Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340

Our problem

Deny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 everyone, 205.237.30.142 is a school IP. Our principal wants students to be able to create account in school, could you please only cancel the account creation blocked? CFDG123 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC) @Materialscientist: this is your block, would you be opposed to restoring account creation? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC) @Ivanvector: just an fyi, but MS has his notifications turned off so doesn't get pings. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC) But the school is public, in French Wikipedia, the IP is blocked, but the account creation is open. Seeing that it's a school IP which is used by different school, could you please block it until the end of school year 2022? CFDG123 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) We often suggest that students to create an account at home (or anywhere else outside school) and log in to that account when they want to edit from the school. Hut 8.5 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC) This block lasts too long, could you please block it until the end of school year 2022? CFDG123 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Do many students at your school want to edit the English Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Yes. Please give us a chance. CFDG123 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Is it for an English class? It otherwise seems odd that French students would want to edit the English Wikipedia. They can create accounts at home or elsewhere. If they have accounts that they use on the French Wikipedia, those should work here, too. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC) We are in a bilingual school, Édifice Filion. The school year will be over on June 2022, could you please block it into June 2022 to give us a chance for next year? CFDG123 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Why? This IP address has a long history of vandalism, and the current 3 year block was imposed after a previous 1 year block expired and the vandalism continued. School IPs with histories of vandalism are commonly blocked for long periods because it's just not worth allowing them to edit. As I've said for anyone who does want to edit Wikipedia at this school there is a solution. Hut 8.5 20:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Use your cell phone or home internet connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) If there were a trusted editor at the school already, perhaps we could grant them event coordinator (or account creator, I forget which is normally granted when)? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Wouldn't solve the problem. Account creation blocks are absolute and cannot be overcome even by stewards. Account creator/event coordinator essentially just allows you to not have a rate limit on account creations and use your home IP instead of the blocked IP the other person is at. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Account creation blocks are necessary, but can someone change the during of block? CFDG123 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC) You've given us zero reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) On the French Wikipedia, the entire /24 was blocked for five years, not just the single IP of the school. I would not support lifting the enwiki account creation block. Per the above comment of 331dot, nothing would prevent people from creating French Wikipedia accounts that would also work here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ACBs prevent local account creation of SULs, so it would. But we can force account creation if school staff emails the WP:ACC email address with a list of accounts created on other projects that need local account creation here. That being said, the by far simplest solution is for people to create the account at home or on their mobile network. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC) The block (regardless of its current duration) does not prevent students already with an account from being able to edit English Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) I think it's a bit weird your principle specifically wants students to create an account at the school? It's probably safer for all parties involved to have the students create accounts on their own devices. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Pardon the "bah humbug" tone of this post but this IP address is blocked on en-wiki and fr-wiki for persistent vandalism. There is presently no evidence that this unblock request is from a school principal and - as others have said - even if it was from a principal the simplest solution is for students to create accounts on their own devices. The school might also make contact directly rather than via a throwaway account with an oddly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia noticeboards. On which basis, absent any new and startling info the block seems thoroughly preventative and this request should be declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:27, 2 January 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.

Hohaaa by Alexander Davronov

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.

---

Hohaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hohaaa is WP:NOTHERE. They have recently targeted one of my edits (made on [November 12, 2021]) under a pretext of language issues. After a follow-up discussion opened by me at an GMDSS#Intro they went on a revert-spree across series of articles I've edited to rollback my contributions. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Their personal talk page

• 18:12, January 4, 2022 - «Undid revision 1063747691 by Martinevans123 talk) rv troll»
• 18:10, January 4, 2022 - «‎January 2022: new section»
• 17:58, January 4, 2022 - «‎Global Maritime Distress and Safety System»

↑ WP:DISRUPTSIGNS : Intentionally ignoring Martinevans123's legitimate questions. See contributions page.

Pages

↓ WP:HOUND, see history pages.

Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

↑ WP:FIXFIRST: on the talk page they basically admitted that they removed entire contribution because of minor issues

User experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

↑ WP:CIR; they attributed a text that I've rescued from Developer experience to me claiming that it has "grammar issues". Compare: [Sept 19, 2021] to [Jan 5, 2022].

Piranha solution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

↑ They intentionally removed subsection Applications added by me. Compare: [16:31, Jan 2, 2022] to [13:22, Jan 5, 2022]

Significand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BerliOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

↑ Compare: [10:11, Jan 1, 2022] to [18:03, Jan 5, 2022]

My personal talk page

• 18:04, January 5, 2022 - «‎Your level of English: new section»

↑ WP:TPNO: a rather pious attempt to WP:GASLIGHT me.

Probably related case

I've previously reported 51.6.138.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for attacking me with a poor english nonsense. You can find this report here (November 22, 2021).

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To accuse someone of "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia" because they've undone a handful of your edits is laughable. I undid edits which introduced major language errors while offering no discernible improvement. Hohaaa (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: This is WP:LTA/BKFIP. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

Note: Ponyo blocked Hohaaa at 21:48, 5 January 2022, with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked): WP:BKFIP. --Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 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.

Maunsellp.214

Please can someone undelete File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg, which was deleted with the summary "The result of the discussion was: Deleted - may be undeleted in 2022", and which is now out-of-copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, courtesy ping to J Milburn--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of J. K. Rowling RfC

A request was made at Wikipedia:Closure requests for closure of Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead. I'd have closed it myself, but quite a few participating editors requested a panel of three admins. I don't personally think it's an RfC so complex or significant that it needs a panel of admins, but in deference to those who feel it does I'm posting it here, since this is a better place to find three admin closers than WP:CR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to it being closed by a single editor, or a panel of editors. I only hope, everyone there will accept & respect/implement the decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am reading through that RfC and am tabulating some information on how which points were argued and who supported what and with which caveats. I am not yet 100% sure if I want to be the/a closer, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: closed the RFC, hours ago. Brave fellow. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Close please (ANI)?

Come on ye admins, this is last year's thread. Made a closure request to no avail - yet. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested BLPDELETE

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.

---

Following consultation with an Oversighter, I am requesting the deletion of Juliewiththebooty and Jack Murphy (author) under BLPDELETE. This is under the provision that:

"If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. ... Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard."

I believe that while G10 does not apply, the BLP concerns override the usual need for us to wait a week (be it through the PROD or AfD process). Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Christ the internet was such a huge mistake. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that should should be deleted post haste. I also concur with JBL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The first one is a pretty clear A7. The second one is a bit more marginal, so if someone disagrees with me deleting it I suppose we'll take it to AfD. Either way, both are now gone. – bradv^🍁 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I think the second was a clear attack page. An article saying what that did sourced to blogs, with a quick mention of a shooter watching his videos is pretty beyond the pale. Also, gotta make sure we jewtag him! I was in the process of cleaning it when you deleted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. For what it's worth, I didn't tag either under A7 because the sourcing by itself provided some claim of significance in my view. I just didn't believe that it met BLP standards. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the deletions. Good grief, why anyone would think they were suitable for an encyclopedia is beyond me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:22, 5 January 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.

Fram eroding XRV

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.

---

Fram appears to be eroding the newly created venue of review by starting a distinctly out-of-process challenge there (link), that pertains to inherently sensitive matter (minors, sexuality, speedy deletion), and is bound to attract attention, only to stir things to a point where they can take things to a personal level (diff). I request that administrators intervene by halting this specific activity of Fram on that page. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this will cool tempers and reduce drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Opening yet another report regarding this single event involving oversighted material displays very poor judgement.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, there's no admins at XRV to witness what's going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is pot-stirring. I'm closing it. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 5 January 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.

Self-promoting on the talk page of Family resource program

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.

