been in academics for upward of 30 years; academics have long debates. Snow Rise, who I don't know where they appeared from or what their story is, is crying "Wolf." I'm pinging some senior admins @RegentsPark, Bishonen, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, El C, MilborneOne, Titodutta, Drmies, and DrKay: This is unheard of. That SnowRise has the temerity to say that they will mostly not be around? Really after maligning my name you are decamping from bearing any responsibility for frivolous actions. I urge you all to take this back before it rebounds on you. I have worked hard on writing the article, 90% of it making nearly 500 edits, and someone can walk off the street and recommend that I can't edit the page for 45 days. What kind of justice is that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  PS I mean I support Close with no consensus and no relisting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  And the same applies to Robert McClenon who is doubly removed from the page's contents. Really? Do you know what a quadruple addorsed lion capital is? Are the lions in it able to sit or must they stand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you do not want the two of us to take part in the next RFC, fine; I'm agreeable to that provided the page is locked for the duration of the RfC. But a page ban without the page being locked is silly. But I want to hear from the senior admins first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  You might want to tone it down. You aren't special for being here 16 years. I have too. That RFC is a bloody mess, so much so that it is doubtful anyone is going to close it on the merits. The proposal to close was given in good faith and is a valid one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say I am special. I did say that I don't do original research. That allegation cannot be made lightly unless someone can prove it. Behavior is different. But an allegation of OR is not about behavior. No one has ever made that about my edits on Wikipedia. You are welcome to find instances of it in my edits. Open challenge it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  There about ten other people who have actually taken part in the RfC, i.e. commented on the content much more than SnowRise has. Have they said anything? Have they been invited to weigh in here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:Fowler&fowler, I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, but I do know that you can't just call me and expect me to read huge chunks of texts about huge conflicts and be a character witness. I know you as a seasoned editor with the best interest of this beautiful project at heart, but that's as far as I'll go. I do not know what this is about and I'm not about to jump into another deep end. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. Not sure myself. I suppose I thought of you because you had once voiced an opinion on similar image-related gray zones in Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming.

  But I understand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please feel free to notify them, Fowler; I for one see no harm in having their input. In fact, their perspectives on that discussion may be useful to the community. As to the remainder of your questions for me, I have taken the time to pull together some of my thoughts, but I have decided, in the interests of keeping the discussion here free of walls of text, that I will respond on your talk page. For transparency, I will post a link here to those comments, when I have finished. Those responses here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Prove that I have done original research in the nearly 500 edits I have made in Lion capital of Ashoka taking it singlehandedly from this state in mid July to this state today by reading 36 sources. Otherwise, please have the decency to withdraw your allegations about my original research. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Otherwise, all this non-mainspace sophistry is of no value Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I will not be responding to you on my user talk page. I have not even read that post. Whatever needs to be said should be said here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's fair enough, insofar as those topics that are appropriate here. But what I have time to say to you (to try to explain why I felt the close necessary) I have already said to you. And others are trying to say the same to you. You can avail yourself or not, as you choose. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Its not my job to inform them. You started this. The onus is on you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's not remotely how this works: no one here is beholden to do something just because you feel it is a good idea. If you want to ping everyone, that is your prerogative: believe me, I am quite okay with having the input from my fellow respondents who walked into that mess; I have very little doubt that they will have takeaways substantially similar to my own. But I'm not going to be bullied into dragging them into a discussion they did not ask to be a part of just because you have randomly decided you are entitled to it. But again, please ping away, at your discretion. Just don't say you weren't warned! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's the allegation of original research that you need to defend here, not give me advice. So again please be specific. Where have I engaged in original research in Lion capital of Ashoka? If you don't have an answer, please withdraw the comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fowler, I have no more time to give you, I'm sorry. I just don't. I have wasted hours (no, scratch that--weeks) trying to, frankly, protect you from yourself and the huge sanction you seem to be actively trying to bring down on your head. You and Pat pinged me to that discussion nine times over the last month (and you yourself pinged me just nine hours ago), cc'ing me on every pedantic turn of discussion about how many spokes that damn wheel had. I am not your employee. And whether you choose to believe it or not, I went to considerable effort over those weeks, and when I framed the proposal above, to try to help you avoid the outcome you are now facing, while still somehow bringing the disruption (that I remind you, you kept bringing me back to witness!) to an end. There's so much more that could have been added there that I discretely avoided pointing out, to try to channel the community response into the (very much needed) closure. My friend, you posted more than 40x as much content as the average participant of those threads, excluding yourself and Pat, who did the same and then some. Let me make sure you know that was not a typo: forty times. How could you possibly think that was helpful or in proportion to what your input ought to count for in a collaborative process, let alone an RfC? How many times were you and Pat asked to stop going at eachother and just could not WP:DROPTHESTICK? How could you think that it would be a winning strategy to try to defend that behaviour here by predicating everything in your on- and off-project credentials and announcing how indispensable you are and what an outrage this all is? Fowler, you pinged like eight admins to a discussion I promise you that you don't really want their eyes on, like they were bodyguards. You've really been on this project sixteen years? How could you not know that these things would not fly!?

• Look, I haven't responded to the WP:OR thing because I just don't have the time (I really don't have the time for this, more fool me), and because it's just not very relevant. I get that it's the part that is really rubbing you raw, I do. But it is mostly a content issue that exacerbated the behavioural issues that are the real reason you are here now. The bludgeoning and inability to behave in a collaborative fashion have clearly been identified for you as the problems, and are the reason why a pageban has been proposed against you (and not by me: I'll remind you I haven't even !voted in support of it!). I will answer your questions regarding that issue when I have the time (and patience) but the fact that you are taking such umbrage to it tells me that it is likely to be a long and complicated conversation, and I am done with long and complicated conversations with you for now. And for the record, I am not saying I think you have altered the article with OR (I haven't seen the edit history in enough detail to even know) only that a fair number of your arguments on that page relied on it. I trust my fellow community members and the admins here to be able to determine if that is accurate, if the community decides that the ban turns on the issue of OR. But we won't. You've been told what the problem is: there and here. The problem is, you don't know when to stop. So somebody else has to. Good day. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  SnowRise let's rap 23:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  SnowRise let's rap 02:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  No one pinged you there. You inserted yourself. Please don't lay the blame for your uninvited volubility at our doorstep. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  <<<you yourself pinged me just nine hours ago), cc'ing me on every pedantic turn of discussion about how many spokes that damn wheel had. I am not your employee.

  But I pinged everyone who had voted because I was making a proposal. No one else seemed to have such a violent reaction, especially not after they told my interlocutor to accept my proposal at 21:29, 23 August 2022, but had already filed this AN thread 24 hours earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't "insert" myself anywhere, I was a randomly selected FRS respondent to the RfC. Do you just not know what that is...or, what is going on here? And yes, after I lodged my !vote and left, I was pinged back there nine times, including four times by you. Anyone can check the logs to confirm that.

Fowler, I have absolutely no skin in this game: I did (and still do) consider the issues you and Pat could not stop tearing into eachother over trivial in the extreme. Call me a luddite, but even as a student of history and a lover of art and architecture, I just cannot fathom anything more inconsequential than what angle a wheel sat at on top of a column somewhere, once upon a time... And that's not me casting judgment on you two for caring as much as you do about it: I'm just trying to tell you I had no inherent interest in that topic. Had you stopped pinging me (and let's be clear: I did ignore most of the pings) I would never have thought to come back to the discussion. But you two did ping me, repeatedly. And every time I did go back there, you two had added another 15-25 posts/40-60KB of comments each. So I (like a bunch of other editors) mentioned that was...let's say, suboptimal. It's really that simple.

And what "violent reaction": I super politely suggested to your rhetorical opponent that they accept your compromise, is what I did. And I did that specifically so that the issues could be resolved then and there and this proposal could be closed as moot, and you and Pat could dodge sanctions. And I know that you know that, because I said as much in the post you just cited; how on earth are you trying to twist any of that into a negative for you? This is ridiculous. I'm not enabling these games any more. And I don't know how you think they can be helping your cause here. I'm done. Good luck. If this is your idea of how to address community concerns, you're gonna need it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant this ---> "cc'ing me on every pedantic turn of discussion about how many spokes that damn wheel had. I am not your employee." is a violent reaction. If you did not understand it (and you won't understand every argument in every RfC), you don't respond. An editor who out of politeness is pinging all the participants so that they are aware of the new proposal is not dialing 911. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• You started an AN thread about me at 12:34, 22 August 2022. You informed me about it at 23:38, 23 August 2022 Thank you very much for the consideration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  And Robert M. made the proposal for banning me from editing the page that only I have worked hard to shape at 22:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC) It is all well and good to make holier-than-thou remarks about OWN until you have to write something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. What a tremendous mess. The two users have had ample opportunity to provide input on the talk page already, and new participants can refer to those existing comments if they want. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  And how will they be determining that when my interlocutor, the nominator of the RfC keeps changing the sources in statement long after people have voted? They have just added one

  I pointed out the flaws in two sources in my proposal yesterday, so now they've quietly changed the sources, not even adding them at the end. And they haven't edited the RfC section to add that source (which frankly looks like a security guard's badge), but edited the whole talk page at the top to add it. This is not the first time they've done this. After I caught them doing this earlier, they've reluctantly begun to add a note on the side, but no signature. But the damage is done. The RfC has failed as the sources have not added up. So, they've changed the sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Banning both editors from the article entirely for 45 days seems a little excessive, but I agree with closing and restarting the RfC and either banning them from participating entirely or restricting them to one short word-limited post each with no replies. This communication style is positively disruptive, is a huge deterrent to anyone else participating, and has prevented any kind of consensus from being reached here. Hut 8.5 07:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I support that. One short word-limited post each with no replies.

  The current RfC was dead in the water from the outset. It began with the RfC statment and a 2,558 byte prepared personal statement being posted by the nominator at the same time 6:32 28 July 2022. The nominator then made 22 edits at 6:33, 6:35, 6:37, 6:38, 6:41, 6:45, 7:01, 7:09, 7:12, 7:23, 7:37, 7:38, 7:44, 7:45, 7:46, 7:49, 7:54, 7:56, 8:02, 8:06, and 8:09. By that time the RfC looked like this. It had 11 sources. As of this morning it has 26 sources and one security guard's badge.

  Most have been added (without a signature) long after people had voted. We all thought they were a part of the RfC. It was not until August 14 that I added a clarification note separating the RfC statement from the nominator's justification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's definitely not the major problem with the current RfC. Hut 8.5 17:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment by the nominator of the RfC Although the RfC in question has been "drowned" in numerous comments and diversions (200k or so), and is effectively being derailed, a total of 11 users have been able to voice their opinion, with roughly 8 users in favour of the RfC proposal, and 3 against (all broadly construed). I trust that, however long and tortuous the debate, the voice of the community of editors has been heard, and that this should open the way for a fair representation of the reconstructions of the Lion capital of Ashoka in the article, ideally in a paragaph entitled Academic reconstructions [46], reflecting the various sources we have. I've made the case to the best of my ability, and have remained courteous and factual throughout, but if nobody wants to actually read the RfC and count the votes (although I certainly understand closing a RfC is not just counting votes, but is also an analysis of the merits), then so be it, I will defer to the community's will. I do not intend to comment further. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have gone through all the sources you have provided. Not one agree with another. Either there is a difference in placement, or orientation, or number of spokes, etc. All this can be discussed in its own section, of course, being mindful of the WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH etc. But creating your own visual is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in this case, and it is meaningless to visually depict each and every reconstruction out there under WP:GALLERY etc. I mention this here because these issues will keep coming back even if you are able to push this through the RfC. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The issue is now irrecoverable. I don't really get why editors of their (self-proclaimed) experience and knowledge felt it necessary to stoop to this level of pettiness over such a minor issue, but it's certain that they've eliminated any hope of any accepted consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a minor issue. It is a notion promoted by a handful of fringe sources of 60 years ago. Adding it makes the whole article unreliable. If the fringe stuff and the synthesis is included, I'm pretty sure it will not pass FAC whenever the rest of the article is in shape. I've taken them to RS/N. People there have spoken. But they don't listen. They think an RfC where most people will not know enough, nor have the time to probe, might be a good way to get the stuff in. So, the new approach is: start an RfC. Always remain polite. Always include a dozen sources in each reply of yours but don't say anything. It might push you over the top. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Two editors have collectively written several volumes -- probably over a thousand pages now -- about the number of spokes and placement of a wheel that forms part of the topper of an ancient column. Nobody knows exactly how this capital was arranged, but the editors have sent weeks (months?) analyzing various photographs and descriptions, drawing their own images, and then arguing vociferously about whose drawing is best. Anyone who thinks this is important, or that this is what discussion looks like, needs a break. Levivich 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it is important. My point is it needs to be kept out of the article, as Chaipau above has observed. Including it makes the whole article unreliable. Reliability is a non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia. I'm happy to short-circuit the whole process and ask an outside academic expert to weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Seemingly necessary at this stage and also necessary for sending the message. desmay (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  The RfC has been withdrawn and closed by the nominator. See note and diff below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Message from Fowler&fowler and Pat, per email agreement

"We would like to announce that User:Fowler&fowler and User:पाटलिपुत्र ("Pat") have finally found agreement, and would like to apologize to the community for the time and effort spent on our dispute. We will endeavour to edit collaborately in the future and make proper use of the resources of the community. Sorry again for the disturbance, and thank you all."
Pat's signature: पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's signature: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• That is a refreshing and welcome sight. Thank you, both of you. The question remains, however, as to what we need to do with this RFC. Putting all personal issues aside, it is really difficult for a closer to navigate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think Pat has already withdrawn the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean closed. See here. Thank you again all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 24 August 2022 (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.

Feedback on Vector (2022) conversation

Hello! On behalf of the WMF Web team, I wanted to draw your attention to a conversation currently underway on WP:VPR (see the beginning of the discussion) around adopting Vector 2022 as the new default skin. We have been working on the new skin for the past three years, collaborating with the English Wikipedia community as well as other wikis where it's already the default to ensure that the skin performs better qualitatively and quantitatively for readers and communities than the previous Vector skin.

For the past couple of months, we have collected thoughts from the community on what changes need to be made to the skin prior to it being considered ready for deployment. Our next step would be to start an RfC to assess whether the community considers the skin ready.

Prior to the beginning of the RfC, we wanted to encourage your feedback on the skin within the current conversation. Apart from introducing a new look and feel, the skin has not made any significant changes to admin tools or gadgets. However, we are eager to learn more about how the changes will affect your workflows, or any other concerns you might have. We would also like to confirm that we will continue to maintain all existing skins, including the current version of the Vector skin and Monobook. No changes are expected for users of these skins. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Block on Dracula (1897) for 2 weeks

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.

---

"However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers. Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact, but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers."

I felt I was quite civil in my edits, never resorting to insults, or name calling, and open to discussion. Perhaps I should have taken the discussion to the talk page, but really, my concern was for Dracula itself. Guidelines aside, is it necessary to ruin the novel for thousands upon thousands who click on this page? In the very first paragraph on the page, mind you, is it essential to the quality of the article to give away key moments in the plot? Where is the tact, and respect to the work itself? Wikipedia is better than this. Michael0986 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no "perhaps". You should have discussed it on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pinging Premeditated_Chaos who may want to be aware of this, as the admin who instituted the action Michael0986 seems to be alluding to: possibly Michael is unaware of the normal WP:APPEAL process, being a newish user and, and given no notice of the block appears on the talk page, presumably because it was a pageban and not a standard block. I will add only that it seems Michael was in no way blocked for their take on the issue (or incivility in their comments insofar as the block log reveals), but rather for repeated edit warring. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, my edits were not made for the sake of starting controversy. I provided a logical explanation on each edit as to why I made the change. I don't edit for the sake of "warring" with others. My edits were for the benefit of the page, well, I think so anyway, others obviously don't. But I stand by that the spoilers in the first paragraph on that page is unnecessary, it goes against what a good lead should provide to an article of fiction. Michael0986 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Plain and simple. Even if you weren't edit warring, you were flat wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll take you at your word as to all of that, but edit war you did, and according to the blocking admin, it's not your first instance of this--nor your first warning, according to your talk page. Edit warring is not considered a trivial matter here, I'm afraid: the collaborative process is held central to the functioning of this project, and edit warring WP:disruptive of its functioning. If you're interested in appealing via the WP:UNBLOCK process, you'll have to give believable assurances it won't happen again.

Regarding your policy argument itself, although this is not really the place to be discussing content issues or policies, I will say this: the problem with your rationale, as considerate as you are trying to be of those readers, is that I think you will find that, in your own terms, almost all veteran Wikipedians consider a fulsome discussion of the plots of most works of fiction almost always "substantially enhances the understanding of the topic" for readers, broadly speaking. And that any person coming to an encyclopedia article for a narrative work of any sort can probably be presumed to understand that they will likely find a description of its content which may ruin dramatic tension or shed light on almost any aspect of the work.

My perception is that this is the overwhelmingly prevalent view here, though I will admit to sometimes, in very rare circumstances, having personally exercised nuance in how I described certain elements, along the same lines of your logic. But there's no policy-consistent way to enforce that standard, and I think that's for the better. In any event, what you'll want to do is discuss this matter on the relevant policy talk pages (see WP:SPOILER/Wikipedia talk:SPOILER, for a start, and I forget the relevant WP:MOS section, but that's another touchstone, as I recall. Or at WP:VPP. But I can't say as you're likely to have much luck moving the needle on this one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Shame, well, I won't even bother wasting time with this then. The work itself is more important than any of our opinions, and seeing as Wiki has a prominent place in modern society, as to encyclopedic research for millions, it's such a pity is all I can say. I feel for all the people who never read the work before, who click on the page, and read those spoilers in the very first paragraph. Surely, the Plot section is where such descriptions should be left, but oh well. Michael0986 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2022 (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.

• Snow Rise, this is largely moot since the above is closed, but I did tell the user they were blocked on their page page, right under the warning template for edit-warring. I just did it in plain text rather than using a template. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I figured it was something like that--I'll be honest, I just kinda did a drive by look because I knew this thread was probably destined for quick closure. ;) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hah, very fair :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My user account was deleted without an explanation. I've been editing for several months. Don't know where to get help.

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.

---

My user account was deleted without an explanation. I've been editing for several months and my edits no longer needed approval. My user name was Chico1112 and you can see my edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most-liked_Instagram_posts&action=history and this is the deletion log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Chico1112 Please help. I don't want to lose my several month history of edits that you can see on the Revision History page in the first URL above. My computer recently shut down and I had been logged in on a Firefox private page browsing page? --47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC) 47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

already answered at the Help Desk. [47] Please don't raise the same issue in multiple places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry. I don't know the ropes around here at all. Will not do that again. Thanks. 47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (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.

Is disclosed paid editing allowed?

Refering to something that happened today I'm asking if it is ok to edit Wikipedia articles if you are a paid Wikipedian who discloses the COI and tries to follow the Wikipedia policies as well as they can? I get that it is "strongly discouraged" as most of the paid editors are newbies who don't know the policies yet. But as a long time editor I think I know *something* about good sources, copyrights, wording and such. So there's a discussion on going about wether I should be blocked now, assuming the reason being I'm not using AFC process. Quite often I'm translating the Wikipedia articles from Finnish to English and the translation tool suggests that the articles go directly to the main space, not to draft-universe. Jjanhone (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You know the answer to this, as it's been discussed before. The issues with your editing aren't that you're paid, it's that you refuse to actually follow other editors suggestions, you frequently create copyright violations and violate NPOV. And lest we not forget the canvassing and sock puppetry that resulted in your 2021 block.

This was discussed thoroughly in 2020 and 2021. Links for those unaware: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Misuse_of_the_Paid_template, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jjanhone, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking_a_paid_Wikipedia_editor.

I don't know why you can't follow the instructions we give to all paid editors, it would save a lot of time for everyone involved including yourself if you'd just go through the review process, so we don't wind up with complete cruft like this in mainspace.

Also pinging those involved in the last few discussion: @Athaenara:, @Deepfriedokra:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Blablubbs:, @GeneralNotability:, @Joe Roe:. Sorry if I missed anyone. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This is also yet another example of you WP:FORUMSHOPPING as pointed out in another AN/ANI thread. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As well as you can? The instructions are quite simple. It's a pity if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia as you seem unable to follow the same rules as every unpaid editor of Wikipedia, let alone WP:PAID. SMDH. @Praxidicae:. I've no recollection of this user, of course, but is there a need for a WP:CBAN? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue isn't necessarily that they are paid, it's more so that they are not competently able to edit and do so in a way that is disruptive, including creating blatant PR spam and copyright violations. But this was already explained to them and seems to come up every few months when they do not get their way. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Also for posterity, they have been told and asked by multiple editors to stop editing directly for their clients: User_talk:Jjanhone#Paid_editing, User_talk:Jjanhone#Ken_Banks, User_talk:Jjanhone#October_2020, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_165#Neste due to their inability to competently edit said articles but continue to engage in Wikilawyering instead of making simple requests. So tl;dr, this is a case of rehashing the same thing every year and WP:IDHT. Quite literally this has been discussed wrt their comments about translation going into mainspace as well as many other pseudo-concerns they've brought up. They've even been warned multiple times on their home-wiki in their native language see here PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• The bottom line is that disclosed paid editors are tolerated, but if they step out of line, which includes taking up the time of volunteer editors, they are not. It is your job, for which you are paid, to make sure that you follow all relevant policies. Why would anyone pay you if you do not do the basics of your job? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• I honestly fail to see why we continue to tolerate Jjanhone's editing, I would agree with Deepfriedokra's proposal for a CBAN. They have made an enormous mess of promotional, copyvio rubbish by copying and pasting material from various companies press releases because, per their own admission, they struggle to write things in their own words in English. I had a look at one of their articles a while back, and found it to be essentially an advert - it was extremely promotional and in need of a complete rewrite, see here. They also seem to mistakenly think that the fact that they have declared that they are paid for editing means that they cannot be criticised, and that no-one else is allowed to revert, delete or touch their edits. I too have noticed the constant WP:Wikilawyering, constantly pushing right up to the limit of what is allowed regardless of whether it's in the best interest of the project and disregard for advice offered in good faith. I honestly think that the amount of volunteer time required to clean up after them far outweighs the promotional junk they add for their clients. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and their fiwiki talk page is even more telling. This is the definition of WP:NOTHERE - they are here to promote only their clients (and themselves as per their self disclosed accounts on their userpage). PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Then let's make this a formal discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something isn't much of this disruptive even without the WP:PAID angle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, which is more or less what Smartse pointed out a year or two ago. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae; have there been any copyvios since the CCI has opened? Because we may have to extend Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jjanhone with all the edits up to now in that case. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae was there anything other than minor close paraprasing? (do you have actual examples which can be diffed or copy pasted from version history of deleted articles) -- Zache (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Zache; see the CCI I posted one comment up. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Sennecaster Yes, I meant specifically that CCI. Afaik all of the documented examples there were about close paraphrasing at most. Now that CCI as proof for significant copyvio problems [48] and constant copyright violations [49] as the basis for the permanent CBAN which is pretty much a false argument based on the proof. -- Zache (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can strike that from the argument, but the pettifogging and incompetence still remain, and those are themselves reason for a CBan. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for striking it. About the rest, I think that situation is more complex than just pettifogging and incompetence. Jjanhonen has been editing for 14 years and at that time she has organized workshops, written articles about Wikimedia for newspapers, volunteered in Wikimedia events, been active in social media communication of Finnish Wikimedia groups, etc. As long as I have known her (I met her first time 2013 on Open Knowledge Foundation's tour when she did a Wikipedia presentation) she has been an open data and open source enthusiast. She has also been very open that would try to earn living from it. I think that she is genuinely trying to figure out what the best practices would be. Paid editing, however, is complex least to say and I agree that if one does paid editing then it is the writer's responsibility not to leave articles to be fixed by volunteers. If the editor fails to do so then the community has the right to limit the editing. However, A permanent full CBAN feels like the wrong tool in this case when the editor is a good faith editor and personally I would just give a topic ban not to do paid editing in enwiki. Ban could be reconsidered after two years if the user has proven that the editor can write proper articles. etc. -- Zache (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  As Jjanhone has said herself, 95% of her edits are paid. Regardless of her activity in other areas of the movement, she has made practically no constructive contributions to this project over the last ten years. Monitoring that she is sticking to a topic ban would just be yet another waste of volunteer time. – Joe (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, in case anyone else is confused that is not even the primary reason I suggested for banning Jjanhone - it's a combination of everything, leading ultimately to severe incompetence on her part which volunteer editors are spending their valuable time cleaning up. The fact that she's paid certainly compounds that but this would be a significant issue, with the same outcome even if she weren't. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Community ban discussion - Jjanhone

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 argue that, due to the obvious incompetence of Jjanhone's editing (including but not limited to constant copyright violations and the constant pettifogging about them) we should be removing Jjanhone from the project entirely. Any other user who repeatedly commits copyright violations on this scale would already be indefinitely blocked, and it's clear they have no interest in listening to valid criticism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support a full cban is what is needed - Jjanjhoe has had more than enough time and experience that they should be competent enough to make reasonable edits, but they demonstrate time and time again that they can't and that they are WP:NOTHERE. Their talk page on fiwiki is full of the same warnings and their refusal to work with other editors and instead default to constant wikilawayering is a time sink and requires too many editors to waste their valuable time cleaning up after them. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support as I said I would above, per the long history of problematic and disruptive edits. There are two fundamental issues with Jjanhone's editing in my opinion: They lack the English and editorial skills necessary to contribute here, resulting in them constantly producing promotional Marketing speak in mangled English, and they persistently disregard any concerns raised or suggestions about their editing and push right to the limit of what is allowed, despite it often being obviously a bad idea or disruptive. While this would probably eventually lead to a block for any editor the fact they are paid for their contributions here only makes it worse in my view - the first of these issues requires that unpaid volunteers have to spend time cleaning up a mess another editor was paid to make, and the second issue massively frustrates any attempts to help Jjanhone improve. Look at the issue that stated this thread for example, it is completely reasonable to expect an editor with a history of NPOV and copyright issues to use AFC, but Jjanhone's attitude is that unless it is a hard line requirement in policy they are not going to do it and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support as WP:CIR especially if you have decided to take the money. Also support a community wide discussion of giving Admins discretion to deal with problemntic Paid editors specifically main space bans and mandatory AfC submission sanction. Neither which would help here, but could reduce time sinks in the future. Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This kind of editing degrades the quality of this encyclopedia as well as creating one timesink after another as basic policies and guidelines are asked to be thrashed out yet again. – Athaenara ✉ 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: I support a permanent block from editing, I am not opposing a "ban". – Athaenara ✉ 01:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• This case seems to be one of the reasons I'd prefer more "must" and less "should", more "prohibited from" and less "strongly discouraged from", in the COI guideline. If there is the tiniest bit of allowance between bolded requests not to do something, it will be taken disruptively proving all of the concerns correct, and there will be attempts to have endless, one-sidedly financially influenced, arguments about the guideline. One of these attempts involved the creation of this noticeboard section, and it should be closed with a community ban to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support after reviewing their total *.wikipedia history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the question " If my edits are that bad, how come my stats show that I have "Live edits 3,802 (98.6%)" vs "Deleted edits 55 (1.4%)"?", the number of of live vs deleted edits isn't relative to quality of work. People who spend their time tagging poor articles for CSD will have a high proportion of their edits as "deleted", people who only copy edit will have a low proportion as "deleted". Both are equally worthwhile activities. Almost all vandalism is not deleted, so a long time vandal will have a low proportion of "deleted" edits. I have 7.8% of my edits deleted, for that matter, due to tagging for AFD and CSD, as well as deleting things. Your argument is invalid, Jjanhone as the ratio of live vs. deleted edits is useless in determining the worthiness of a person's time at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support and, given years of patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK, I think ToBeFree has a very good point. This discussion isn't the place to change that policy but if there's ever a serious attempt, I'd be on-board. --Yamla (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I did some digging, and it seems that there was a proposal a couple years ago to require the use of AfC for COI editors here that was never "officially" closed. I have not read the entire discussion but numerically there appears to have been more opposition than support. The main argument in opposition was that making it a firm requirement would only discourage disclosure. HouseBlaster^talk 00:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support a longterm block, rather than CBAN, to start. The problem here, as I see it, dovetails with ToBeFree's comments; Jjanjhoe just hasn't crossed any brightline rules clearly enough to warrant a CBAN as the first line of action. At least, not as has been demonstrated here: I have not had the opportunity to explore their edit history in great detail, only doing a quick census of some randomly selected recent edits. This certainly was enough to suggest to me that there are definite issues with their prose, which are clearly attributable to their promotional objectives. And I am by no means opposed in general to supporting sanctions on a pragmatic/no-red-line-crossed basis, if I think it is overwhelmingly in the interest of the project to err on the side of saved volunteer time. Especially as our work falls on fewer and fewer shoulders in terms of regular veteran editors.