---

A new user is self-promoting himself and his youtube channel and a show called Miraculous Ladybug. An another user and I are trying our best to stop him but he doesn't seem to understand. He is continuing editing and self-promoting ! The user is Adventures Of Aquaking. And he is also claiming the talk page as his. Please look into this matter and block him if needed, thanks ! Nikita Bhamidipati (talk) 09:08, 12 January 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:Administrative action review has been listed at MFD

Just a friendly heads up that I have raised an MFD on this page as it is a complete mess and embarrassment. I’d suggest that we encourage wide participation in a discussion as to whether the page is ready for use or if a structured RFC on scope and function should be agreed before implementation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And it's going very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get the popcorn. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the discussion. Firefangledfeathers 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've changed your slink to a direct link so that it always points to the proper place. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy kept by an involved user so now see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 6 Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've performed a closure that has afterwards correctly been criticized as involved. I had supported the creation of the page after opposing it and being convinced by others (WP:RFA2021/P#Passed:_6C_Administrative_action_review).

I have pointed this out in the closure now, which has fortunately since been endorsed by Wbm1058 who didn't participate in the discussion about 6C.

It's now at DRV, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wbm1058 just pointed out on my talk page that they aren't entirely uninvolved either, as they have commented in the "Discussion 6C" section as well. Okay then, two involved closers… It makes no sense to uphold this. The discussion is open again and should probably be re-closed by someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

since you are involved and clearly don’t care for opinions you disagree with maybe we can just accept your recommendation after blowing off a request to reopen when you knew you were involved is just noise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spartaz: what part of this don't you understand? Do you have a good reason for this case to be an exception to the applicable WP:MFD guideline? wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Policies, guidelines and process pages

Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.

• This is not a policy and was introduced and made live without the actual development called for in the RFC. It clearly has no standing without the necessary discussion agreeing scope function and format. And the way the proponents of this steaming pile of crap are attempting to shut down discussion of this is deeply disappointing for an effort supposed to improve accountability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Right, it's not a policy but surely it should be characterized as a 'process page'? So the discussion should be about temporarily or permanently halting the process, not deleting the process page. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  A process page without an agreed structure or scope is no process. Blanking to allow that discussion was precisely my request. Clearly many editors agree with my approach. MFD has been used for this kind of meta discussion many times over the years and is a perfectly valid venue for the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A roller coaster of a ride, to be sure: MFD opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → MFD re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that one's on me. Possible continuation: MFD opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → MFD re-opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → Closure endorsed → RfC opened, arguments repeated. Looking at this, we should probably just keep the MfD running regardless whether the page was originally intended for this purpose. The discussion exists and is advertised at WP:CENT; it doesn't have to be closed after a week either. Keeping it open for a month might alleviate many concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, who would have guessed that a page titled "Miscellany for deletion" would be the perfect discussion venue for a matter where deletion wasn't even an option on the table. Despite having been around for a decade now, I was unaware that this kind of discussion apparently routinely happens on this page. Does MfD routinely send participants on roller-coaster rides? Learn something every day. wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• The second close is also incorrect; MFD does not say what the close says it does. But the board appears to be morphing back to a kind of proposal stage, which MFD does say is not applicable. Since a proposal stage is where it should have stayed all along, at the end of the day we're at the right place - undeleted proposal - even if the route we took to get there was messed up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My block of ThePresidentoftheworld

Earlier I blocked User:ThePresidentoftheworld here as NOTHERE. @Floquenbeam: enquired as to why I had blocked the user (see [1]). While Floquenbeam has accepted my explanation for the block, I have decided on reflection to bring the block here for review. I have no objection to any admin modifying or removing the block. - Donald Albury 03:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block ThePresidentoftheworld (talk · contribs) was active on my talk for reasons that are still unclear but which caused me to look at their edits. We can never be certain of the exact reason for their approach but it wasn't going to work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Overturn block. The guy doesn't appear to be blatantly racist. The person is taking a controversial position on ethnicity, one not necessarily supported by the facts. But they're not being hateful against a group of people from what I can see. People POV pushing in American politics aren't treated this badly. I'd like to see a narrower t-ban from Taino related topics possibly enforced by page restrictions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to espouse positions unsupported by facts. Therefore, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block This cross-wiki spammer was locked and therefore unblocking will have no effect whatsoever. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, the account is globally blocked so it will be editing no more. But I applaud admins who bring contested decision to WP:AN for review, kudos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Unblock review of Neutralhomer

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.

---

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked User:Neutralhomer indefinitely back on October 20th with a rationale of "continuing to baselessly accuse other editors of racist [sic; I meant racism], after a very clear warning to stop, and a generally over the top battleground mentality for the last 3 days straight". He has requested an unblock on his talk page. I am not going to unblock him myself, as I find the unblock rationale unconvincing. Since CAT:UNBLOCK is backlogged, and (more importantly) since he seems to be questioning the legitimacy of the original block, I'm bringing it here for review.

• The original ANI thread that was the locus of the previous problem is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements
• The warning to stop mentioned above is here: [2] (copy of my email to him, posted with my permission
• The final straw edit I mention above is here: [3]
• His unblock request rationale, and a discussion with User:HighinBC and myself about it, is here: [4] (permalink as of the time I created this review)

I'm not consistently around, so if any editor notices that NH has asked that something he's written on his talk page be added here, please transfer it over. Finally, it's pretty hard to balance providing sufficient background with not poisoning the well, so I haven't provided many details. I'll answer any specific questions anyone has, but there might be a bit of a delay in my response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum Based on the comments so far, I agree that what I’m requesting and where it should be requested is a little fuzzy. I would not have requested a review of the original block if NH hadn’t requested I post to ANI. If it's framed as a block review, then if people think the original block was fine, but the unblock request is ok, then I’d hate to have to have a separate conversation about that. After reading the comments so far, I think what NH is asking for is a review of the unblock request - only a part of which is the idea the original block was wrong - so my earlier framing might have been unfairly focused on the wrong thing. This should really be an unblock review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. This editor is continuing right now the very same style of prickly, combative, "I was wronged" type of behavior that has led to the current sanctions. It is all well and good to say in an unblock request I apologize to everyone for being a complete asshole and a jerk but that admission loses its impact quickly when that very behavior resumes while discussing the unblock request. I am particularly taken aback by the comment I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. I worked as a hospital janitor nearly 50 years ago and have worked in "construction-esque" work environments ever since, including 28 years of owning and operating a "construction-esque" type business, and I can attest that cussing like sailors has never been acceptable in any work setting I have ever been involved in, and I have been working part time or full time for nearly 60 years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  (copied over from NH's talk page - floq) @Cullen328: First off, a hospital with patients and an empty school with just us custodians are two very different things. I have worked in both environments, so I am familiar. Behavior and language is different when teachers/students are in the building, clearly.

  Second, the two quoted sentences were from two seperate replies and not from the same sentence or same reply. The second quoted sentence that you used, when fully quoted is As for my "I fucked up" and "I was an asshole", I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. It takes a lot for one of us to say "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry"...but we do and that's why we work so well together. Guys, typically, don't go into long, flowing apologizes....we just don't. For some of us, "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry" is as good as it gets. It's genuine, but we are of few words. You get the entire context.

  Third, "prickly" and "combative"? I don't think I've ever been called "prickly" and I am most certainly not being combative, just the opposite.

  Fourth, I noticed from your userpage that you are from Michigan and now live in California. I'm not sure how they do things there, but I grew up around the Navy (sailors), my Dad was one, I work in a "custodial/construction-esque type of world", there is cussing. Generally, you get a bunch of guys together, we're gonna get relaxed, shoot the shit while working, and we cuss. But all of that that has ZERO barring on this website or my ability to edit it, nor should it. If anything, I have shitty morals.

  Hopefully, this helps you understand things a tad bit better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support- I"m aware of no rule that requires grovelling, or complete agreement with the block. Reyk _YO! 04:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be best if Neutralhomer waited the full six-months, before requesting an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note Wikipedia:Administrative action review is the current venue for reviewing administrative actions, including blocks. isaacl (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Lovely, more bureaucracy. Eventually, the "government" will be larger than the "country". Perhaps we should have some sort of triage noticeboard with a clerk in the cellar deciding which noticeboard to send someone to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Well, it really decides whether you want abuse or an argument; and complaints are next door. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't really a block review. Nobody is really contesting the original block was legitimate, afaik Neutralhomer didn't clearly say he was either. It's more like a block appeal to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note, as I understand it Floquenbeam is requesting a review of the original block rather than the unblock request. So ideally comments should focus on whether the block including duration was justified based on the circumstances of the time, rather than whether their current request justifies an unblock. Editors could of course consider whether NeutralHomer has said something which helps demonstrate that the block wasn't proper. I won't comment on this myself since it seemed like what I said early on may have been part of what resulted in NeutralHomer eventually saying what they said. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. It occured to me a few hours later that I should have also said although the (original) focus may have been to review the original block, if editors did want to review the unblock and there was consensus, then this should be actioned even if the original block was considered correct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Per Nil Einne this is framed as a block review. But looking at the thread on Neutralhomer’s talk page the spirit of what he’s looking for is a response to his unblock request - albeit he he may not be totally clear on the procedural niceties. It’s a little unfair on him to not have his unblock request looked at (I’m guessing a block review would almost certainly fail.) DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this editor but I was rather shocked to see their block log. By my count this is the 23rd time Neutralhomer has been blocked, and the 4th indefinite block. Even if not all those blocks were justified I have a hard time seeing why we should unblock someone who apparently keeps doing block-worthy stuff. Hut 8.5 14:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• The editor keeps insisting the fact that they didn't evade their block is a reason (perhaps the main reason) we should unblock them. e.g. I keep bringing it up because it shows that I'm basically serving my "sentence" with a door to the "prison" wide open for "escape". Really, it's more like having a door open for escape, with a sniper waiting outside for anyone that is silly enough to go out. Block evasion is a fast-track trip to a community ban that will be harder to undo, and (if kept up) ventures into WP:3X territory. It's a truly awful idea. Not block evading isn't really a valid point in a block appeal, unless the original block was for block evasion. It's just the bare minimum expected. Other things on the usertalk page are also not indicative that the problems have desisted yet. I also think this isn't really a wise idea for someone trying to be unblocked, since per WP:CBAN if this fails then really further appeals also need to be considered by the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Usually I'm the first to call, "unblock per ROPE", but Floquenbeam's original block reason combined with Hut 8.5's comment make me pause; unfortunately something slightly more convincing than usual is required, and I'm not sure I'm seeing it right now. Of course, that could in turn be due to a confusion of process as mentioned by DeCausa. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am not among the great nor the good of Wikipedia, so I am not even sure I should weigh in, but I think everyone deserves second (and third, etc.) chances, and I do see some self-reflection here. That said, NH's addendum above gave me some real pause--I don't like the "it's just the way I am" defense, and the trick of being combative and prickly while denying being prickly and combative is...something. All that said, I would lean towards unblock with the knowledge that further interactions will be held to higher scrutiny. But I will leave the decision to wiser folk. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. This is pretty bad as far as unblock requests go. Better than "it's all everyone else's fault," but still bad. Going right to "... but I could have gotten around the block" is not a good sign, as well as the multiple attempts to blame it on his mental health (while simultaneously being angry at other people's use of colloquialisms as somehow being attacks on his mental health). I say wait the standard 6 months before even considering an appeal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for a very productive long-time editor, which counts for something, who has given a very good apology including an honest explanation of how some men apologize. Now, going forward, I hope he remembers something well, relating to his own words: "Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors." Sir, who do you think edits Wikipedia and reads your comments? Teachers, kids, women, men, children, the general public, mothers, whores, bellmen and thieves. Some of those won't mind rough language, and would pay for it, while it may chase others away from this encyclopedia that we all work on. You are responsible for Wikipedia's reputation and name as much as Jimbo Wales or the tens of thousands of others who edit but, in your case as a good long-term editor, you should either be proud of working here or at least pretend to be. Wikipedia holds up the honor of knowledge, and people volunteering here - all of them but especially the long-termers like yourself - believe they have something to share with the world and the project. When you say anything on a talk page maybe imagine you are talking to a 12 year-old girl, because you very well might be. Do good work, live a clean Wikipedian life, and wash behind the ears fella. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, no administrator has yet accepted or declined Neutralhomer's unblock request at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks GoodDay, I've added a "hold please" template to the unblock request as discussion here may affect its outcome and its better to have everything in one place at a time. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Hut 8.5. User has been getting blocked, apologizing very sincerely, and getting re-blocked for the same behavior since 2007. This is clearly not a case of a young person who will mature with time, nor a short-term issue caused by temporary stress, but fundamentally part of how this user edits. Some people, however talented or intelligent, are just not temperamentally suited to working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment and I think that's the case here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not a fan of the "Okay, but this is the very very very last chance, and we mean it this time!" approach. I think after a certain point, the community needs to make a decision as to whether or not someone with 4 logged indef blocks represents a net negative to the project.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Hut 8.5 and PMC. I usually never comment about these things, but I watched this whole thing unfold and was taken aback by the sheer anger NH displayed. Someone with twenty-three blocks and four indefinite blocks to their name should've learned years ago that their approach isn't working, but I guess it hasn't sunk in yet. Also the whole "I have a mobile account and could've socked but didn't" argument is so weird and speaks for itself really. JCW555 talk ♠ 21:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There comes a point that you have to cut your losses and move on. One indef? Sure, it's possible someone had a bad day of things. But 4 indef blocks? That's a pattern of behavior that obviously is not compatible to working withing a collaborative environment. It's not a matter of if they commit an act to cause yet another indef block situaton, but WHEN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having reviewed the links above, this battleground behavior is unacceptable. This, this, this, this, and this cannot be brushed away. WaltCip is spot on here. GAB^gab 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to oppose, but I am certainly not going to support. I recommended this user take advantage of the standard offer and wait of full 6 months but they did not take my advice. I don't think they are ready to come back at this point, they are not yet in a collaborative mood frankly. They are a very long term contributor and I sincerely hope at some point I may be able to welcome them back. But I feel it is too soon. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment on block log There’s a few comments above about Neutralhomer’s block log. I would just highlight that the vast majority of his blocks (and all the heavy duty ones excluding this onE) are pre-2013. Then, there’s nothing until 2018, then 3 short blocks before the current incident. Yes, it’s not great but not as bad as the headline looks. There’s a distinction to be made between his first clearly rocky 5 years and his last 10 years. He’s also made 75k edits (half to article space) and created 400 articles. Not saying that excuses anything - just giving some additional context beyond the current behaviour which is obviously sub-optimal. DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Still don't know why he's posting about his real life employment. That's irrelevant material, in association to this 'review', he's requested. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per that whole thing where he called me a racist. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Hut 8.5 and PMC. It takes talent to get blocked 23 times with 4 indefs. And that talent spells out WP:CIR and net negative. Fool Wikipedia once, shame on you. Fool Wikipedia 23 times (with 4 indefs), shame on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited to add: The unblock request, and in particular the Look I didn't even block evade even though I could have easily subverted that Wikipedia policy [like he's been subverting and ignoring Wikipedia policies and racking up the 23 previous blocks], is wildly inappropriate and wildly misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia and to me adds to the reasons he should not be unblocked. This is in addition to responding to every single !voter here by pinging them on his talkpage. Please stop digging your HOLE any deeper than it already is. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock Ok, I am not an admin, but I see repentance sufficient in my view to warrant the handcuffs being taken off. Granted, without admin goggles I cannto see everything. Even so, and considering their prior track record, I believe this block is able to be lifted. The basis for my opinion is the concept of prevention versus thag of punishment. I think the block has acted preventatively and that use has now expired. I feel we have moved into a less than appropriate phase of punishment. If it is felt that it "should last some time longer" then that is a topic for discussion. If that is the feeling of this discussioin then give it a limit. Make that a couple of days past the close of this discussion, make it a couple of months, but make it finite whatever you decide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Softlavender. This has gone on for more than long enough, and the unconvincing unblock statement indicates to me that this editor would benefit from a lengthy period away from Wikipedia if they want to come back. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hatting boorish behavior. Please keep it on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Neutralhomer. We're all happy that you're proud of being a custodian. Mention it enough times on your talkpage & perhaps we'll come up with a medal, to pin it on you. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: Do we really need snark?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) We don't. But, I do tend to get annoyed, when it appears as though our time might be being wasted. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Every person has a right to a spirited defense. WaltCip-(talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Cool? Don't recall GoodDay saying he didn't. And GoodDay has just as much right to say what he did. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC) It seems like kicking someone when they're down. And I do not want to encourage a culture where anything people say in their own defense is to be snickered at. Reyk YO! 19:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I could be missing context, but NeutralHomer's edit here appears to be saying that if one says "competence is required," they are a racist and a bigot? Really? Please tell me I'm missing something, because for someone to say that after having been here for 14 years is rather shocking. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The context is buried deep in the original ANI discussion, so it's easy to miss. The short, short version is that NH misunderstood a comment about a user having the same name as a Mexican film as disparaging that user's heritage, and then took the CIR comment as somehow supporting this imagined attack on said user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose now and later. I see a decade-long appetite for personalization, insults, assumptions of bad faith, and slap-fights. It's time one of these indef blocks actually sticks for good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose utter time sink. User shows interest in re-fighting the same battles and displaying same temperament rather than even fake contrition for the sake of being unblocked. No indication this will end differently than any of the prior indef/unblocks. Time for both sides to move on. Star Mississippi 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC) ETA: I've seen his response to me, it doesn't change one bit of my comment and reinforces my time sink belief. I stand by my oppose. Star Mississippi 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - If Neutralhomer 'still' hasn't evaded his block in anyway by April 2022. I'll support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 January 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.