But in these circumstances, I'm not sure I can agree that a CBAN is the right balance, when paid editors are kind of channeled somewhat into these situations by our own half-measure guidelines, as they currently stand. I think there's a chance that this editor (who does at least approach their COI transparently and politely, as far as I have seen so far) might adjust their approach to be more in line with what we expect of COI editors, after a six month block. Otherwise, I suspect they might just be encouraged to try a ban evasion and start up with a new account, since they don't seem to have one major client to be linked to and thus easily caught for socking for. And after-all, that's kind of why we have the COI policy that we do now. Not because many of us think it is a good thing they are here, or that paid editors should be allowed just because of how WP:ABOUT starts, but because it keeps these otherwise problematic editors working within a framework with better oversight. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a little embarrassing, but I didn't chase down the SPI report before commenting, and looking into the details a bit, it seems a very convincing case of some combination of socking and meatpuppetry operation. I'm frankly surprised they got off as lightly as they did: GN must have been in an optimistic disposition that day. This casts a new light on/combines with the other significant concerns to create a pretty bad picture. I'm afraid I must therefore support the CBAN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support This editor has subjected this encyclopedia to 14 years of stubbornness, wikilawyering, copyvios, poor quality writing and promotional content, all in a desperate attempt to make a buck. Enough is enough. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - an editor with Jianhone's experience (both with editing and being explained en.wiki policy) should be displaying a higher degree of aptitude and WP:COMPETENCE. This is evidently not the case, and instead their edits (evidenced by the various discussions linked) have instead been a drain on some editors' time, bringing Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free to mind. Jianhone's pointing to their use of the translation tool as their reason for their publishing of articles in the mainspace smacks of WP:WIKILAWYERING, and is flimsy given they wrote many of the articles on fi.wiki that were then translated. En.wiki does not need to maintain this type of editor per WP:NOTHERE and this behavior is not constructive in the long term. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per SamHolt6. Our long-suffering community need not endure this ongoing problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Time is the community's most valuable resource. Anyone who insists on wasting it time and time again due to their own incompetence cannot be permitted to remain a part of the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. 86.23.* put it extremely well above. The problem with Jjanhone's edits are not that they're paid per se, but that she makes a habit of constantly pushing right up to the limit of what is allowed regardless of whether it's in the best interest of the project. Previous attempts to get Jjanhone to stay within the same guidelines we expect other disclosed paid editors to respect always end up like this, with deflection and wikilawyering. However after literally years of sapping volunteer energy over the same repeating issues (which many other disclosed paid editors seem to have no problems with), it should be obvious that Jjanhone is a net negative and that a ban is overdue. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Against, Jjanhone has been transparent on her paid editing and easily well enough if the paid editing is allowed all. The negative side is that if you do so then you will be targeted by DIE-SPAMMER-DIE style editors and articles are flood flagged with Cleanup-PR and other problem templates without any actual review with the only reason that it was edited by a paid editor. (I think that the COI presented was not problematic as presented but needed some actions, copyright violations presented were close paraphrasing of short texts or not even that) Also, a paid editor cannot remove those templates then the editor is required to ask for input from other users. However, it is not much else that the editor can do than start discussions that are felt as disruptive and Wikilawyering. --Zache (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Joe Roe, Premeditated Chaos, SamHolt6, & Cullen328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Not much has changed in the last two years since I requested that they stop editing articles directly. They continue to introduce promotional content and are seemingly unable to change. Whilst some of their content is okay, the net contribution is negative due to the amount of time that others have to spend tidying up after them. SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Administrative comment: Jjanhone has made the following statement on their user page and asked it to be copied here. Sandstein 12:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Jjanhone
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jéské Couriano told that there are "constant copyright violations" from me. Are there really? Since this claim came up few years ago, I've been very careful about not repeating the mistakes I made earlier while I created en-articles using en-sources. More often I create the content using fi-sources to fi-Wikipedia and when they've been translated I add them to en-Wikipedia. As my mother tongue is Finnish, also my synonym storage is wider in Finnish so it's easier to avoid the potential copyright issues in this process. Praxidicae told that "janjhoe has had more than enough time and experience that they should be competent enough to make reasonable edits". Athaenara said that "This kind of editing degrades the quality of this encyclopedia" while Dennis_Brown said they "Support after reviewing their total *.wikipedia history." If my edits are that bad, how come my stats show that I have "Live edits 3,802 (98.6%)" vs "Deleted edits 55 (1.4%)"? 86.23.109.101 said that I "lack the English and editorial skills necessary to contribute here". Is en-Wikipedia meant for native English speakers only? I've written e.g. this text by myself, not using a translation tool. I've studied English since I was 9 years old and used it also as working language for 11 years while I worked in Nokia and also after that while I worked in Austria. I will never be a native, but I think I'm fluent enough for operating here. 86.23.109.101 said also that "Look at the issue that stated this thread for example, it is completely reasonable to expect an editor with a history of NPOV and copyright issues to use AFC, but Jjanhone's attitude is that unless it is a hard line requirement in policy they are not going to do it and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it." And there's a reason for that. I've made some edit requests in the past and they've stayed unanswered for months, even years. The reason I started the discussion yesterday was to get a decision from a broader community if I could continue editing Wikipedia with the old way or if I need to change the way. As long as the policy says "should" instead of "must", there's this possibility in the air, just as ToBeFree mentioned. Ping also HouseBlaster & Yamla Snow_Rise was thinking that "I suspect they might just be encouraged to try a ban evasion and start up with a new account, since they don't seem to have one major client to be linked to and thus easily caught for socking for. And after-all, that's kind of why we have the COI policy that we do now. Not because many of us think it is a good thing they are here, or that paid editors should be allowed just because of how WP:ABOUT starts, but because it keeps these otherwise problematic editors working within a framework with better oversight." I'm not tempted to create new accounts but in case my ban stays, I guess I start teaching my customers to edit their own content from now on. I hope teaching is not considered "meatpuppetry"! Snow_Rise also mentioned the old case "it seems a very convincing case of some combination of socking and meatpuppetry operation". The case was that all the pages I had ever edited in En-Wikipedia (and even some that I had not edited but that I had marked as my customers) were marked with a tag saying they contain paid content and are that's why problematic. As the guide tells that when ever this kind of tag is added it must contain a reasoning too. It wasn't, other than that I had disclosed. I got upset because of this because as I felt it was not fair at all. Why was I the only paid editor who was being tagged this way? The guide also told that if the tag was added without reasoning ANYONE is entitled to remove it. I told about this to my customers and some of them removed the tag. So that was my sin, I never socked and have not asked my customers to edit themselves since. For that case I already got my punishment. How many times can I be punished for something I did years ago? Athaenara said also here that "It seems to me that User:Jjanhone may be making a tidy little living out of editing Wikipedia". So is my sin also that I've edited too much? On John Broughton's list of paid editors there's only seven accounts mentioned. I believe he has done good job in finding us so the amount of paid editors who follow the COI rules is not even two handfuls. The last edits of these users are: BC1278 (22 May 2022), CorporateM (18 Aug 2022), Mr RD (25 Dec 2021), Birulik (11 Nov 2021), WWB Too (25 Aug 2022) and 16912 Rhiannon (19 Jul 2022). And I was editing yesterday.

• Thanks - it appears that Jianhone has been indeffed by Athaenara independently of this discussion? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, this discussion is still valid, as this is a different sanction for a long pattern of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The IP 86.23 puts it very well here - volunteers should not be expected to clear up after paid editors. They are producing too much poorly written and promotional content.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN and endorse Athaenara's block, which I was also prepared to make. Long term time sink with no net positive value. Star Mississippi 17:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban based on everything said above, especially how their presence undermines the volunteer collaborative efforts here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• While the conclusion here is foregone, the ban seems entirely punitive. A block from main space would be enough to reduce wasted volunteer time while also forcing her to go through the requested methods to edit as a paid contributor (edit requests on talk page and AFC). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I second this notion. It would have been enough to block her from creating or editing mainspace articles. JIP | Talk 03:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:59, 27 August 2022 (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.

Possible Sock Farm at List of colleges in Mumbai

I've protected the page. But someone with access to a magic 8 ball might want to have a look at the recent activity at List of colleges in Mumbai: Revision history - Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I only just found this notice. I found one of them on my watchlist; it seems to be a colossally ill-conceived student project that made all sorts of useless drafts. I went and indefblocked all the associated accounts until we can get a handle on exactly what's going on; see the relevant part of my block log. Graham87 10:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's add SIES Nerul to the list. I briefly consulted a magic 8 ball, and there's no real clues, other than the guess about students looking about right, nor any complaints about the current block situation. There's a handful of spare accounts, some have edited, perhaps similarly, I haven't blocked them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87 @Zzuuzz Many thanks for the backup. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive, non responsive beauty pageant editor (26 August)

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

I filed before on 8 July. The complaint is a disruptive beauty pageant SPA who as far as I can tell has never responded on their talkpage or any talkpage about disruptive editing. They have been warned by me five times in July and August: [50][51][52][53][54].

I'm asking for a block or other appropriate action under the beauty pageants general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• They are on mobile, so they probably have not seen any talk page comments (it's a bug that the Foundation hasn't fixed because they are too busy trying to raise more money). Sometimes, the only way to get their attention is to block them to get them to ask "why?". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Getting their attention in any way would be appreciated. Since I filed, they added another Facebook "source" to the pageant article [55]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I've indef blocked them. Any admin can unblock without consulting me once they communicate and understand what is going on, as the block is only for that purpose. It is disruptive at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Hi Bri, just for the record, there is no such thing as "beauty pageants general sanctions" for blocks (or any other action than indefinite semi-protection). This is a common misunderstanding. The community has authorized one very specific measure, indefinite semi-protection of articles edited by sockpuppets, not the usual "discretionary sanctions". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically

An arbitration case regarding Jonathunder has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended on request by Jonathunder within six months. Jonathunder has not requested that the case be revived, and therefore it has been automatically closed. The motion triggering this process is available to read here at the case page.

For the arbitration committee, firefly ( t · c ) 09:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically

Authority control - ISNI in Wikidata but not shown

Jean-Paul Laurens#Further reading - ISNI in Wikidata but not shown in English Wikipedia. 77.191.176.0 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• No idea why this is on this noticeboard, but for art and artists there is a subtemplate of authority control (Template:ACArt) which suppresses all less relevant links (for enwiki) from the quite bloated authority control template. They are, as you found, still available on Wikidata, together with many links which are never shown in authority control in the first place. Fram (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Fram, thank you. It is here, because I had no idea where else I could get help. The art-specific one is clearly mislabelled if it runs under the same label as the general one. I now asked there to stop supressing the number one international identifier for "notable" humans. 77.191.176.0 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Zabukh

Why I can not express my opinion on the Talk page of the site in the subject. 194.135.153.161 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM, which specifically addresses this. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zabukh 194.135.153.161 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: notified as (partial) blocking admin. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, Could User:Davey2010/UPTPheader · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] and User:Davey2010/Talkpageheader · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] be undeleted please ? (Both deleted in 2014 requested by me) - Looking to reuse one or the other but cannot remember for the life of me what either of these pages were), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davey2010  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you @Ad Orientem, greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on lifting of BLP ban

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.

---

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Good day editors

Just over a year ago I wrote about sensitive aspects of Belarusian politics and did not provide acceptable sources for some of my statements. I appealed my ban about a third into it which was not well received. I understand that any statements, regard living persons especially, in all namespaces, need to be appropriately sourced and not contain a non-neutral point of view. I want to stress that I am a long term contributor to Wikipedia, having focused the majority of my contributions to the Icelandic Wikipedia, but have increasingly switched to the English one. I do understand BLP policy, I made a mistake and furthermore in trying to defend my original mistake rather than accepting criticism. I see that clearly with distance on it. My suggestion for anyone sceptical of my integrity would be to look at my edits to 2011 Minsk Metro bombing, a sensitive topic but you could also look at Alexander Lukashenko, Constitution of Belarus.

I have adhered to the ban for the past year. Mostly contributing around the important Belarusian historical figure, Konstanty Kalinowski with one accidental breach, see Talk:Soft_Belarusization.

Pinging @Nick, @El C, @Bbb23, @Robert McClenon, @HighInBC, @Deepfriedokra, @Ncmvocalist, @Celestina007, @Jackattack1597, @Meters, @Cullen328, @Pawnkingthree, @Isaacl

My question is simply if the ban can be lifted and I am allowed to edit BLP.

Thanks for your time, Jabbi (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jabbi: You edited Alexander Lukashenko? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Now I remember . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I support lifting the topic ban. BTW, couldn't you have started off with "Hello editors"? GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting the topic ban, regardless of whether it is about to expire anyway. There have been no new issues in about a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban. It has been more than one year, and the user's limited editing on English Wikipedia during that time shows no problems. Meters (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my original reasoning in the ANI thread that resulted in the ban. I don't see any engagement with other editors wrt solving conflict and minimal edits in general during their ban. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Not so sure The problem is, you haven't done anything here or on the Iceland Wiki to judge by. 20 edits in the last year? That isn't enough of a measuring stick to feel warm and fuzzy about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I, too, feel that 20 edits in the last year isn't a good enough measuring stick to confidently tell whether we'd be spared another episode. I suppose that, practically speaking, since the ban is gonna expire soon, anyway, it doesn't really matter. But I still think this point needs to resonate. El_C 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral I was pinged, but there is not enough to go buy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural questions. I'm not sure why I was pinged, but, more important, I don't understand the ban. The only thing formal I've read was that Jabbi was banned until "at least July 26, 2022". Isn't that kind of odd ban language? What happens after July 26? Why do editors say that the ban is going to "expire soon"? Just in case anyone is curious, today is August 22. :p I guess I must be missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  The closing statement suggests that the ban is an indefinite one appealable after one year, but reading through the discussion it seems pretty clear to me that the proposal being supported is Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year (which you proposed, incidentally!) There's an alternative proposal for an indefinite ban appealable after nine months, but that doesn't seem to attract any support. (And Wug's message on Jabbi's talkpage notifying them of the re-imposed ban says I closed your AN appeal having seen consensus to essentially reset your one year topic ban.

  So my understanding is that the ban has expired, and Jabbi is free to make edits relating to living people once again. (The alternative interpretation would be that Wug's ANI close statement is the canonical sanction, the ban is indefinite and therefore will not expire soon. But either the ban has already expired, or it won't at all; I can't see any reading by which it will expire soon!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Moot The best I can tell is that they were under a 1 year ban, violated the ban in july of 2021 which reset the clock on the 1-year ban. But it is now August 2022, and unless there was another extension of the ban, the ban has already expired. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Normally, the violation of a ban results in a block or at least a warning. It doesn't automatically reset the ban unless the administrator formally states that is the sanction for the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is correct, from what I saw of the discussion they chose to reset the ban in July 2021. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unless someone shows up in the next 24 hours to argue that the ban has not expired, I will close this as moot (AmEng sense). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:49, 24 August 2022 (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.