further discussion

Not mentioned in the close is that interpreting this as a discussion of whether to unblock has led Beeblebrox not only to close Neutralhomer's open unblock request but to interpret the closure of this discussion as converting the block into a CBAN, requiring the editor to go through the ban appeals process: diff. I don't think that's fair: conversion into a CBAN was only mentioned once above, by ProcrastinatingReader, nor do I think that was in Floquenbeam's mind when he opened this section; there's discussion above about exactly what the focus of the section should be. Also, while as I have stated on Neutralhomer's talk page, no single human can master the totality of this project's bureaucratic rules and procedures, I disagree that a section not explicitly intended as a community appeal of a non-community block in lieu of a talk-page appeal using the unblock appeal template must or should be treated as the last chance appeal that exhausts regular appeal options. This section changed focus as it went and was never defined enough to play that role; Neutralhomer's not realizing it would be interpreted that way was fair enough, and I've pinged Floquenbeam (although I'm sure I'm bothering him in so doing) because I'm not sure he saw it that way either. As I said in my contribution that I took too long typing and had instead dumped on Neutralhomer's talk page (partly because I hadn't read that bit from Beeblebrox and hadn't imagined that would have been the interpretation of the force of this section), what I took from the discussion above is that Neutralhomer needed to file a better appeal (endorsing Floquenbeam's reaction). In my non-expert view, Neutralhomer's vindicated the decision to restore his talk-page access. No admin had actually come by and rejected that open appeal; it was placed on hold and then procedurally closed. Do we lose anything by letting him try again in the regular way to craft an unblock request that somebody will accept? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A site CBAN is just a block that requires community consensus to undo. When a block appeal is referred to the community, and is considered and declined by the community (i.e. not just immediately archived or receives minimal participation), then it's only right that the community has to consider future block appeals. Given that the community has now said it doesn't support an unblock, it would obviously be inappropriate for a single admin to unilaterally undo it, thus it is classed as a community ban. This is outlined in WP:CBAN, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Routes to unblock, and resulted from clarification in an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this, if I had intended to tell NH he could now only appeal to ArbCom, I would have said that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that the relevant section was, as far as I know, boldly added six months ago, and I don't believe that is long enough for the onus to shift from those who might want to keep it to those who might want to remove it, particularly as it appears based on Yngvadottir's comments to have gone largely unnoticed in that time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant text has been present on the Wikipedia:Banning policy page since 2007. It typically is mentioned during unblock requests that are reviewed by the community. isaacl (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think it is a logical non-sequitur. The community not coming to a consensus to unblock an indeffed user at this time is not the same as forming a consensus to community ban a user. I have not seen this being done in practice much historically. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yngvadottir. We didn't decide to CBAN Neutralhomer.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What did we decide? GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We decided not to unblock at this time.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'not coming to a consensus to unblock' as HighInBC puts it and 'consensus has formed and is not to unblock'. The latter is what triggers a defacto CBAN per the above. Of the outright !votes above, 3 supports, 12 opposes, and assorted other comments that were overwhelmingly negative. In order to judge the consensus you need to look at the comments themselves rather than just the support/oppose. This was not a 'consensus has not been formed' situation. It was very much a 'this editor should not be unblocked' from both the content and tone of the comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Only because what the section was supposed to be about was unclear at the outset and conversation drifted. With this kind of unfocussed process, it's equally possible, and fairer, to read it as "unclear outcome, the peanut gallery spoke on many things". (And even though it was an unfocused discussion that I doubt many participants realized risked being read as a community ban discussion, there was push-back against the point about the block log.) We have that difference of viewpoint demonstrated here: S Marshall and HighInBC also didn't see it as the community reaching a consensus regarding the merits of unblocking per se. Plus it wasn't a community-imposed block. This has jumped the rails. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we seriously saying that "consensus not to unblock yet" is the same thing as "community ban"? Because if that's written in the rules somewhere, it shouldn't be.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be as much support for "not to unblock (full stop)" as "not to unblock yet" but perhaps actually putting that question to the community instead of wondering whether it can be inferred de facto from another discussion would be the best option. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Beeblebrox's closing statement is clearly correct. Yes, the community does reach a rough consensus that Neutralhomer should remain blocked for the time being. But when I read what the "oppose unblock" side say, what I see is that they are not of one mind. Opposes such as Hut8.5's reduce to: "Keep blocked and the community should adopt the block as a de facto CBAN"; but opposes such as Cullen328's or GoodDay's reduce to: "Don't unblock at this time on the basis of this appeal." I think the second kind of oppose has the majority, so I don't think it's right to parse that discussion as "The community adopts this block as a CBAN."—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall (and Beeblebrox). Yes, a community ban is traditionally understood as a block that no administrator would undo. That's not what happened here and that's not what the discussion was about. There are clearly administrators who would unblock, given a different time or somewhat different circumstances. Community bans require the question squarely presented. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I regret my poorly formulated start to the thread, but honestly don’t think it was the deciding factor on whether this is a cban or not. This was brought here specifically at NH’s request, so it doesn’t fall into the 3rd party request category. That said, and I have said this many times before, I think a consensus not to unblock at this time should not be interpreted as a community ban. I despise this interpretation. If people wanted it to be a community ban they could specifically say so. If NH comes up with a decent, self-aware unblock request in the future, any reviewing admin should be able to unblock. But as it stands now, I could not undo my own block in the future. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  The issue becomes the distinction between a CBAN and an indef block in this scenario. A consensus has formed not to unblock. That consensus is among a panel of Neutralhomer's peers that includes both admins and non-admins. However, if we choose not to interpret that this is a CBAN, an independent administrator can still (as they have done many times before for other users) unblock Neutralhomer on their own volition, and ignore the straw-counting consensus that was established in the above thread. That admin wouldn't even have to give a reason, since WP:WHEEL - as much as we hate to admit it - favors the first mover. I'm aware this is a highly cynical outlook and assumes that no unblock is valid in this scenario, but I can see why Yngvadottir chose to bring this up. But I agree that because the discussion was not explicitly about a CBAN, that a CBAN is not in force. We revert back to the original standing indef block which was appealed in good faith. WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the difference between a CBAN & a INDEFBAN? The lad is blocked until at least April 2022. It's a ban, leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know the difference. INDEF can still be lifted at any time. CBAN cannot be lifted unless there is a community consensus at AN. A CBAN is far more strict than a standard INDEF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that those opposing the unblock at this time did not necessarily know that they were enacting a community ban. It is a clumsy and unneeded part of policy to interpret a lack of desire to unblock at this time as a binding decision to not unblock without a higher standard in the future. If they community wants to community ban someone, they can explicitly make this decision.

I spoke in opposition to this unblock at this time because it is too early, but I would have opposed a community ban if that was the question on the table. It is a disservice to remove this nuance from the community's decision making. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of clarity, I don't in any way fault Floquenbeam. I pinged him in large part to get his take on the issue. I am also not faulting Beeblebrox's close of this thread. However, I'm not sure everyone has noted that the result is still defined on Neutralhomer's talk page as a CBAN. May I suggest that based on this further discussion, that should be revised? I think it's only fair to him. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree completely Yngvadottir. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• NH's ban was not initially a community ban. Finagling it into one now would merely be punishing him for appealing it as well as being underhanded and malicious. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm too neck deep in this discussion, but I certainly think it would be appropriate for User:Beeblebrox (as uninvolved closer), or some other uninvolved admin, to post to NH's page that the consensus in this section (and a re-reading of the closed section) is that there is no consensus for a de facto or de jure community ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the ping. ArbCom's been a bit of a zoo and I quite forgot to check back on this thread today. I'd like to be clear that my statement to NH was based solely on policy as currently written, which I was careful to review before making it. I chose to close this exactly because I am uninvolved and have no strong opinion one or the other. All that being said, consensus is Wikipedia's primary method of decision making, and I believe there is at least a rough consensus here that NH's block should continue to be regarded as normal block and not a CBAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, his block should merely expire after six months. But, it ain't up to me. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Koitus~nlwiki

Koitus~nlwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on article Double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeated problematic edits [5], [6], [7], adding a period after length units mm, μm and m. Called me an "IDIOT" in their second edit, for which I gave a final MOS warning and a 3rd level NPA warning (given previous NPA-warnings at User_talk:Koitus~nlwiki#November_2020). Third edit was after two explicit warnings on their talk page with invitations to go and have a look at the relevant unit articles.

No response on their user talk. I think some administrator intervention is needed here. - DVdm (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Seconded. Though I'm not familiar with the content of most of the user's contributions, the longstanding editing pattern, often marked by a series of rapid consecutive edits with no edit summary, this combined with zero communication on their talkpage, seems on its own to be disruptive. Eric ^talk 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: after [8] by user JayBeeEll, we got another revert, and then, a minute later this, i.m.o. pointy edit. - DVdm (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: after [9] by user FyzixFighter, nothing but silence. Lacking any feedback from user Koitus~nlwiki, one can only hope that's a good sign... - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: it was not a good sign. See [10] right after my previous note—with u-template-ping to the user, so they have read this and then decided to have another go at it. They are obviously playing a block-me-please game here. Can some administrator take action for flagrant 3RR disruption here? TIA. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it means something different in Dutch, given the ~nlwiki suffix, but the English phonetical of the first part of their username sure resembles a probable username violation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not mean anything different in Dutch.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like they got block/banned from the Dutch Wiki, so they came here, calling themselves FuckTheDutchWiki. - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no indication that username has ever existed, the ~nlwiki suffix is from a pre-SUL username that was shifted from nl:User:Koitus, as can be seen at nl:User talk:Koitus. Also, they are most pointedly not blocked on nl-Wiki. Please consider striking your comments as completely inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Would be unlikely. - DVdm (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, @Primefac: I meant of course that a related username at the Dutch Wiki would be unlikely. Thanks for having had a look at this. Considering your data, comment struck. - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: and here we go again: [11], twice, without any comment, undoing this and this proper MOS-supported edits by user FyzixFighter - DVdm (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for the edit warring, and warned them about the PA. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: thanks. See you in a few days, I guess (somewhat pessimistically) - DVdm (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about masked IP identities

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.

---

Today I saw one of those "IP address-protected edit requests". According the notice I got, as an admin I am supposed to be able to see those actual IP addresses if I have a need. I wanted to test the system on that edit, but could not find any way to access the information. If I need to see that person’s actual IP, how do I access it? The notice I got at my talk page did not explain how this process will work. I'm asking here, rather than at VP or a technical board, because I think we all need this information - including non-techies like me who usually can't understand WMF's jargon. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: can you point the logentry or diff you are referring to please? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux: It's this. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux My guess is that this is related to the recent message that @Johan (WMF) sent out to all admins. SQL^{Query Me!} 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN To my knowledge, this hasn't rolled out yet. The long and the short of it is - at some point in the future, instead of being able to see IP addresses (e.g. "192.168.0.1"), you will see some other identifier (such as "Anon111" or something - WMF doesn't seem sure how it will work yet). My understanding is that there may be a group that might be able to see some part, or maybe even whole of the IP for those non-logged in users. I believe that being able to see the IP's of logged-in users will never be visible to people without the checkuser right. There is more detail at meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation for anyone interested. SQL^{Query Me!} 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my expectation as well - I'm assuming right now that some IP user just didn't sign a post. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm that not only has this not rolled out yet, the reason we don't have a good explanation for how it will work is that this is not decided, and that this is just for unregistered users. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: see Special:Diff/1064129626 - that edit and the resulting text is not related to the future masking initiative, just someone being unusual. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Check the link I provided. It is a talk page entry on a protected page, and it is headed "IP address -protected edit request on 6 January 2022". Where did that heading come from? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did, it came from the Diff I just linked to above and was crated by that user. I suppose it is possible some sort of partial block (maybe against the article namesapce) may have helped that user end up with that section header, but as far as an edit goes it is just a normal edit by a normal user. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think, based on the text of the request, they were saying that it was protected from IP address edits, and that it shouldn't be so he could vandalize something to Donald Duck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  The article is extended confirmed protected, and that account doesn't have enough edits to make changes. They probably hit the 'submit an edit request' button that comes up in that circumstance and typed part of their request in the Subject: prompt. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like it was just created with that header for some reason. [12] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This section break was made by a secret restricted ip address

^--- header names are completely arbitrary free-form text. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless they are generated by the "click here if you want to comment on the talk page" "submit an edit request" button that new users see, in which case the system generates a header name "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021". So that's what I thought this was. If this was just someone messing with our heads, they must be pretty experienced with how Wikipedia works. OK, so anyhow, the answer to my question is that they haven't actually implemented the system yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 7 January 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.

AP2 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.

---

I will explain one by one about the edits that played a major role in editing articles related to American politics at the time and getting "AP2 topic ban".