WPWP photo contest again

Just a heads-up that #WPWP is coming to a close (ends Aug 31) and so we’re seeing an uptick in submissions. Might be worth keeping some eyes on filter 1073 lest we get any more… er… pickle images. firefly ( t · c ) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Here we are, yet again, having to clean up after a poorly run and poorly executed contest. Can we just ban this already? I've removed dozens of copyvios and there are several examples of badly placed images, images added to BLPs that aren't of the person in question and just general bad BLP images that are outright creepy and/or useless. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A contest that requires volunteers to review an abuse filter to ensure incorrect, BLP-violating and copyright-violating images are not shoehorned into articles in order for editors unfamiliar with our local policies regarding images to win prizes should be banned from the project. You can make a bunch of rules for participation but if the organizers don't actively monitor the additions then what's the point of making the rules? It's a drain on local resources and the cost/benefit ratio is wholly unbalanced. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  More to the point: they should be banned, at least here. There is almost no benefit to this contest, as shown year after year. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Every time this runs it causes problems. When we have to have an abuse filter for a contest, we shouldn't permit it. Hog Farm _Talk 22:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  The rewards should go to the editors who revert the most image additions. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  well sign me up. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can donate a box of old RadioShack CueCats as rewards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Serious question, can't we just set the filter to disallow all these edits? It's the nuclear option, but it's more and more clear it may well be necessary to prevent sustained disruption from these contests. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Filter 1158 (hist · log) enforces a limit of 25 images per day. It was enabled after this discussion. Straight-up disallowing would require a new poll. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Anybody know how many good additions this contest brings? Picklivich 22:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to find any. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Huh? I just checked the most recent edit by the last ten people flagging that edit filter, and they all appeared constructive. Sometimes the formatting is wrong, in one case they used an already existing image that's since been tagged for deletion (they didn't upload it), and sometimes it's just rearranging, but they seem to be consistently doing what they're supposed to do: using already-uploaded photos on Commons in Wikipedia articles. Friendly reminder that nobody here is obliged to clean up, and newbies don't have to get it right. This kind of noticeboard panic seems to happen for every contest, absent any sort of systematic analysis, based on a subset of problematic edits. Oppose any sort of kneejerk intervention. Has anyone actually pinged the organizers to ask what their process is for review? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is in between their ok edits, there are a lot of really bad ones, which are also BLP violations, including adding photos of people who are not the subject, blatant copyvios and creepy candids or blurry photos to the point it's worthless. We've been going through this for more than a year now and nothing ever changes. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also the bulk of the people participating (particularly the ones making problematic edits) only edit for these contests. That alone imo is problematic on the same level as paid editing since they're doing it for a monetary outcome. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This isn't an image upload drive. We already tell people -- all new users -- that if there are free images available (especially on Commons), then use them in the article! That's what these users are doing. If there are bad images, it's because someone else, unrelated to the contest, uploaded it. Yes, ideally they'd all learn all about copyright, check for copyvios, and improve the articles to FA while they're at it, but that's not the scope of what's happening.
  Here's the point: if the majority of these edits are indeed bad (not just imperfect), then yeah, we have a problem that needs intervention, but there needs some systematic evidence of that when we're talking about this kind of scale. So let's answer this: what proportion of edits in a contest/drive/campaign need to be positive and how do we measure it to avoid weighting for, say, one or two bad actors? [after edit conflict]: If contests with prizes that engage people who aren't already really experienced Wikipedians are inherently problematic, that needs its own discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about uploads. I'm talking about users finding any random image on commons that matches a word in an article and using it, without care as to whether or not it's acceptable or useful to readers. There's a problem here. It's been discussed endlessly, that you are not agreeing with or seeing it is not the problem nor does it mean it doesn't exist. As far as pinging the organizers, I believe that was done in the past when this was discussed, but it isn't the job of volunteers to make sure a prize/paid campaign that values quantity over quality is up to snuff when the organizers can't be bothered to communicate with the community in the first place. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Simply: If you want to ban a contest, provide a systematic review of contributions, along with evidence the organizers aren't going to be involved with cleaning up. Do that and I'll be right there with you calling for a ban or some other intervention. What I'm not going to do is support shutting down a large outreach event based on anecdotal catastrophizing without systematic evidence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  This was put together by somebody who can't clean up, because they're topic banned from working with images on enwiki. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) In the same thread where you chided us for a complaint - a valid one that has been discussed for years and provided multiple diffs in past discussions, you also demand all the diffs, instead of looking for yourself while asking us why we're not reaching out to a banned organizer who is responsible for many of the issues from WPWP and WPNG. Irony. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I started this with my own spot check. Not systematic by any means, though, no. I dare say the burden is on those calling for a ban to substantiate it properly. Valid point about the organizer being banned. My hope is they have non banned users doing maintenance, because certainly we can't have banned users solely responsible for bringing people to enwp. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  omfg til WMF gives grants to sitebanned editors wtf, they're actually paying sitebanned editors to edit, how is this happening. Levivich 23:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  They've given him multiple grants, as well as this user, @Levivich who is arguably much worse with respect to T Cells since his ban from bnwiki and bnwv was about basically taking funds in the name of BNwiki without their knowledge and misusing/taking money improperly. But you know, we totally need #WPWP. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm reading and just whaaat. The WMF paid T Cells $7,200.00 to run WPWP2021 (click through to the expenses documentation). Let's see them put THAT in the fundraising emails! Levivich 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe for the next WPWP we can ask Lugnuts to coordinate for all the footy photos. PICKLEDICAE🥒 00:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we're talking about WPWP generally rather than WLA specifically, is a "Plaque award & WPWP Souvenirs + Certificate" really more of a "monetary outcome" than barnstars or whatever recognition Wikicup is giving nowadays? The only question seems to be what those souvenirs are since I'm far from convinced a plaque award and certificate are more monetary just because they're physical. Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne there's money involved. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae: but that's only for WLA as I already acknowledged. Anyone who isn't participating in WLA, including anyone who does not use the WLA hashtag (Meta:Wiki Loves Africa 2022/WPWP) is not eligible for those prizes. If the problem is specifically with WLA then we should talk about WLA rather than WPWP generally. We need to be clear since the pickle example does not seem to be WLA, nor was Deogratias20. And we could for example ban the WLA hashtag without banning the WPWP one. And indeed the premise of your claim, that people are solely after the prize and do not contribute anything else seems faulty, since you need 300 mainspace edits to some Wikipedia before 1 June 2020 to eligible for WLA. 300 edits is not a lot, but it's enough that it's questionable to say they've contributed nothing else. If editors are making botlike edits to some project to become eligible, this should be something that someone can document to demonstrate the problem but I don't see anyone has. Instead there just seems to be an assumption people are after the gift card without any real evidence and when the examples people throw out don't generally seem to be eligible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also as I understand it, the images must have come from some year's WLA and the pickle image doesn't seem to have. Note this also means people cannot be adding their own photos unless they uploaded these photos earlier (I think the main WLA ended on 15 April 2022 or of course some other year) to take part in WLA and are now trying for the WPWP WLA part. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've just indeffed User:Deogratias20 for adding their own uploads at Commons which clearly weren't their own work. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. For this user particularly, they're not even eligible to participate in the campaign in the first place. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping for @Deborahjay:, the "Campaign Communities Liaison" for this event.[56] – Joe (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  And other active enwiki editors listed there as having some responsibility for it: Sadads, Anthere, ToniSant, Camelia.boban, علاء, Jamie Tubers, Romaine, Ammarpad. I don't think it's right that, year on year, uninvolved volunteers are having to clean up after this, while so many of you are silent. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am completely uninvolved in WPWP. Apparently someone had added me to the list of organisers... :-( Romaine (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, that's not a great reflection on the level of organisation... – Joe (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was on the international committee for WPWP last year but I too am completely uninvolved now. Not sure how and why I or any community I formally represent still appear in any list for WPWP 2022. From an AFG perspective, the organizer's intentions are good, as are the complainers' on en.wp about cleaning up. Respectfully, the community I work with and I have other priorities. -- ToniSant (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Per @Rhododendrites-- I just spot checked 15 from different users, and they all looked reasonably good content, based on the descriptions in Commons. Blocking individuals that don't following warnings, and doing the work to educate users on formatting seems like the right step -- but as someone who supports organized activity across the movement: even with experienced editors, there is rarely a guarantee contributions will be consistently perfect. All newcomers have a learning curve, even you when you first started editing; our rules aren't intuitive and formatting and standards for quality are complex, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  No one is asking for perfection but encouraging mass editing where the only time said users contribute is during contests isn't usually helpful. For an example, there were a lot of errors from this user, who I'll note, has an editing history of only editing during contests and quite a few others that were also bordering on BLP violations but also lacking in common sense. I'm with Joe here, we're doing a lot of clean up and way too much checking behind them when it should be the coordinators ensuring that their edits are correct (and you know, not adding copyright violations even if they aren't the ones uploading them. This is common sense stuff.) I think a lot of the people saying it isn't disruptive are missing a key point here too. Something can still be in good faith but disruptive. This is very much the case for this contest and a fair amount of users participating in it, in particular

  What is the point of WMF funding these things if the bare minimum of guidance isn't even being given? What is the money actually going to? This is less of a concern overall (for me, but still a question I have regardless.)

  But I honestly don't expect this discussion to go any different than the last few, I expect the status quo of concerned editors being blown off as being "bitey" or not understanding, so this is all probably moot anyway. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Sadads All newcomers have a learning curve, even you when you first started editing; our rules aren't intuitive and formatting and standards for quality are complex. I entirely agree. And this is why I am dubious about a contest that has cash prizes for the volume of added images. While your average newcomer can probably make basic edits, images are often more complex - involving issues such as the biographies of living people policy and copyright. The fact that people can win prizes for 'adding the most images' seems to lead to people shoving images haphazardly in order to make 'number go up'.

  I also agree that many (possibly most) of the image additions are individually net-positive - unfortunately the sheer scale of the additions makes the error rate problematic. In the past ~3 days or so around 500 additions have been logged by the filter. That's 166.66.. per day, or 10,000 over the ~60 days of the contest. That's a lot of additions to sift through - and a lot of the pages edited are low-traffic ones (naturally, as high traffic ones will probably have images) where issues might take longer to spot.

  I really want to like this initiative - adding images to articles is worthy work and we need people to do it, but I'm not sure a contest judged on scale is the way to do it. firefly ( t · c ) 15:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @Joe Roe:. We have revised the rules as well as made several other changes for this year to mitigate these issues. I believe most of the problems are arising from users who are not even eligible to participate in the first place (we are checking this now); just like the Deogratias20 and Ogunwele examples that are mentioned above. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. I am running a check on the impact of WLA WPWP over the English Wikipedia. If I look through the hashtag tool between July 1st and August 24 [57], I find 62 revisions to 57 pages by 6 users. Unless the hashtag tool is buggy again, the damage can clearly not be huge.
Users concerned are

• User:Accuratecy051, quick look... did not see anything wrong at first sight
• User:Tarih, - I do not see anything wrong here...
• User:Afí-afeti - the user used cp images, but none of those images were uploaded during WLA (though he used the WLA hashtag). But 4 images altogether...
• User:Acaalexaca - nothing wrong there (and pictures not from WLA...)
• User:Kwameghana - main contributor. I checked 1/5 of them. I saw nothing wrong at all (except I could complain most are tagged WLA even though they are NOT from WLA). The positioning is logical, the description as well.
• User:Mijesty (all good).

I do not really see reasons for the fuss with regards to those pictures tagged #WLA. Anthere (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not limited just to WLA though. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Good. But at least, it is not related to the WLA tagged ones. And WLA above was pointed at because it offers a small prize (when the person is joining a wikimedia event, typically data gift card for attending wikiindaba). So please... I fully understand that some people are doing it wrong in some cases, and that’s upsetting, but I do not think money is the key responsible here. Anthere (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• New editors face a steep learning curve, no doubt, and it's difficult to navigate all the various requirements, such as BLP and copyright, no doubt. So why are we encouraging new users to add as many images in 60 days as they can? Is speed and volume really something we want to encourage from new users? Last year, over 1,000 WPWP participants added over 250,000 pics, which means we will never have any idea how many are "good" or "bad". All of the samples we've looked at are tiny and unrepresentative, and we'll never go through and check 250k edits. So: let's get people who have never done this before to try and do as much of this as they can, incentivized by cash and other prizes, and never quality-check their work, and never be able to quality-check their work, because there are too many pics added. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Levivich 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The above is essentially my view on this as well. WPWP inherently stresses quantity over quality, which is never good, as the goal of adding the most essentially incentivizes doing things hastily without checking. This is basically the image equivalent of all those mass-produced geostubs we've been cleaning up for years. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Hog Farm@Levivich @Firefly you have to remember that a bulk of the images being added, are images that were already added on one language Wiki and taken to another language wiki. These images often already have been checked for context by at least one or two other contributors, and it is a very low complexity task to add it to a low visibility Wikipedia (i.e. <200 pageviews a month). The risk for mistakes is relatively low, and if someone is demonstrated to be consistently putting bad content on the wiki, you should feel free to slow them down or stop them. There are a number of different ways in which newcomer edits are patrolled and reviewed, its not on any one person or one system to catch all the mistakes, Sadads (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

    No, it is not on any one person or system, but in this case it really ought to be the contest organizers who bear the brunt of the work. The mess wouldn't be there without the contest. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

    Just want to make one point here: spreading the work around is part of why these contests are good -- because the contest participants are who "bear the brunt" of it. "The work", after all, is improving Wikipedia. Just like it's not any one person's responsibility to participate in clean-up tasks, it's not any one person's responsibility to build up articles with illustrations. Adding illustrations is just as much a part of "the work" as cleaning up when people try to do so and fail (or spam/vandalize). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Sadads: re a bulk of the images being added, are images that were already added on one language Wiki and taken to another language wiki, so how many images were not already added on any language Wiki? 50k? More? re The risk for mistakes is relatively low How do you know? Relative to what? The risk for mistakes is high for new users, we all agree on that, so what makes it relatively low for the tens of thousands of images that new users are adding for the first time to any article on any project as part of WPWP? Levivich 21:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Sadads:, I think part of the problem is that a lot of the catching of mistakes is getting pushed onto a project that isn't organizing this and who has actually banned from images on enwiki. There are a decent number of legitimate edits here, but too much junk. I remember before the filter was instituted last time, I'd frequently find duplicate images added to articles I was watchlisting, as well as copyvios and irrelevant images. Proper image licensing and relevance (not to mention layout) can be hard, and the project is basically telling newbies to go forth and massively edit in what's a hard area. The enwiki project overall hasn't felt that it was properly consulted with these, and even if more edits than not are good, a lot of editors still resent that we're stuck with a lot of cleanup when an outside contest is telling editors with minimal knowledge/training to do something that has a high error rate if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not inherently against image-related contests, I just see sizable issues with the way the current one is run. Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• A couple things regarding money. Any event organizer should know that money makes things more complicated. Putting aside the motivating factor, it can easily make volunteer Wikipedians skeptical/resentful. In this case, though there are several mentions of "cash prizes" above, the prizes are plaques, souvenirs, and certificates. The prizes with a monetary value are limited to Wiki Loves Africa and take the form of a pretty small ($80/$50/$30) scholarship to a Wikimedia conference, not cash. The other thing: I didn't even realize the WMF granted funds for project managers for something like this. Given that's the case, it seems entirely reasonable to expect a quality review at the end. It would be unreasonable to say organizers should go through each and every edit as they happen (or even afterwards), but we should wind up with some big picture statistics beyond "images added". It would be good to know how many hundreds or thousands of articles are illustrated now, and weren't before, thanks to the WPWP participants, but also do a systematic spot check to see many edits were reverted or otherwise look bad? The key for something like this (as with any contest, upload drive, edit-a-thon, class project, GLAM event, or outreach campaign) is to make sure people are set up for success to the extent possible, evaluate the results to make sure it was effective, and modify based on feedback from both the community and participants. I'm not convinced that's not happening, but we could use more information from organizers here, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - I think the whole cash prize thing is a mixup related to the original 2020 edition offering $500, $400, and $300 USD "gift vouchers" as prizes, which seems to have been (IMO wisely) changed in the more recent running. Hog Farm _Talk 23:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

$200/$150/$100 in 2021. This year it's a "scholarship" to a Wikimedia conference, but I'm not sure what that means. (A discount on the ticket price? A reimbursement?) I guess we'll see if that change has an effect on the contest. Although honestly, the WMF can easily afford to give an $80 scholarship to all 1,000 participants, and frankly to anyone else who wants to attend, so I'm not sure why they're being so stingy. The point is: either we're giving something of value to a person for adding the most images, to incentivize people to add a lot of images, or we're not. I think it's a bad idea to do so, whether the thing of value is cash, a scholarship, a thing, or whatever. Levivich 00:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, this is the page where all scholarship requests to participate to Wikimania are listed. Wikimania 2022/Scholarships. A data voucher is usually appreciated by African participants in particular as few of them have communication contracts with big amounts of data. There are three conferences before the end of 2022 to which many regular wikipedians interested in WLA might join, wikiindaba, wikiarabia and wikiconvention francophone. Anthere (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The editors I see who are particularly problematic and participating in this only participate during contests. But putting that aside, I have no issue with awarding scholarships to people - just do it. I (and I think others here) have issue with awarding scholarships/prizes to people for low quality, disruptive editing with no meaningful cleanup or supervision and the expectation, because despite claims otherwise in this very thread, I can't imagine anyone would believe that other editors would just let these poor edits rot away in mainspace. PICKLEDICAE🥒 11:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I second that... Anthere (talk) Anthere (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The 2021 contest report mentions things that didn't go well including "Inability of campaign participants to adhere to campaign rules" and "Hostility from Wikipedia admins" among others. I haven't found the grant proposal for 2022 to see how these points were addressed for this but it strikes me that any future grant application should be pushed back against if it doesn't have some robust proposals on how to achieve quality, not just quantity. I don't know if proposals can be commented on by community members but (re)acting at the outset, rather than once the competition is announced should be the way to go. I'm not against these types of contexts in principle but they shouldn't be happening if they don't have quality standards defined. That means that objections to proposals also need to be quality based as well and not just anecdotal. Nthep (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I found the 2022 grant application and it's disappointing to see that none of the issues raised by the organisers of the 2021 event were addressed or even mentioned. Did either the organisers of this year or the people giving the grant ever look at previous contests to see what happened? Nthep (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Nthep not sure if you saw the talk page which outlines more of the funding and...it leaves me with a lot more questions. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Despite two years of issues, someone managed to write a project proposal without a single mention of actually checking any edits made. That's remarkable, even on its own merits as a project proposal. The entire data evaluation seems to be "we can collate the overall pages improved with photos using the hashtag tool", which is purely quantitative and promotes spamming. CMD (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those damn hostile Wikipedia admins, always getting in the way of people trying to make some money. —Cryptic 12:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Cryptic and totally relevant selfies! PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is the sort of thing that is causing issues. Article = A city in Nigeria. Image which was addded = A tree in the countryside somewhere near the city. It's obvious that some editors just search Commons for something vaguely relevant and bung it in the article, often with no caption or explanation. From the same editor, this is a building in a completely different city from the article, but it would appear in a search because of the name of the road it's on. It's just sloppy work, yet that editor has a number of good additions as well, which makes it far more tricky to identify the bad ones. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can provide at least 50 more examples of such things, and worse if you give me a few hours. This isn't a small margin of error that's happening. I'll note again, that a lot of people here seem to be confusing the complaints with us implying bad faith. No, I think these are good faith editors but incompetence and disruption doesn't require malice. Good faith editors can still be disruptive. PICKLEDICAE🥒 11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Related to this discussion, I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#Should the WMF have rules or policies for when banned users apply for or are part of the team that administers grants?. I think banned users getting money is a serious problem and I solicit others comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I reviewed the campaign project page last night and it does look like the organizers have revised the eligibility criteria, and this has impacted on the volume of contributions this year. This year less than 3,000 contributions have been made, as against last year where more than 28,000 contributions were made to enwiki. This year, only existing users who have been around for at least one year are eligible to participate in the campaign. This means that new users are not eligible to participate at all. Since many of the users that are being disruptive, including the ones listed in this thread, are newcomers or new editors, we can adjust the edit-filter to disallow participation from new editors. Other changes made were restricting the gift items to plaque awards, souvenirs, and certificates. This is not different from the barnstar we give to users here on a daily basis. I understand the concerns about having User:T Cells to coordinate the contest on enwiki, but the campaign is multilingual and does not focus on enwiki only. It does not look like T Cells is solely responsible for coordinating the campaign in all languages, at least not on enwiki. I reviewed past threads, and I haven't seen a single thread where T Cells commented on this campaign on enwiki. They have a co-coordinator, liaison officers and other members of the organizing team who are active contributors to enwiki, and are probably responsible for managing the campaign here. This year, the coordinator was also revised, partly due to the concerns raised here the previous year. User:T Cells stopped coordinating this campaign last year, and the new coordinator is User:Ammarpad who is another active enwiki editor. No one has deemed it fit to leave a note on this user's talk page. Calling out T Cells when it's pretty clear from the campaign project page that he no longer coordinates the campaign is unfair, and close to mockery. SuperSwift (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi all, I am Ammarpad and I am the central coordinator for this year's Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign. I'd like to note that, we are aware of this thread and have taken note of all the issues raised. However, I'd like to make some clarifications.
  1. On the issue of the referenced user who is banned from English Wikipedia, please note that he's neither the grantee for the 2022 edition of the project nor actively involved in the implementation of the project.
  2. On the issue of users adding wrong images and other infractions, we acknowledge that the campaign is not perfect and we did anticipate this risk and clearly explained mitigation plans both in the grant and I further elaborated on this when Redrose64 asked on Meta in May before the program begun. Among the changes we made, to mitigate thse issues, we raised the eligibility bar to disqualify account that are less than a year old. This is not a perfect threshold but we found it good enough to start with since from the previous edition evaluation report we found majority of the issues to have to do with users that are relatively new or created accounts with the sole purpose of participation in the campaign. For instance with the revised rules, Deogratias20 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked by Black Kite in relation to this campaign, is not actually even eligible to participate in the campaign.

     We communicated these changes (and other organizing team changes) early to the local organizers of the program and hoped it would work. However, in restrospect now we understand that neither we, the central organizers (nor the local organizers) have the technical mechanisms to enforce this eligibility rule. We innocently hoped it would work, and that local organizers would educate their participants to not participate if they're not qualified (and people would oblige). This is our fault and we regret it. We will surely learn from it and work to make amends.

  3. Then the issue of prizes and effect on inducement. We have substantially reduced these too to the minimum now. Some of the examples of hundreds of US$ gift vouchers quoted above were all for the previous editions. For this year, the 2022 edition, the main WPWP campaign is only giving souvenirs, plaques and certificates. No direct monetary reward to any participant. Thank you. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a good place to report editors adding images without adequate research on if those images are appropriate for the article? Obviously here or ANI is an option (and AIV for obvious cases), but I'm kinda hoping there's an amazing option I haven't considered that will get editor ignoring warnings to change their ways. (And yeah, I've got a bridge to sell ya as well... Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I appreciate the changes this year's organizers have made to address issues from prior years. Is it possible to set the edit filter to disallow #WPWP-tagged edits from ineligible editors (less than 1yr account age, I guess)? Levivich 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Did I break AIV?

Not sure if I did something I shouldn't have. But after going through a backlog at AIV and coming back a bit later, I am seeing the backlog still there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed all of the user-submitted reports and the bot appears to be working again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this report might have something to do with it -- they used the Vandal template wrongly by including "example user": {{Vandal|M Hasnain Mirani|Example user}} — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. My command of tech peaked with the electric pencil sharpener. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there something that's even better at sharpening a pencil (younger readers may not know what that is) and easier to use than the manual pencil sharpeners that I have always used? I thought we had reached the limits of technology when they replaced the pen-knife. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course they know what a pencil is @Phil Bridger - it's one of those rods used to control tablets for people who don't like using their fingers! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I remember a time when everyone had a pencil sharpener mounted somewhere in their house. They were the Amazon echo of their time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

We still have! (my partner is an artist in her spare time). Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Our kids still use the yellow #2 pencils and a mounted hand crank pencil sharpener. The school board association recommended going to mechanical pencils last year but we kept the standard #2's. They are a little easier to get here and we can use them for other purposes if we have to. --ARoseWolf 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Olatant2!

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.

---

Olatant2! seems to only be making disruptive edits on this encyclopedia. It is probably best to block them. TheFishDude539 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Already indeffed, by Dennis Brown. Deor (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ah, I meant to come back and say that, got sidetracked with a customer call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 29 August 2022 (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.

Repeated Harassment

Myself and some other editors have been repeatedly harassed for supposedly supporting Israel in a vote on the Jerusalem talk page, trying to intimidate us into stopping our edits. [58] four IPs and one account have sent threats to my page, all stating they will kill me because I'm a Jew, or because Israel is full of Jews who are "apes and pigs", and how they will rape every woman and girl who survives after they slaughter every Jew they see, among other things. Obviously these people are not going to lay a finger on me, I hope, but they have also spammed other editors with threats (you can check their contribution histories) including the IPs whose threats were deleted from view. An additional fifth IP mass reverted my edits [59] and the same might have occurred to other editors. Bill Williams 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Many claim to support Hezbollah, but regardless, I think it is very abusive to try and change votes on consensus needing issues by harassing any editor that these harassers believe supports Israel. Bill Williams 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Most likely it's just Icewhiz, Yaniv or some other pro-Israeli LTA having fun with new proxy. Real Lebanese militants have other things to do than intimidating some random guys on the English Wikipedia. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate this for you, but I'm not sure what we can do. Playing whack-a-mole with disruptive IPs is a continuous problem for admins, dedicated trolls can (and do) overwhelm the system, and what we can really do is limited: We can block the IPs when they poke their heads up, we can institute some edit filters to try to catch certain editing patterns, we can semi-protect pages to keep them from overwhelming specific discussions but to pre-emptively stop this from happening at all, I'm not sure what can be done. I don't know if any other admins have other ideas to help ameliorate this problem, but other than responding after the fact when another of these trolls shows up, I don't know what can be done to make Wikipedia a more collegial place when someone like this gets a bug up their ass and decides to make an enemy of someone like yourself. On behalf of all of the good people around here, I apologize that you've had to deal with this, and I also apologize that I don't have a solution that's any better than what is already being done. --Jayron32 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, these activities should absolutely be reported to meta:Trust and Safety insofar as they involve repeated and unambiguous threats of violence against community members. . Actually, probably also [email protected], per WP:EMERGENCY ("Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff.") I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will not be the first time they will have seen similar threats on that particular talk page, and their technicalability to prophylactically guard against this is not much deeper than administrative/oversighter tools, I'm sure--but there's still a huge multitude of reasons why they are meant to be informed. So, Bill Williams, I'd really encourage that, or to request than an admin report it, if for whatever reason you are not 100% comfortable with making the report yourself.

As for what we can do preventatively, I actually do have an idea here: pending changes could be applied to the talk page so that comments from IPs/non-autoconfirmed users have to pass clearance from regular editors. It's a pretty aggressive step for a talk page, and could create lag and issues in the flow of discussion, but this is an extreme situation and I dare say, probably cause for an exception. Obviously this is a deeply important article we're talking about, that attracts (almost bar none) more controversy than any other, thus making it a dubious target for an exception of the standard approach to page protection on talk pages, in terms of even semi-protection. But pending changes could really thread the needle, and this is not garden variety disruption: putting aside the fact that people's actual safety and mental well-being could be at stake here, this kind of thing could also have a deeply chilling effect on the collaborative process. I think it's worth considering. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes protection is unavailable for use on talk pages or anywhere within the user space. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of any protection I reported it to the emergency email address, they also threatened my Wikimedia account talk page [60]. Bill Williams 16:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

[61] and eighth account mass reverted edits of the same people who were harassed by self declared Islamic extremists. Bill Williams 16:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if you review my post you will see that I noted that is typically the case. However, the page protection policy does expressly contemplate the exceptions in edge cases, and if ever there was a scenario where it would be justified, this would certainly be it. Also, pending changes protection would substantially mitigate the downsides while completely arresting this atrocious behaviour. I'll say again, I think it's very much worth considering as an exception. I'm actually struggling to see a very good argument against it. These are threats against the lives of community members, which even if just noxious cowardly keyboard threats, can be expected to have a profound impact upon the discussion. I almost never invoke WP:IAR as a matter of principle. But if not here, I don't know where it might be valid. In any event, I for one wouldn't mind hearing a more principled reason for not to do it than "we don't do that".SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes is literally not available. Compare Special:Protect/User talk:Zzuuzz with Special:Protect/X. It would require a phab ticket at least. However, that's not a solution: If threats are the purpose, pending changes will not prevent the threats. I say just semi-protect stuff where it repeats. BTW, it might be useful for someone to compile a list of socks and IPs for the purpose of implementing range blocks and filters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snow Rise. It’s not technically possible. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I see: apologies--I was unaware of that quirk. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• What Jayron32 said. There isn't much that can be done preemptively. Sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide the discussion page (i.e., talk page) from the general reader's view (for encyclopedic readers only need the article, not the talk page discussions) for articles on controversial topics like this? Only editors actually ever need access to the talk page for taking part in the discussions to improve the article, not the IPs or general readers. This may sound a bit weird, but just checking since this, I presume, could solve the problem to some extent. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The talk page, and its visibility and availability to all, including the casual reader and the IP editor, is a vital part of how this website operates. This kind of garbage is the price we pay for that accessibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem appears to be less to do with the article talk page and more to do with user talk pages where the threats are being left. In extreme cases, we can semi-protect the user talk page and create a sub-page for non-autoconfirmed users linked from the user talk page. It would at least prevent the orange bar lighting up each time a post was made. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

[62] [63] [64] [65] a ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelth account/IP harassed me and other editors in anti-semitic and anti-Israeli threats claiming to want to murder/harm me, saying they would rape my family etc. in supposed support for Hezbollah. There is clearly a massive amount of sockpuppeting that is occurring (I reported this to the Trust and Safety Team as well). Bill Williams 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What I did on my talk page was request protection from IP users. It didn't help fully, but at least I'm not getting harassed by IP users. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I dealt with similar for years, and it stopped when semi-protection was put in place on my talk page (and I am grateful for that). I dont know of many reasons why an IP or brand new account needs to comment on my talk page, Im not an admin, and any dispute with an IP can be handled through pings on their own user talk or at the article talk page. Same for all these users, if any of them wants it I dont see why an admin should not extend indefinite semi-protection to their user talk pages. Can create a subpage for IPs if they want, but that doesnt even seem all that necessary. nableezy - 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Article reverted

An user named TolWol first reverted my edits from Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and then reverted whole article back to one year without providing any proper reason, I just recently added high profile al-qaeeda and other terrorist killed and captured by they US and and Pakistani forces in info box.

I watched this user talk page this user has a history of engaged in edit wars, please restore article and tell this user if he has any problem related to content or any edit, avoid reverting it and use talk page. 103.141.159.231 (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• The article has been semi-protected by El C. The proper place to request edits would be the talk page of the article, which you haven't used in two years. We don't decide content here at AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC at RSN request

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 the Fox News RFC at WP:RSN please be closed from comments until a formal close can be developed? The discussion is getting longer and longer due to pointless arguing. As pointed out, it’s half a megabyte, with 70,000 words and will take someone nearly five hours just to read. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

People have continued to comment. RFCs don't have a hard deadline. So I don't think it should be closed from comments until a closer is actually starting to close it. Andre🚐 14:59, 1 September 2022 (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.

File uploader is requesting it be removed from servers

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 take a look at User talk:Spookcentral#File:Blackorwhite comparison.jpg and see whether they can help this user out? Basically, they've uploaded a derivative work they created as non-free content and now want it removed from Wikipedia's servers. I'm not sure whether that's possible and posted that I would ask an administrator to look into things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly seems like they already have the advice, they can tag it for CSD or FFD, or at this point just wait and it will get scooped up in orphan non-free cleanup. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Xaosflux. The seem to want to the file removed from the servers. Is that possible? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly operationally, no. But once it is deleted it will no longer be published for everyone to be able to download (which will include all of the versions seen at File:Blackorwhite_comparison.jpg). However, please note that this file is also no longer orphaned. If you want to help that user out at this point, opening a FFD on their behalf is probably the best way to get this dealt with. I wouldn't delve in the technicalities of the differences between being 'deleted' / 'suppressed' / 'physically removed' - for practical purposes deleted would suffice here - and I certainly wouldn't invite them to start a DMCA proceeding or go to WMF legal -- if they wonder their on their own so be it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Xaosflux. I will pass that information along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2022 (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.

Deceased banned users

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.