1. I tried to change the political position from "Centre to centre-left" to "Centre-left" in an article related to each state of the U.S. Democratic Party. The reason is that the U.S. Democratic Party is not classified as "Centre" in any way in South Korean political standards. Also, even by U.S. political standards, the U.S. Democratic Party is never classified as "Centre". Of course, the U.S. Democratic Party could be classified as "Centre" by European standards, but I thought the U.S. does not belong to Europe and does not have to follow the standards of Europe's political spectrum.

Representatively, the famous encyclopedia in South Korea, Daum Encyclopedia, defines the Democratic Party of the United States as follows:

"The Democratic Party of the United States is a centre-left party that seeks to expand welfare policies and protect minority human rights." ( 미국의 민주당은 복지정책 확대, 소수자 인권보호 등을 추구하는 중도좌파 정당이다)

I have never seen any Korean paper or South Korean academic materials describing the U.S. Democratic Party as "Centre" (중도) or "Centrism" (중도주의). DPK (Democratic Party of Korea), on the other hand, is clearly described as "Centre" (중도) and even as "Centre-right" (중도우파). However, DPK is classified as center-left by South Korean political standards. There is not a single South Korean who thinks the U.S. Democratic Party is in the same political position ("centre to centre-left") as DPK. DPK does not have social democrats, let alone socialists, and there are even a number of social conservatives who oppose homosexuality. (when translating into Korean, "liberal" in the United States does not translate as "liberal" but often translates as "progressive" to suit South Korean sentiment.)

There is a South Korean party that showed a similar social liberal tendency to the Democratic Party of the United States. It's the Uri Party. The Uri Party is never classified as "Centre" / "Centrist" by South Korean political standards.

2. I changed the term "liberal conservatism" to "conservative liberalism" within the infobox in the article Republican Governance Group. I also created categories such as "Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States)" and "Category:American conservative liberals". However, the term "conservative liberalism" is not used in the United States. I admit that my OR is correct.

However, I will explain why I did this editing. In many Europe and Asia, conservative liberalism means a political force on the left rather than liberal conservatism. Conservative liberalism is a "centrist" ideology in the book Liberal Party in Europe, written by Emily van Haute and Caroline Close.

It is true that the current RGG has become much more rightist than the Rockefeller Republican days. But on the contrary, this is the same for BDC. There are quite a few evaluations that BDC is no longer conservative. BDC is now evaluated as socially liberal (=culturally liberal), so it can never be seen as conservative.

Traditionally, however, BDC is conservative within the Democratic Party and RGG is considered liberal within the Republican Party. That's why I wanted to describe BDC as ideologically conservative and RGG as ideologically liberal. Politicians who are closely related to RGG right now, such as Charlie Baker, Bill Weld, Phil Scott and Larry Hogan, are often described as "liberal" in the U.S. media.

This is why I insisted on the term "conservative liberalism". BDC has traditionally been conservative, and RGG has traditionally been liberal. However, RGG is not on a social liberal (centre-left) line at the Democratic level. I thought BDC should be described as conservative and RGG as liberal.

South Korean media value social issues more than economic issues, which is why Nancy Pelosi is described as a left-wing not an absolute center-left. For your information, Hankook Ilbo is a media that is considered "Centrist" or "Liberal" by South Korean political standards. (Of course, "liberal" here will not be "liberal" in the context of American politics.)

Other than that, I admit that the attempt to modify several articles related to American politics into terms that are not used in the United States is wrong. South Korean right-wingers and even far-rightists claim themselves to be "liberal." (Of course, South Korean media never call South Korean conservatives "liberal.")

In the future, I will only adhere to the concepts used in the United States when editing American politics, and I will never apply my OR or terms used in other regions other than the United States to American politics. Also, I will not change the "political position" recklessly in articles related to the U.S. Democratic Party. I request the release of my AP2 topic ban. --Storm598 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

For the sake of avoiding any confusion, here is the original ban discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at recent contributions shows continued prolific adding of various political categories to all sorts of pages, along with the creation of new templates and the addition of these into various articles. This broad labelling is being used not only for modern politics, but even for historical groups in a way that completely changes the meaning. Few of these edits come with sources, and a similar minority come with any sort of edit summary or explanation. I am not convinced that such behaviour will somehow be restrained in American politics articles when it continues to take place (despite the topic ban and related discussions) in all other politics articles. CMD (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I created the "France" item itself in the conservative liberal article. I can provide a source for the edit. Looking at my recent edits in European politics, I've added a lot of quality content based on clear facts. For example, the Ordoliberalism article corrected the wrong description. (Conservative liberalism, Ordoliberalism, Whigs (British political party), Social market economy, Liberal conservatism, Liberalism in Europe, etc.)--Storm598 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be especially careful when it comes to editing American politics. Unlike political articles from other countries, I will not overuse related templates or categories when it comes to American politics. However, I have studied European politics for more than 10 years and have considerable knowledge, so you don't have to worry about European politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The vast majority of this request is an attempt to justify their original problematic edits, all of which was stated in the original discussions. Tacking on a "I'll be good this time" promise to "I never was wrong if you look at it from this perspective" justification rarely turns out well for the requester or the project. I'm not sure what Storm intends to do if the ban is lifted and I lack confidence that the problematic behaviors won't repeat. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that my editing was right, but I'm explaining my intention of why I did it at the time. I'm not saying that my editing was right. If my view on American politics is wrong, can you tell me what is wrong? If there is anything wrong, I will change myself. If the topic van is resolved, I will not do the editing that is likely to cause the dispute, discuss it enough in Talk, and then after reaching an agreement with other users, I will edit it.--Storm598 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • And there is also the issue of fairness. I admit that I did a problematic editing in an article related to American politics. That's definitely my fault. Likewise, BMK has made OR-based edits in numerous Asian political articles and some European political articles. No one is taking issue with that. (Regarding the political position of a particular political party, the Administrators said in Talk that it is a rough matter, not a disciplinary matter.) This is probably because he is seen as a person who has been active in Wikipedia long before me. #, # --Storm598 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Storm598:, it is not an issue of fairness. There's no such thing as an objective "fair" that we can apply and every editor things what's fair is something different. Bringing it up yet again shows definitively that you are unable to understand that we are discussing your editing and not anyone else's. See WP:NOTTHEM. You may not perceive your continued defense of your edits as trying to say they were right but such defense (at great length and with great repetition) shows you are clearly unable to accept the overwhelming judgment of your peers that they were incorrect and disruptive. Your idiosyncratic application of your own understanding of terms to a different context and trying to yet again explain them away shows you have not yet learned why you were topic banned. Topping it off with: "If my view on American politics is wrong, can you tell me what is wrong?" is almost unbelievable. You clearly need to understand the topic area far, far better and you have no business editing in the area until you educate yourself much more. This all adds up to a request that, once again, demonstrates the necessity of maintaining the TB. I have no particular personal desire to see this continue but each of your attempts to discuss this topic and the topic ban shows that the area is likely to experience further disruption without these restrictions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