---

Good morning,

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place for this - please don't hesitate to move it to a more appropriate place upon replying if necessary. Anyway, I would like to seek clarification on what the appropriate procedure/policy is for banned users who are deceased (full disclaimer: I'm a relative of a recently deceased but also banned user). Obviously most of the stuff at WP:RIP doesn't apply, since "memorializing" user pages etc should only be done for users in good standing. However I was curious if perhaps there is a more subtle way to indicate a banned user as being deceased, primarily so that any active investigations can be closed and to prevent any other accounts from being blocked as socks of the deceased user? (Since any accounts that were blocked as socks of a deceased user are obviously socks of someone else in actuality). I fully understand if this isn't possible, though I would assume that there has to be at least a way for admins to privately document such a situation in order to avoid new blocks under the deceased user's name. I thank you for your time. God Bless. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:3805:7DDA:30F2:5C0F (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can provide convincing proof that a username was linked to a person, and convincing proof that the person is deceased, it's probably not going to happen. If you want privacy, as you seem to already know, contact Arbcom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:28, 30 August 2022 (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.

Violence against men AfD could use additional eyes

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.

---

Looks like the AfD for violence against men has attracted a lot of SPAs recently, and has led to edit warring on the article itself. Posting here instead of RPP because it looks like both pages could use additional eyes (and perhaps a snow close of the AfD to avoid further disruption). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also led to a considerable improvement in the article, which is a win. I'm not sure a SNOW close will be helpful here, though there does seem to be a strong consensus at this point (disclaimer: I've !voted in the discussion). I'm a bit concerned at the way the nominator (User:Tambor de Tocino) is policing the discussion - this might well be removing WP:FORUM violations but it's still not a good look for someone who is clearly INVOLVED. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article is no longer under AfD, the discussion was closed as speedy keep. JIP | Talk 23:47, 30 August 2022 (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.

Article neutrality

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.

---

Why is article neutrality not being upheld? Standards are being allowed to slip and it is not acceptable and I want to complain.

Rules explicitly state that all article information must be factual and none-biased, therefore opinions regardless of source are not relevant or required. If an author has given an opinion on a subject this can be referred to via the relevant link or citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Specifically this page:

Wepwawetemsaf

It is not ok and it is not needed they are biased opinions and the article reads fine and dandy without them. Breach of neautrality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

IP, you'll need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It is not yet something that needs admin intervention. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Admin have already apparently intervened that is why I am complaining about it and bringing it to attention.

Those opinions are not necessary or needed the article reads fine without them only neutral facts are needed. Opinions can be viewed by clicking the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Debates amongst academics are absolutely fine for an article. Regardless, this doesn't require admin input. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not a debate among academics this is the writing of none-neutral opinions that are not necessary or needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2022 (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.

WMF account holder blocked for vandalism through sockpuppet accounts

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#ABorba (WMF) blocked. Since it seems appropriate that the wider community be aware of the circumstances, I am posting a link here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Support: Barkeep49, BDD, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Maxim, Wugapodes
Opposed: CaptainEek, WormThatTurned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Criticism of Buddhism

This article is now a useless stub, following the deletion of most of the content by TrangaBellam. It was subsequently restored by دانيالوه, and promptly deleted again by WikiLinuz. I have today restored it, and TrangaBellam has again deleted it, with the comment "Criticism removed", as if criticism is inappropriate in an article with the title "Criticism of Buddhism".

I think there might be a colourable case that the article shouldn't exist; I'm in favour of deletion, provided a home is found in the main article for the most notable criticism.

I'm an experienced editor, but I'm not experienced in dealing with editors that repeatedly delete 90% of an article without discussing it.

I wonder if someone could come along and suggest how we might proceed?

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

HandsThatFeed wrote a month ago,

Looking through the removed text... honestly, it's probably better gone. The vast majority of it was "This one person said this about Buddhism, and then this other person said this about Buddhism..." It was a mish-mash of various complaints, rather than a coherent description of academic & religious critique. It really read like a holdover article from Wikipedia's early days when standards were lower. I'd assume there's enough reliable sources available to make an article which fits modern Wikipedia article standards, but we'd have to build it from the ground up.

Which part of this did you fail to understand?

Further, can you link to the edit-summary wherein I had deleted your restoration with the comment "Criticism removed"? TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

So, first of all, MrDemeanour needs trouted and/or warned for WP:NPA. From the article's Talk page:

I fully expected you to revert my revert, and I didn't expect any talk-page comment from you to be constructive.

This entire issue should have been resolved via discussion on the article's Talk page. Instead, MrDemeanour has decided to climb a prominent building in a superhero costume in a misguided attempt at forcing the issue, then insulting people who point out that this is poor behavior.

This article needs rewritten from the ground up. I personally do not have the time, due to my other life obligations. But that doesn't mean the old, poorly written article needs immediately restored to its former inglorious state. It can be a stub for now until people have time to write a decent article.

Or it can be deleted and started from scratch. Either way. I simply do not agree that it should be restored into its former state, as noted above. Regardless, aside from MrDemeanour's PA above, this is not yet a matter for Admins to resolve. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: This is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and you must try sorting it out on the talk page, or consult dispute resolution processes if you're not contented. You describe yourself as an experienced editor but you haven't done the preliminaries prior to opening a thread on Admin's noticeboard. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Let's stop with the petty squabbling and please take this to the article talk page. Please. Snippy remarks aren't the same as personal attacks, although neither are helpful here, so lets just focus on setting some standards and rebuilding using scholarly sources, or leave it as a stub. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Removing inappropriate material from an article is a perfectly legitimate way to edit; if there is a disagreement over whether or not it belonged in the article or not, the article talk page is the correct place to discuss that. That the article is left in a stub-like state is irrelevant. (saying that, I am not saying that it actually should have been removed. I am saying it is possible. Not everything currently existing at Wikipedia really belongs, and removing the bad stuff is as important as adding new good stuff.) If none of the existing text is appropriate, then that's just where we are. If it is possible to have appropriate text in the article, go an add that. If the text really belonged as it was, establish consensus on the article talk page The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Establish first that it belongs, then re-add it. If consensus cannot be established that it belongs, then leave it out. You can also always just add things that are appropriate. That's always encouraged and rarely controversial. --Jayron32 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  On this point, this is generally why we discourage "Criticism of X" articles or sections, as they tend to draw minor conflicts (like opinions of one or two people, which likely are undue, or situations and editor wants to treat as criticism but really isnt). Criticism should be integrated throughout the text of a topic. Removal if these trivial criticisms is completely correct and if that leaves a stubby page with only a couple actual criticism, then consider merging that content. That is not saying there cannot be a criticism page but it really be based on good academic scholarship for a topic like Buddhism. Masem (t) 12:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  And that objection was why the article got stubbed, it was not based on good academic scholarship. The goal is to eventually build up an article based on those sources, but for now there's no reason to leave the poor quality article up.

  MrDemeanor has submitted the article to AfD now, so we'll see how that goes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it got snow-closed as keep. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Most every criticism of a religion can be written off as one person's view if the focus is on the writer of the piece relating it. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Protected user scripts

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.

---

Could someone please remove the protection from the user scripts in my userspace? I applied full protection to them when I had the bit and would now like to edit them (some have ceased to work correctly because of changes to the default skin in the meantime). At least User:GoldenRing/wordcount.js and User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js. I have a vague recollection that scripts in userspace can only be edited by the relevant user anyway; can someone please confirm? GoldenRing (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Itried to unprotect and it said you could edit it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried, it says only you (no longer an admin bit) and Interface Admin can modify it, but the protection is still in the logs, so you may need an interface admin to lift the protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'll try over at WP:IANB. GoldenRing (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2022 (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.

TTP1233 Unblock Request (unarchived)

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.

---

The following is an unblock request placed on behalf of - @TTP1233:. It is an unblock request that has now been open for a considerable length of time and warranted additional community consideration. The user was blocked for socking in November 2021. When the most recent appeal in May was made, they were given a clear checkuser so that (technical) aspect is already concluded. I would also advise participants to take a look at their user talk page for a broader context. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeal Text

Greetings Sir/Madam, I do like to re-apply for unblock in Wikipedia. It is to inform you that after reading blocking policies and conditions of Standard Offer, I have, Not did any sock puppetry on my any blocked accounts mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NS_Dibyojyoti for 6 months since my last edit of TTP1233 on 11:01 hrs.; 25 November 2021 (UTC). Neither created accounts for further sock puppetry nor for illegal use. Also, I made productive edits on Simple English Wikipedia. I have created around 30 articles (3 deleted due to my interest) and over 1000 edits before and during block on this account, since created. Explanation how I was blocked:- A year ago I opened an account named TTP1233 in simple.m.wikipedia.org but I never edited in risk until I confirm that admin Ninjarobotpirate blocked that as well. But after some months past, I started editing Wikipedia and after months I got encouraged to edit here. Moreover no one suspected me. But creating Sujit Bose (politician) and Indranil Sen was the biggest blunder I made. Though they are notable but since I made it, I feared if anyone knows. Second thing I made identified is shortening my original name, Dibyojyoti Roy Chowdhury to Jyoti Roy. And I live in same place (As mentioned in my bio in both the accounts). This is the truth I can say. And I have realized that sockpuppetry is unlawful and useless also I'm not willing to create anymore account. So I had decided that until six months has over, I refrain from editing Wikipedia. To continue, I think I have aware myself of my misbehavior to the community and I will not continue to do so, henceforth. I also want to assure you that if I be unblock, then I will be working on the basics, means what a normal editor usually do. I will fully focus on creating, editing and updating articles that are completely based on India-related topics. When I will gain experience on the user rights, I will apply but after few years, as my unblocking immediately will not grant me that right. To conclude, I want to contribute many things and not to spoil the community. I will try my best to get back trust everyone. I hope you will not abandon me. I would request you to please consider my review and then unblock me. If any conclusion comes regarding my un-block, please inform me. I look forward to your response regarding the request. Thanking You, Yours sincerely, --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)}} [Addendum by TTP 19th Aug] "Extraordinary Writ advised me in an e-mail to get involved in other wiki projects to convince other users that I'm worthy to join or not. Currently I'm working in Simple English Wikipedia as rollbacker. Also I made almost 1800 edits by now and created over 45 articles. My aim in working there is to fight against vandalism and create articles (when the activity in editing is low in simple wiki)."

• Just because May was a while ago, I did run a new check and do not see any new activity. So checkuser remains all clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding the username being used for the appeal, they've noted: "I cannot access my master sock account User:NS Dibyojyoti because I have forgotten the password of it. I have tried to reset the password but it failed anyhow. So I chose to request here." Thus any appeal would unblock this specific account. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per Simple Wiki.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

bloody sigmabot keeps archiving-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock per Standard Offer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• The unblock request has been open since May and this discussion has been open for more than a fortnight. Neither have garnered much attention, to the point that this discussion has been archived at least twice. Where we are at now is that there are a couple of administrators who seem to be in favour of unblocking and no user explicitly against it. My thinking, in this case, is that the user has met the criteria to be unblocked per standard offer, has been waiting for a good while and, in any case, reblocks are cheap. So I'm boldly about to unblock him. In the end, should he edit disruptively again, he can be reblocked swiftly and, on the other hand, if he doesn't, we gain a productive editor... Salvio 16:59, 2 September 2022 (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 lifting topic ban user Wickey

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.

---

Hereby, I request to lift the topic ban on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As I have never used a sockpuppet to evade the rules – which has falsely been suggested and for which you will nowhere find any evidence – and only wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, I have no problem with promising that I will abide all the rules. Wickey (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate an overall review and valuation of my contributions to articles, not stick on a single incident. I have been editing for more than 10 years on WP in several wiki's, without being blocked. So, what I ask is to give it a try.--Wickey (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Not editing when blocked is a rule, and the public note on your UTRS appeal notes that you accepted the tie between the two accounts when in your AE case you stated User:Wickey-nl is another user. So to be holding the position that you weren't even now discourages me to remove the restriction. Your content work over the last six months, however, seemed reasonable to me and not in the field. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If I want to use a sockpuppet for abuse, I will not choose a sockpuppet name that you will easily recognize, right? I had the two accounts from the time I started on WP, which anyone can check. Just to explain. --Wickey (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• I guess this is the link to the topic ban. There is more detail at user talk:Wickey. I don't see where this request addresses the original issues. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks User:Deepfriedokra for posting the links. Wickey's topic ban was mainly on the basis of a combative attitude, with accusations of bias/corruption and elements of edit warring thrown in. So to overturn it, we'll need to be convinced that this attitude has changed. On that basis I decided to take a look at their edit history on talk pages, and the very first page I looked at, completely at random, was Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor. There I see all sorts of accusations flying around concerning bias, promotion, edit warring and an editor being hounded away from the topic; I'm not seeing any evidence that the required lessons have been learned. WaggersTALK 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. seems quite the opposite. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The combative, uncollaborative attitude on display at Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor shows that it would be a mistake to permit this editor to return to the Israel/Palestine topic area. Thanks, Waggers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  In this revealing 2018 conversation, Wickey wrote User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs. So, we have overt lying combined with a terrible attitude about the I/P topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wickey was not a constructive editor last time they were allowed to edit in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Number 57 18:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose In order to remove any editing restriction with regard to our perhaps single most contentious content area, the community should expect to see rather a fulsome acknowledgment of why the TBAN was found necessary in the first place and a decent explanation of why the restriction is no longer necessary. That's the baseline for the determination, before we even add the additional concerns raised above of continued combativeness and borderline (at least) disruption in other contentious areas. But though these reasons would have been sufficient in and of themselves for me to oppose the request as a concerned community member, it is Cullen's discovery of statements that directly indicate that the user is lying in regard to statements regarding socking in this very thread that really seals the deal. That is deeply concerning and leaves no question about our inability to trust any assurance the user gives us here for the purpose of assuaging concerns. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose @Wickey:Please describe how your edits merited a TBAN and what you would do differently. Setting that aside, you have claimed to be unconnected with Wickey-nl, claimed to have stopped using that account, and now claim to have had two accounts ab initio. Can you reconcile these divergent statements in a manner that would regain the Community's trust? You are quoted above as having written, "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." What has changed? Do you still regard editors in that content area as before? Are you now happy to edit in such an area? Can you answer the concern in a prior post that you continue with a, "combative, uncollaborative attitude?" Thanks.(fixed ping) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• One time, no more, I wrongly denied the two accounts are connected. That was when two users were hounding me, trying to get rid of one more editor they don't like (one of them is indefinitely blocked). IMO, a single lie does not justify a permanent block or TBAN.
• It may be surprising, but claiming or suggesting that I broke a TBAN is just a hoax! Both accounts were blocked. Even more, I did not use the other account any more, though it was not blocked.
• I said things in the proces of blocking out of frustration, that I should never have done. I apologize for that.
• I acknowledge that my behaviour ThorCon nuclear reactor was wrong, apart from the question who was technically right or wrong. I am not proud of that incident. I want to change my combative, uncollaborative attitude and give polite discussion priority over my own opinion. I should prevent escalating discussions.--Wickey (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. RE:" I should prevent escalating discussions." Yes, and till you can show you are doing this, I'm afraid I cannot agree to you editing in this topic area. One should not set oneself up for failure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Wickey: Am I missing something here? Above you say "claiming or suggesting that I broke a TBAN is just a hoax". Yet you were topic banned in from the Arab-Israeli conflict in August 2014 [66]. This topic ban seems to be the ban you are appealing. Yet the entirety of your 15 edits in 2016 and 2017 under the Wickey-nl [67] account look like they probably violated this topic ban e.g. [68].

  As for this Wickey account, your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th undeleted edits which were in 2017 seem to be a violation of your topic ban [69] [70] [71] [72]. With an edit history like that, whyever you originally ended up with 2 global accounts, I don't think you're going to convince me that bringing the Wickey account here to en was perfectly innocent [73]. And no, the fact you were simultaneously violating your topic ban on both the Wickey-nl and Wickey accounts is not enough to convince me. More importantly even if it really is true, this still doesn't excuse your topic ban violations.

  You seem to branched out a bit with the Wickey account after that but still it was enough for the 2018 ARE case which was partly about the fact you did not have the 500/30 edits to edit in the area. There were concerns you were not properly notified about the 500/30 restriction but it ended up a moot point as it reflected that you were still editing in violation of your topic ban. [74] This is where you told the lie that the accounts were unconnected [75].

  Maybe it was only one time you lied, but now in 2022 you're excusing that lie because you were being hounded. I'm not going to investigate in detail but as problematic as IceWiz is, claiming you were being hounded seems highly questionable when the edits you were being "hounded" over seems to have at a minimum been a violation your topic ban, and regardless of whether and when these alleged "hounders" knew of this, you should have. In fact, if we take things further, while we do not allow editors to clean start and edit in areas where they were topic banned from, if we did it seems the concerns you weren't properly informed about the 500/30 restriction go out the window as noted in the 2018 ARE since as someone who was topic banned from the area at ARE, you should have been well aware of the restriction.

  I'll further note that you even did technically use the Wickey account to edit while your Wickey-nl was blocked for 3 months from 9 August 2017 [76]. It was only 3 minor edits which didn't violate your topic ban [77] [78] [79] but still not something which should have happened and also goes against your suggestion above 'Even more, I did not use the other account any more, though it was not blocked.'.

  Note that all these edits are quite a while ago and frankly normally they wouldn't matter that much. The primary reason they do here is because you've made it out like you didn't really do anything wrong but my analysis suggests this is far from the truth. And I'm very unwilling to trust editors who are unwilling to admit their wrongdoing in their appeal to safely edit an area they were topicbanned from. This isn't even complicated stuff, it seems largely technical of what happened when.

  Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. Thanks for that in depth review. Were I not so lazy, I'd switch to strong oppoose. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  This would seem to refute the not abusively socking claim. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (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.

Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

The next phase of the ongoing discretionary sanctions amendment process has opened. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) have posted a draft of the amendments here, together with draft language, and invite community comments. We would like to note that this public consultation includes a draft of the amendments for the purposes of indicating possible areas for amendment; community comments will be instrumental in identifying what reforms are desirable to proceed on, and whether the draft is missing appropriate amendments. The Phase 2 Consultation will end on October 3rd. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

Hazaras

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! Respectful admins, I would like to protect the Hazaras page at the admin level because User: KoizumiBS is trying to make unprincipled and racist changes to it.--Iampharzad (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Iampharzad (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iampharzad. Please make this report at WP:ANI. When doing so, be sure to read the instructions at the top of the page, include details of the offending behavior including specific links to disruptive edits (diffs) and any other relevant information. Then notify KoizumiBS of the discussion along with anyone else involved. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (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 to lift topic ban

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.

---

On April 2019 I was placed under a topic ban in the ARBPIA area, as shown here, and on 18 August 2020 tried unsuccessfully to repeal my topic ban, as shown here, although given an ease of strictures whereby I was then permitted to edit pages carrying the ARBPIA tag, allowing me to edit on subjects related to pre-1948 Arab-Jewish history, geography, and even on post-1948 culturally related issues, farming, adding photographs, etc., but not to divulge on topics of the Arab-Israeli war, extra-judiciary killings, terrorism, etc. In short, I have been unable to edit in the Israel/Palestine conflict area for more than 3 years! This limited topic ban brought me into trouble on 28 January 2022, as shown here, when I was cited for violating my topic ban by writing “State of Israel” in an article describing Jerusalem, being a set of 740+ outlines listed at Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia outlines are a special type of list article make up one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems and which Outline makes use of a pre-set format. During this last infraction, where I was remiss in that I did not realize the sensitivities felt by part of the community at using the words “State of Israel” when requested by the format of the same article to list the name of the government under which the city of Jerusalem lies, I beg your forgiveness. I should have known that writing such, under my limited topic ban, would elicit a response. At the time, however, I honestly did not think that I was stepping beyond the limitations of my topic ban by mentioning the name of the government over the city, as it is not the same as saying I support that government’s actions. Moreover, I did not even initiate the edit, but the format in the article called for the name of the government, and I felt obliged to fill-in the void. Now that I realize my misstep, given the limited topic ban that I was under, and how that I should have been more sensitive to this issue, I am asking for another chance to help improve this worthy encyclopedia and to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, without limitations. As everyone can see, my limited topic ban created some confusion as to where to draw the line. Altogether, I have been under the ARPBIA area topic ban for 3 years and 3 months, with only this one infraction. Removing this topic ban completely will allow me to:

1) Edit lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Books, which I have been wont to do in the past.

2) Edit Historical pages, such as City of David (historic), and King's Garden (historical), among many others, which I have been wont to do in the past.

3) Upload images to Historical pages, which I have been wont to do in the past, such as Dayr Aban, Khirbat al-Tannur, Kafr 'Inan, and many others.

4) Help with showing how certain place-names have changed in this country (Israel/Palestine) because of the 1948 and 1967 wars, such as what I did in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names.

5) Engage with other editors in the ARBPIA area on matters of Wikipedia policy and of maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV).

6) Give Wikipedia the unique experience of research conducted by an Israeli editor that has access to rare books in the Israeli public libraries, books that treat on the Arab-Israeli conflict and its past wars, government decisions taken in those wars, etc., the history of Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as of Muslim institutions in the country, subject matters not otherwise known or readily had by editors who do not live in this country or who do not have access to its libraries

Having the opportunity to edit anew in these important fields will be commensurate with the good judgment and magnanimity of Wikipedia editors, who were kind and considerate with other editors who had made similar mistakes in the ARBPIA area, some blocked and some banned for their offences, and, yet, were permitted to return to edit in this category.

We say in Hebrew: האהבה מקלקלת את השורה‎ = (paraphrased) “He falls into folly who loves [a thing] too heartily.” I guess you can say that my love and enthusiasm for this project sometimes override my better judgment. Still, we all learn from our mistakes.

We all have a certain base of experience which lends itself to certain topics, as well as a certain background which lends itself to our perception of different things. As editors, we can neutrally convey those binary opinions to our readership, without trying to advocate a certain political or ideological cause, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policy that prohibits WP:ADVOCACY, such as by trying to sway public opinion one way or the other. And while the Arab-Israeli conflict has possessed many of our dear friends and fellow co-editors so fully of the subject, perhaps also those who level their harsh criticisms against me, I can assure you that what my opinion is on this subject can have but the least consequence upon any of the living, since I am not interested in aggravating an already bad situation, and because I truly love both peoples.

And while I am an Israeli and I share a common fate with the people of this country, this does not mean I cannot have empathy towards my fellow Arab citizen whenever he is oppressed. I hereby give my reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Asking for another chance. We're here to serve and I've come to miss editing in the fields that I love the most.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The description of the January 2022 incident makes it sound so innocent, while in reality it was not some forced error but a blatant deliberate one-sided "outline", giving only the Israeli position and not even mentioning Palestine once. An inability or unwillingness to accurately describe what happened then (and which already came hot on the heels of a 9 week block in late 2021) means I can't support lifting this topic ban. Fram (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The January sanction was clearly not for writing the words "State of Israel". How can we trust someone back into a contentious topic when they can't even be fully honest in their unblock request? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, having reread the previous ban/unban discussions, I can believe that Devidbena actually didn't see how controversial that Jerusalem outline would be. But, with this subject to close to him, his judgment has been poor on a number of occasions. With no shortage of contributors to the ARBPIA area, we really don't need someone who has shown repeated poor judgment working there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems to me that the narrowing of the topic ban in August 2020 gives David leeway for quite a bit of editing in the area he loves. And this AE discussion clearly shows that his description of the January 2022 incident is specious. Bishonen | tålk 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

  There's a word not used often enough -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm doing my best to remedy that. See it three times here. Bishonen | tålk 18:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's like spurious, I guess...? El_C 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Specious can be used spuriously. But can spurious be used speciously? GoldenRing (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you must know, read the famous book by famous author Chuck Darwin: The Origin of Specious. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @GoldenRing: I think you just did. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing much understanding of the problems that led to the sanction here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Clearly does not understand the scope of the issue, and we will be right back here again when he edits tendentiously in the area. Star Mississippi 00:25, 2 September 2022 (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.

My articles restoration permission

Can any admin restore my deleted articles. During my block most of my created articles were deleted under G5. Jyoti Roy (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello to TTP1233 posting for some reason with the misleading signature Jyoti Roy. Which specific articles are you asking to be restored and why do you believe that these deleted articles are about notable topics and are well referenced? If you were writing acceptable articles, then why were you blocked and why were your articles deleted? Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See the section above titled "TTP1233 Unblock Request (unarchived)" for further information. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at their deleted contribs, it would seem they were all Draft: space. The relevant reasons are found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NS Dibyojyoti/Archive. The normal process for undeleting articles like this would be Wikipedia:Deletion review as they appear to have been deleted in process and properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, thank you for the advice. :) Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps best if some people keep an eye on this editor's contributions. I noticed e.g this incorrect vandalism reversal + warning, and the moving of an article from draft to mainspace which was created by an earlier incarnation of this editor, but then moved to draft and declined afterwards. To start like this straight of an indef block doesn´t look good. Fram (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a completely wrong addition. I wonder if we aren´t still in the same WP:CIR territory as at the time of the original blocks. Fram (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit is really bad. Why did you do that, TTP1233? Cullen328 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There were no reliable source, so I added one @Cullen328. How would I know, if Fram reverted it. TTP1233 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an answer to Cullen's question. Adding a source to unsourced material is great, but not if it doesn't support the material. In this instance, it was irrelevant to the material. Fram reverted you; he had not reverted beforehand. There had been no edits to the article since 2020. I'm afraid your response only confirms Fram's contention of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

TTP1233, you added a source about a 2022 beer festival at a castle to an article about an opera written in 1916. Yes, the opera and the castle share a name but they are otherwise completely unrelated. This was an incompetent edit. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation from an editor. @Cullen328 Thank you TTP1233 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@TTP1233: You, however, are the editor we're looking for an explanation from. Please explain 1) What led you to make that edit, 2) Why it was an incorrect edit, and 3) How you will avoid making such edits in the future. If you are unable to do so, I will take that as a sign that you are not currently able to edit constructively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, please allow me to explain.

1. I saw that the opera was needed additional source. So I decided to add a reliable source and I did it.

2. I later found it from explanation of @Bbb23, that it is not directly linked to the topic but kind of related topic. I didn't know that. So it is not a good edit.

3. As per I stated in my unblocking review appeal, I will edit as what normal editors do. Not extraordinary edits. So for this case I will see to it, that the source must be directly connected to the topic.

If you are satisfied with the reason, you can take actions. Or ask more questions regarding my other edits.

This is odd. I ask that my deleted pages under G5 be undelete. But this is going beyond it. Anyways I do follow instructions. TTP1233 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that despite the absence of a clear consensus to unblock TTP, the rationale for doing so was (1) that two admins supported it; (2) no one opposed it; and (3) reblocks are cheap. The third point is not something I personally agree with. Generally, unless there's egregious behavior, e.g., new socking after unblocking a sock, reblocks tend to be hard, especially soon after an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, these edits are rough and not expecting edits. Please revert if you feel it unsatisfied.

  Strict and committed people like @Bbb23 and @Fram have different thoughts about me. But I don't mind. Neither I have potential to achieve something nor do I have to argue. I don't want to show disrespect to them. They are cool.

  I have nothing to say but one thing, that if some admins have faith on me for unblocking me to become a productive editor, they will do convince as well, but after some time. That's all. TTP1233 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keeping in mind Salvio's close in the unblock thread, I have indefinitely reblocked TTP for inability to edit constructively and communicate clearly in English. This isn't about a single bad edit, but what it represents: If someone can't distinguish a beer festival from an opera—not as the kind of sloppy mistake we all make from time to time, but as apparently thinking they're the same thing—that represents an inability to understand sources that I don't think any warning can remedy. Prolonging this further would be a waste of volunteer resources. I would suggest that TTP focus more on contributing in languages they speak more fluently.
  This does not per se moot the original request to reverse the G5s, so I'll leave the thread open in case anyone has anything to say on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I endorse this block. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  No objections at all. Salvio 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  It languished for some time with no "oppose" posted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Barkeep49, Cabayi and Primefac. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 5 September to 17 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 18 September to 22 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 23 September to 25 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 26 September to 5 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 16 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Please delete the user status page of a blocked user

Please delete a blocked user's status page see here under the criteria WP:G5. He's a sock of an LTA disrupting Wikipedia for years now. Thanks! 170.80.110.5 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Disinclined to delete, since it's just a user page. I've also converted your elink to a wikilink. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

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

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WMF Board voting closes on September 6

I want to specifically highlight the last bullet in the newletter, that voting for the WMF Board of Trustees closes on September 6. Only 16% of administrators who are eligible to vote have done so, here's the list of admins who haven't voted yet. This seems rather low to me given how many administrators care about or are affected by decisions the WMF makes (everyone, really). I encourage you to:

• Review the list of candidates
• Watch/read answers to community questions
• Vote!

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd, I voted prior to this post and I'm on the list as not voted. When I click the link to vote it said I already have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a few different lists on that page; it looks like you're listed in the "Have voted" section. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

...I'll just get my coat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: indeed, you're all set. Thank you for voting! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reminder, voting closes in about 21 hours at 23:59 UTC today. The vote-tracker says 24% of eligible admins have voted, which is great improvement! ...but we can do better :-) Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Straight Through Processing

Resolved

Please can I be unblocked from editing Straight Through Processing. I invented the system back in 1992 whilst I was working for the London Stock Exchange. I am have been credited with ther invention by the University Of Cardiff and a number of articles in the UK press. https://theeverydaymagazine.co.uk/opinion/james-karat-and-straight-through-processing https://www.belsizevillage.co.uk/new_stories1.htm https://www.ftni.com/blog/the-journey-to-attaining-the-holy-grail-of-ar https://www.aspectenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/STP-Inforgraphic.pdf https://hyperleap.com/topic/Straight-through_processing https://issuu.com/dartfordliving/docs/dartford_living_april_2022 https://figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Operational_efficiency_of_industrialised_information_processing_systems/20272275

Many thanks James Jasperk1975 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please initiate a new talk page discussion on the proposed content and sources at Talk:Straight Through Processing, as requested by the blocking admin[80]. If consensus forms to add the content, then you can re-request an unblock by placing the following code on your talk page: {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Remember to replace "Your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. DrKay (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jasperk1975: Well, I'd say you need t discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Straight Through Processing

as you have a conflict of interest -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather unban appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). Interested editors may give feedback to the committee at here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Lightbreather unban appeal

User:Scabab

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 didn't know where to report it so I reported it here. User:Scabab is indulging in edit war and original research (although yes I did edit war with him at the same time too) on Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero.

The dispute as you can see from Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero arises from Scabab insisting on mixing and matching numbers from various sources for the movie. Comscore reports a $60.6 global cume without the Japan gross for the movie and $34.8 million in US by Sunday [81].