    I admitted that my editing itself was wrong at the time. I judged terms that are not used in American politics on my own arbitrary basis and clearly stated that it was wrong in itself. I'm really not going to do devastating editing. --Storm598 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This would have been a far better appeal if it had simply consisted of the last two paragraphs, starting at "I admit that the attempt to modify several articles..." Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are some things I want to get back the editorial authority of American political articles, but there are actually other reasons. I'm a cyber stalking and online abuse victim. In order not to be tracked, I may stop using this account and act as a new account after using it for a few years. But in order to do that, it's possible only when I completely release the AP2 ban. I understand that it is a violation of regulations to edit in Wikipedia as if someone else is with a new account without a specific van being released. --Storm598 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• It feels really hard to accept the last paragraph of this appeal given the twelve (!) paragraphs of justification above it. If an editor is unable to restrain themselves from expounding at that length on their opinions about Korean and European views of left-right politics vs. American ones in a ban appeal (where you would expect them to be on their best behavior), it's difficult to imagine they would be able to do so while editing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • When editing articles related to American politics, I will use only common concepts in the United States and try to fit the sentiment of American editors. In the past, we tried to edit articles related to American politics in international terms, but we will never do so in the future. I will respect American exceptionalism, and unlike European articles, I will be careful when editing. (European politics is a field that I know very well, so I can do bold editing.) --Storm598 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and I think we should consider a wider restriction. Since the TBAN last June, Storm598 made one other unblock request, in October. It was on its way to near-certain failure before the request was withdrawn. The issues with the appeal were the same as displayed here; they are so similar that Eggishorn's comment from October and their comment above are practically the same. "Oppose Half the request is stating that they will stay away from the edits that caused the topic ban, the rest of it is stating that they weren't wrong in the first place. If the former is true, then they do not need the TB lifted. If the latter is true, then we need the topic ban because they haven't learned how to edit in the topic. Either way, this request gives no confidence in their ability to edit in this topic."
  Last month, Storm598 started an AN section seeking sanctions against another user. Eventually closed without action, the section discussed a political party position, just like the incident that led to the TBAN, only this time it with different countries. Storm598 violated the AmPol TBAN during the discussion. Some users weighed in at one of the relevant article talk pages, leading to apparent consensus to leave the political position out of the infobox entirely. Yesterday, Storm598 reverted to their preferred version without building any new consensus.
  Storm598 also violated the TBAN at their own user talk page in October. Firefangledfeathers 03:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In the article "Liberal Party (UK)" you mentioned, I edited it to induce other users to Talk Page. If someone canceled my editing in the article afterwards, I wouldn't have tried to restore the editing again.--Storm598 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, as for the last link, a user named Ezhao02 made a wrong edit in the article Party for Democracy and Peace, and I just made another analogy that was easy for him to understand to point that out. PDP is never recognized as a center-left party in South Korea. --Storm598 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I understood what you were saying. I will learn more about American politics-related news and books and study them. And after a long time, I'll be more mature and come back, and I won't justify my past edits.--Storm598 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I just explained why I did the wrong editing in the American political article at the time, not justifying the editing. However, I think you still don't trust me, so I'll cancel this discussion again. I may also have a lot of shortcomings. I'll talk about it again in a year or two.--Storm598 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cancel the corresponding section. Administrators are welcome to finish this section. I don't think I'm trusted by many users yet, and I don't think I'm mature either.--Storm598 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Scientology as follows:

Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

User HazelBasil engaging in outing and targeted harassment of Cher Scarlett, GorillaWarfare and myself

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User HazelBasil engaging in outing and targeted harassment of Cher Scarlett, GorillaWarfare and myself

 – GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts

I was patrolling AIV, and today there were about ten accounts which we brought there as spam-only. Most of them were easy to handle: If the only edit is creation of a user page with spam links or spam phone numbers I delete the page and block indef; if they managed to do several suck edits it is even easier. But there were two where I had some doubts, MAM AND AMS and Ashtontorbert. They both have made one edit creating their user pages, and the pages are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia, but it this enough in these cases to block a user who made one edit as spam-only account? These are not spam bots, one promotes himself, another one promotes some food but without links. Whar are our best practices for spam-only accounts beyond obvious spambots?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ashtontorbert is a kid, not a professional spammer. As for spammers, I'm more about people dumping links to their new blog/site/whatever. Not so much about a kid spinning a yarn about how he's going to be big and famous this year on the interwebs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Propaganda and South Africa

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.

---

Articles on South Africa have a massive problem with neo-nazi/white nationalist rhetoric. I think this has been overlooked. I tried to be thorough with examples of why WP:NONAZIS applies here. These are a few main articles I have found but I am sure there are more. They tend to use WP:WEASEL words to avoid being overtly racist.

Orania, Northern Cape - Very sympathetic to the creation of a white's only ethnostate. Edited the intro but the entire article is very strangely detailed for a town of 1,000 people or so. Reads like an advertisement.

Volkstaat - The idea of a white Afrikaner ethno state. Worded very sympathetically. Perhaps the most openly racist of the articles linked. It provides important context for other topics of interest to white nationalists.

Cape Independence - Seems to be closely related to Volkstaat

List of renamed places in South Africa - Place names have become a rallying point for South African white nationalists.

Afriforum article also downplays the white nationalist nature of the group. (Added after posting) Desertambition (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for admins to do a more thorough investigation into this issue and the users involved. I did not create a detailed post about users because I just didn't have it in me to do that kind of research right now but I think you will find a lot of the same names popping up on these articles.

WP:NONAZIS

Most relevant beliefs of nazis:

That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people.

That white people have the right to live in a white-only nation.

That a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites.

That violent, abhorrent or deceptive actions are justified in the pursuit of these beliefs.

...much of what is written here can be applied to racists of various non-white (or non-Nazi) flavors, as well. All one must do is swap out "white people" and "non-whites" for the races in question, and if the shoe fits, their behavior is no more excusable than that of any Neo-Nazi or Klansman.

In addition, there are many more beliefs that are quite common, though not universal among these groups. These include:

That white people are being systemically killed, out-bred and otherwise forced into a minority status.

"Among rural Afrikaners, violent crime committed against the white farming community has contributed significantly to a hardening of attitudes. Between 1998 and 2001 there were some 3,500 recorded farm attacks in South Africa, resulting in the murder of 541 farmers, their families or their workers, during only three years. On average more than two farm attack related murders are committed every week." - Volkstaat article

That minority groups are seeking to destroy Western culture.

Endangered cultural heritage

In 2002 a number of towns and cities with historic Afrikaans names dating back to Voortrekker times—such as Pietersburg and Potgietersrus—had their names changed, often in the face of popular opposition to the change.[5] In the same year the government decided that state departments had to choose a single language for inter- and intra-departmental communication, effectively compelling public servants to communicate using English with one another.

This is where List of renamed places in South Africa is relevant.

Of the 31 universities in South Africa, five were historically Afrikaans (Free State, Potchefstroom, Pretoria, Rand Afrikaans University and Stellenbosch). In mid-2002 the national Minister of Education, Kader Asmal, announced that Afrikaans medium universities must implement parallel teaching in English, despite a proposal by a government appointed commission that two Afrikaans universities should be retained to further Afrikaans as an academic language. According to the government's language policy for higher education "the notion of Afrikaans universities runs counter to the end goal of a transformed higher education system". - Volkstaat article.

That the groups persecuted by the Nazis Afrikaners brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis Afrikaners merely acted in self-defence.

There is constant talk of the South African government being undemocratic and incompetent. The focus on crime adds to the message that Afrikaners are being persecuted and must form their own ethnostate. Most sources support an understanding that South Africa is a fully functioning, if flawed, democracy.

That non-whites hold back white progress.

The entire Orania, Northern Cape article is basically this.

That non-whites intend to kill whites.

There is a major focus on crime in these articles.

Crime has remained a major problem in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. According to a survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations, South Africa was ranked second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita.[15] Total crime per capita is 10th out of the 60 countries in the data set. Crime has had a pronounced effect on society: many wealthier South Africans moved into gated communities, abandoning the central business districts of some cities for the relative security of suburbs. - Volkstaat article

In contrast to the rest of South Africa, Orania's residents perceive it as being crime free, where their children can grow up safe. Orania has neither a police force nor a prison. Traffic monitoring and minor crimes such as petty theft are handled internally. Volunteers carry out neighbourhood watch patrols. In October 2014 Orania Veiligheid (Orania Security) was established, to handle reports of illegal activities such as theft, but also more trivial matters such as littering and noise complaints. Apprehended suspects are taken to the police station in neighbouring Hopetown. Police are only called in as a last resort. Residents are exhorted to use mediation and arbitration procedures made available by the town council, rather than resorting to South African courts. - Orania, Northern Cape article

Also farm attacks mentioned every five seconds is a very obvious dogwhistle.