According to Box Office Mojo the Japan gross is $18.5 million and the US gross is $34.9 million, while the global is $77.1 million [82].

However the BOM gross includes the estimate for US Monday gross which is $394,000 while Comscore only includes an estimate till Sunday. This also means that per BOM the domestic gross was just $39.5 million by Sunday against ComScore's $39.8 million. That said it's nothing unusual as different sources report different grosses.

Scabab has taken it up by himself to combine the highest figures from all sources to make up his own gross and he prefers Comscore as being the correct source. However common Wikipedia practice has been to prefer BOM or The Numbers.

He is edit warring over it and using OR.

He also seems to be using socks. 92.30.64.172 for example also likes to lurk on Dragon Ball articles a lot like Scabab and used the same reasoning to revert me.

Not to mention, that he also made condescending remarks towards User:TropicAces in Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero telling him he has no clue and when I told to tone it down he derided me by saying he didn't ask for my opinion.

I request a sock puppet investigation, though it might not be needed as it seems obvious, and a block for his behavior regardless. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That IP address does appear suspicious... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't start the edit war. Gave sources for the information.

Comscore (and Deadline) listed the global gross as $60.6 million without Japan. With Japan it stands at $79.1 million. Box Office Mojo lists Mondays estimated gross separately from Comscore as that only updates each week. Box Office Mojo also did not include Thursdays gross for the movie which is why there's a difference.

Comscore is the primary source for Box Office information which Box Office Mojo gets its figures from to begin with.

It also was not a sock. It was simply just an edit I made whilst logged out on my phone while I was using my tablet to find the source that I put in (while logged out) which he only removed anyway. Not a sock....I just didn't log in.

Oh and also, the last four movies grosses are all mixed and matched. That's nothing new for anime movies when Box Office Mojo does a poor job of tracking them. Demon Slayer for example is $50 million lower than the actual amount listed on here. Comscore is the one to go by. Scabab (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're starting it or not. But you did by reverting me [83].

In addition using different figures mixed up from various sources doesn't mean you're actually reporting what the sources say. It's original research. We

Also given that you've been using that IP for months while logged out and haven't once bothered to declare that it was yours, even though it's fixed and not dynamic, until others started catching up to it makes it further clear that you've been using a sock puppet.

In addition the Demon Slayer gross on Wikipedia is 50 million higher than BOM because The Numbers reports it as $506 million [84]. BOM states $453 million [85].

It's worth noting that you refused to consider The Numbers which reports a lower gross of $58 million for Dragon Ball Super [86].

It's clear you just decide which source is correct based on your preference and which has a higher number. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research is required when the sources specifically say that the grosses aren't including Japans gross. You obviously require pulling from different sources unless you want an incorrect gross like you kept putting in.

Why would I possibly declare a non logged in account? It's not another user. I've made plenty of edits without bothering to log in.

The Numbers hasn't even updated Super Hero's gross for over a week. Even when it did update, the overseas gross was just all the listed individual grosses added up together, not the actual overall gross.

The only gross that will ever matter is the correct one. If you are going to bother to include a gross there is zero point in doing so unless it is correct. Neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers are correct. Comscore and Deadline were correct and even then, again, specifically said that the Japan gross was not included. Scabab (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OR was never required, you decided to do it on your own based on your preference. It's better to avoid incomplete data.

We wouldn't know an IP is yours until you declare it and socks can be used to create a fake consensus. Why have you avoided it mentioning it for so long until people suspected you?

How do you know which gross is correct and which isn't? It's clear you're only using Comscore because it has a higher number than BOM. Also Deadline relies on Comscore as well. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• How about you two step away from the article and let other editors sort it out? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because I didn't care to declare it? I'm not an active editor, I mainly just edit the gross for the Dragon Ball movies to their most accurate figure. I'm not bothered whether I'm signed in or not.

  I know exactly which gross is correct. What difference does Comscore having a higher number than Box Office Mojo have to do with anything? Last week Box Office Pro said the movie was at $80+ million. That wasn't put in either because again it was a mistake.

  Box Office Mojo is completely missing a days gross, theres no Thursday there where there is for Comscore. So why are you using an incomplete gross from a site that gets most of its figures from Comscore....over Comscore?

  Where is the confusion here? Comscore has a gross for the movie as of Sunday not including Japan. You take that gross and you add Japan's figure and you get the most accurate figure. Why would you not go with that but go with something that's incorrect and missing an entire day? Scabab (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  The confusion here lies in treating this noticeboard as a content dispute resolution venue. If people would discuss this in a civil manner (i.e. not accusing others of being idiots) it should be possible to reach a decision on the content on the talk page without touching the article until things are resolved. Just do things without sockpuppetry and without throwing accusations around. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was discussing it just fine on the appropriate talk page. Everything was explained clearly on my end and he still continued to put in an incorrect figure.

  As was mentioned there too, it's not really a matter of opinion. The facts are the facts, if Comscore says that it has made that amount then it has made that amount as they get their figures from the studios themselves. Scabab (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you were not discussing it fine. You were saying things like someone who hasn't got a clue, he knows nothing at all, You rather obviously have no clue whatsoever about this and I gave up after three examples of your incivility. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that was true. If he had a clue then he would have put in the correct gross and there would be no issue in the first place. It's because he doesn't know what he's doing is the problem. Scabab (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop making the disparaging comments about other editors. Continued incivility may result in you being blocked. Donald Albury 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be an active editor to declare something and you're basically making excuses for your attacks on others Scabab.

Yes BOM seems to be missing a day's gross (although it could be possible that it just simply added the gross for many days) but you're still mixing and matching numbers based on what you like. You're also admitting you're aware that you're using an unreliable source. Either stop using BOM or Comscore. Why are you adding BOM and Comscore figures when they don't match? That's OR. The number isn't going to be higher than $500,000 at best given the usual day gross in that week before weekends [87]. It'll be around $77.5-77.6 million at best. It still won't be $79.1 or 79.5 million. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether I need to or not, I dont care whether I'm signed in or not.

No BOM did not add a days gross. Comscores gross was used as it was the most accurate and the source of most value (which has now been revised further). The daily grosses displayed on BOM, because they won't do such a thing on Comscore will be added to that gross.

It was at $78.7 million as of Sunday and Deadline is now saying $584,000 for Monday which would make it $79.3 million. Scabab (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This condescending attitude of yours is troubling. You should declare a long-held IP so people can be sure who it is.

And again if you want to consider one source as reliable, go ahead. But please stop using OR and mixing and matching sources. If you think BOM isn't correct then don't use it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (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.

RfC regarding updating WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE

WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE, regarding consideration of off-wiki evidence in blocks for on-wiki misconduct, and relating to ArbCom's statement last month about such blocks, may be of general interest to administrators. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No decision made. I ask for authorization to restore the status quo...

Discussion also ongoing at WP:ANI#World Cup race podiums in Infobox of the alpine skiers, one location for this is already more than most people want
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
.. and that is the podium table in the World Cup in the infoboxes of active skiers, before the Marbe166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed its at his unquestionable and incontrovertible decision, with obviously overbearing reverts if someone restored its, not just me incidentally. Here is a summary of the story. A week passed, from August 30, even to the ANI without any decision. Here is the summary of the attempts made. Attempted in user talk: no result; Attempted in the infobox talk: no result; Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results; Attempted at the Teahouse: no result; Attempted to dispute resolution: no result; Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result; Attempted ANI: no result --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Kasper2006, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes and neither does the Teahouse. Administrators do not "authorize" things like this. You are at the wrong place. Focus on Dispute resolution, which describes the various options for dealing with content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Per Cullen. A week is a very short amount of time, Kasper, to get sufficient feedback to break a deadlock between two editors who are in a disagreement. There are LOTS of options listed at WP:DR for you to follow, but many of them need time for other volunteers to find the discussions, contribute, and build a consensus on how to proceed. It takes considerable time to do that, moreso when one or both parties overcontributes to the dispute to where no one else feels like helping out. --Jayron32 19:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Meanwhile, Kasper2006 has not done any of the things mentioned above, but instead continued to add the disputed content to a few more skiers (Sofia Goggia, Henrik Kristoffersen, Petra Vlhová, Ragnhild Mowinckel, Michelle Gisin) despite being clearly told not to whilst the discussion is ongoing. Kasper2006 seems to have a problem with realising that what he claims to be the "status quo" is, in fact, not. That is disruptive behaviour. If Kasper2006 wants to add the information, which is interesting and relevant, then it can be added as a separate table in the main body of the articles, but it should not be in the infobox, since it is not medals and it clutters the infobox with too much information. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps it is not clear to you that the bully is you. Here for months, no administrator has made a decision about your destructive behavior. I repeat and I tell the administrators, the STATUS QUO was the table in the infobox, so it is still in 90% of the articles for years, YOU ARE ONLY YOU to think differently. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to realise that what you claim is the "status quo" is not the status quo. The status quo is that the MEDALtemplate in the infobox is used for MEDALS, i.e. Olympics, World Championships and Junior World Championships. I am only reverting because you are adding information that is the subject of the discussion, and such changes should not be made when the discussion is ongoing. Marbe166 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC) My friend "status quo" is something that has been going on for years tacitly from Stenmark to Odermatt everyone has always had the tables since 2005, only to arrive in the last year and take it away only to some active skiers. It is not clear to you yet that the "medaltemplates" is used but it is explicit in the title "podiums in World Cup". --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) No, it has not been the case for everyone. Like I said in another of our exchanges, it has been the case for many Italian skiers and a few others, like the ones you mention. The vast majority of skiers do not have the WC podium table in the infobox. (Here are 5 examples: Anja Pärson, Pernilla Wiberg, Nicole Hosp, Lindsey Vonn, Wendy Holdener). Marbe166 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC) In any case, you are holding on to a trifle. You want to show that since the template is named "medaltemplate" you only have to put competitions that give medals. But this is not the case, as in the German wiki, if you use the template by changing the title "podiums in world cup" you can give this VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION already in the infobox, thus helping the millions of Wikipedia users in the world (not editors like you and me ), seeking help perhaps while watching a ski race. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) <Don't fool us. If you that you have always taken away see here --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) As I wrote above the discussion has been stagnant for months, I have made six attempts in six different places and when one intervenes one tells me: try the Teahouse, try the "dispute resolution". Already done! Already done! --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC) See in the chronology how many poor users Marbe166 do the revert has done with his: "not medals" ... "not medals" --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Marco Odermatt saved himself from the madness of Marbe166 and with him, as I said, 90% of the skiers who have this table that I have certainly not set over the years. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) I ask the administrators if I can warn in their talk of the presence of this discussion the dozens and dozens of users overbearingly reverted by our friend. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Among other things, I find it even crazier that you have quietly edited, for example in Lindsey Vonn, they leave the table for four years from 3 February 2018 to your cancellation on 30 January 2022 --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC) I'd like to make any administrator (if any admin is reading this...) aware of that Kasper2006 has now diverted from civilised discussion and resorted to a personal attack here, accusing me of lying. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Marbe166, you are wrong I did not accuse you of lying at random, but I proved with the Lindsay Vonn chronology links that you knew that the status quo (table you allowed to last 4 years) was "table yes", so it was "don't say a true thing knowing it" when you said the status quo was "table no". But I proved what I said (see opening discussion in Lindsay Vonn's talk), you weren't able to. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Given today's announcement about the health of Her Majestey, and the fact that she is 96, we may need to face the fact that she could be coming to the end of her long reign. Extra admin eyes on her article, and those closely connected to her would probably be no bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected Operation London Bridge for 3 days for disruptive editing/vandalism. Of course that can be extended should circumstances dictate it but I think 3 days is a good starting point. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has been extended-confirmed protected indefinitely by DrKay. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question Do we need to move protect the Charles, Prince of Wales article? I can forsee the article being move warred over once the Queen passes. Move protecting would allow for time to discover the new King's regnal style, at which time the article need be moved once, and once only. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's already move protected (for other reasons). DrKay (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good. Padlock only showing for semi-protection though. That might be an issue for discussion elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not guaranteed that it will need to be moved "once and only once". Assuming he takes the name Charles III, will we move the disambiguation currently at Charles III to allow the new king's article to be there (as is the case with every British monarch from George III onwards, other than Queen Victoria), or will it go at Charles III of the United Kingdom? Whichever answer the mover chooses, it will probably be challenged by someone who thinks the other is correct, and there's no way to know which will win. Animal lover |666| 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've a feeling that if he sticks with Charles, it will be Charles IX, under Churchill's rule, as there were King Charles's in Scotland before the joining of the English and Scottish Crowns. He could take, for example, George VII as his title. Which is why I suggest waiting for an official announcement. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that. Charles can pick any regnal name, and we may not know for a few days what that may be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands: assuming that we currently have a disambiguation at his chosen name, do we move the disambiguation page out of the way and place the king's article there, or do we add "of the United Kingdom" to that name? This could go either way. Animal lover |666| 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

IMvHO, Charles III should be a disambiguation page. We should use the "of the United Kingdom" disambiguator, whatever regnal name is chosen. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this. While "English speaking" people are indeed most likely to look for the UK Charles, there is no harm in disambiguating, and they will immediately identify it in the search results. We should avoid regionalising and putting different language wikis out of sync. English-bias should be avoided. El Dubs (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has just announced the death. BBC News source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Charles has been king from some time this afternoon. There is no need for an encyclopedia to reflect that until things are clearer. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss just gave a statement from Downing Street, named the new King as "King Charles III". Suggest we wait for now on a move to "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A request to admins, could the article stop being made until a verified statement has been released by Buckingham Palace with regards to the regnal name of Charles please? Such an announcement will come, but for now one has not been made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And of course, seconds after I made this request, an official statement was actually made that the regnal name is Charles III. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on: evidently Clarence House is also starting to refer to the former queen as "Elizabeth the Great". Not in an official capacity, it's just something that someone mentioned on the CBC live feed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't catch on. Surely the job of monarch and head of state has been, for the last few hundred years, not to be "great", and Elizabeth has performed that part of her job well. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Churchill's rule would still be Charles III, as pre-1707 England & Scotland only have each two monarchs named Charles, who happened to be the same people :) GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, compare the following beginning of Charles II of England:

Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685) was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651, and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685.

with the beginning of the article on his brother, James II of England:

James II and VII (14 October 1633 O.S. – 16 September 1701) was King of England and Ireland as James II, and King of Scotland as James VII

So with James there is a difference between England and Scotland, but with Charles there isn't any. Animal lover |666| 10:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

MassMessage

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.

---

Usually MassMessage requests at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders is responded within hours of posting, but it seems that my request has sat for over a week without a response. Have I done something wrong in my request? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea about the merits or otherwise of the specific request, but it looks like a low-traffic page and there are no obvious instructions there as to how someone with the technical permission to handle the request, which I believe I as an administrator have, could handle it. And the number of admins continues to drop.

If there were a step by step guide to processing requests available, I'd have a go at it. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we need to go to Special:MassMessage and fill in each box with the information under the "here are the details" header of the request. I've sent it, we'll see if it arrives as requested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle The instructions for sending a message are at mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage#Sending a message 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it worked, thanks for your help Jo-Jo Eumerus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (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.

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Staxringold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: L235, Barkeep49, CaptainEek

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Proposal to widen scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a proposed expansion of the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. The thread is Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have listed this discussion for closure on RFCLOSE. Uninvolved closure by an administrator would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)