That white people are more oppressed than other groups.

Orania, Northern Cape and Volkstaat both make this argument pretty transparently.

That groups of people should be wiped off the face of the planet, or systematically repatriated to the lands or continents they supposedly originated from.

The idea that white Afrikaners and other Africans should be separated into their own ethnostates is a recurring theme.

That the concept of free speech entails freedom to post race-, gender-, or identity-based slurs, insults, or promotion and glorification of hate and violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship.

This shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia and I think admins should do a more thorough investigation into these articles.

Just for reference, I found these episodes from a South African white nationalist podcast. You may notice that the supporters tend to be exactly Wikipedia's main demographic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a9TlJI_lrg - Orania Is An EPIC Success Story - Joost Strydom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs7KCxrwoow - Cape Independence Much Harder Than We Think - Patrick Melly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v8wSO5MqZo - How do I Join Orania? - Joost Strydom

News reports on growing white nationalism in South Africa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZhDHDjP3I - White South Africans inspired by Trump, US alt-right Video does a fantastic job detailing how Afrikaners craft victim narratives online through conspiracy theories and myths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkt8UrUm_iM - White-only South African town nostalgic for apartheid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRKL52tJG8g - Far-Right Nationalism Surges in South African Politics

Desertambition (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Admins don't have any particular authority over the content of articles: we mainly deal with editor conduct and perform boring admin tasks. If the articles don't meet WP:NPOV, you can simply edit them to correct this. I've been working on articles on the enforcers of the Apartheid regime recently, and the quality of them seems generally OK (e.g. they're very too the point about the nature and deeds of these people), so I'm not sure there's a systematic problem. If there are identifiable editors still pushing nonsense into articles, that could be a report, but this is a fishing expedition that is beyond the scope of admins roles to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I will admit I find that response pretty frustrating. What else do I need to prove? They're never going to come out and start saying the n word. This seems like a pretty big issue to me. I don't want to get involved with more endless edit wars. I am saying that these articles are being crafted a certain way and then ferociously defended. Just look at List of renamed places in South Africa. After I added info about Orania, Northern Cape being widely considered racist it was soon removed without explanation. This happens constantly with these topics. Surely neo-nazi propaganda is at least somewhat problematic on Wikipedia. I cited articles and excerpts from those articles. It feels like this topic is not being taken seriously by admins, I hope you can understand my frustration. Desertambition (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You are asking admins to go on a fishing expedition. Maybe someone will take this up but, to be really frank, this is not a good report. We deal in problematic conduct by identifiable and still-active editors, especially when normal editing and dispute resolutions have demonstrably not been working. If you could post another report identifying editors who are actively pushing falsehoods with diffs to support this and evidence that usual editing practices haven't been effective, it would be actionable. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You're asking me to undertake a massive amount of work. This is endlessly frustrating. It's upsetting that openly white nationalist articles are not actionable. I'll start to work on it but knowing that admins won't even look into allegations of neo-nazi propaganda because the report isn't complete shows why we have such a systemic WP:BIAS problem. I understand the report isn't complete and I'm salty but I hope you understand my intense frustration. Desertambition (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: You can not just come and accuse users you disagree with in neo-Nazi propaganda. We on Wikipedia do not take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in Neo-Nazi propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did. Desertambition (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef as I promised. I understand that this action may be contested, and I will now open a XRV thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Indefinite block of Desertambition by Ymblanter--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition, why do you think this, in your original post, is appropriate: That the groups persecuted by the Nazis Afrikaners brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis Afrikaners merely acted in self-defence.? Are you trying to say that Nazi and Afrikaner is interchangeable? DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Ymblanter and DeCausa write above. To be perfectly honest, the main problem I see in this thread is Desertambition's own behavior. I fully support WP:NONAZIS but vague accusations of neo-Nazi propaganda without any firm support are not very helpful. Equating Afrikaners with Nazis violate a number of policies and is completely unacceptable. Also, many of the examples given are so far from "neo-nazism" as to lend support to Ymblabter's suggestion that Desertambition should perhaps not edit if they equate users not being in favor of moving Port Elisabeth with being neo-Nazis. Jeppiz (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeppiz Can you please tell me how Orania, Northern Cape, Volkstaat, and Afriforum are not related to neo-nazism? Desertambition (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Having articles about topics is not the same thing as advocating for them. Most of your posts above seem to stem from the failure to understand this distinction. Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The audacity of complaining about racism and then comparing an ethnic group to Nazis. — Czello 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition:, can you answer my question above please? If your intention is to equate an entire ethnicity, the Afrikaners, with Nazis then you should be sanctioned. Is that what you were doing? If it was, is it something you regret and are intending to retract/delete? DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter has already blocked Desertambition, so the only place they will be able to answer is on their own talk page. Nthep (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they answered after the last time I asked them here. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 8 January 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.

Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

Photosmart M407

could you please reveal what its target was? (if it points to another redirect, what's the ultimate target?) i suspect its target should be valid content.--RZuo (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Digging through the deleting admin's delete logs suggests it was one of the list articles nominated at this AfD. It closed as soft delete so I believe that you should be able to WP:REFUND the lists should you wish. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The target was indeed HP M-series--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

thx for the idea of checking their logs 👍. good tip for me next time.

there's been an HP Photosmart M407 since 2011, so the deletion seemed pretty weird to me.

i hope the afd participants better have incorporated the deleted pages into HP Photosmart. RZuo (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We have an article HP Photosmart that both Photosmart M407 and HP M-series could reasonably redirect to. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech question about edits that make no visual difference.

Maybe policy has changed, but I thought it was against policy to use automated tools, etc to edit an article in a way that does nothing to how the article looks. Changing dash types, ok, but just to remove white space at the end of a sentence? I ask because I checked WP:BLUDGEON (an essay I started and continue to watch) and found this edit [13] and saw he only removed two end of line spaces. I saw that he is using Wikipedia:AutoEd so I go to that page, and there is absolutely nothing about using the tool for edits that make no visual difference. AWB makes it clear you shouldn't do those kinds of edits. Am I missing something? I didn't notify because I'm not asking for sanctions, just clarity on this issue. Being an admin, I kind of need to understand our policy on this. I'm thinking I'm right about the spaces, and AutoEd needs to put up notices about usage, but I'm not totally sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think the policy you're looking for is WP:COSMETICBOT, which applies to all automated editing. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not know, but I am sure I see removal of spaces and replacement of non-Latin characters by analogous Latin characters on my watchlist on a regular basis for already many years.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Characters is not as big a deal, as they may render differently on different computers / languages / charsets. My concern is about things that universally make no difference in the visual on any platform. That, and making sure that automatic tool makers are aware of, and warn for, this thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty common, I'd say. I learned to type by putting two spaces at the end of each sentence, and every so often somebody will go through and remove all of the second spaces from an article I've worked on. Hog Farm _Talk 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are pointless. I've boldly edited the bot policy to say that they're not allowed on large scales. Feel free to revert. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning left for edits that "consist only of changing whitespace"; I don't really care about the other ones. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The irony is strong in this one[14]. Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You always find the best diffs. Levivich 04:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That diff made my day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to say, some whitespace edits do have an impact that is not necessarily visible. Its an accessibility issue - although I am only familiar with the past implementations, you probably want to grab a visually impaired editor who regularly uses screen-readers to verify the current status, but I believe that particular one falls into this area. So while yes, quite a lot of whitespace fiddling is pointless, sometimes its not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I dropped a line in the lede at Wikipedia:AutoEd that explains this. I appreciate the participation, as I like to get clarity on things I don't deal with regularly. I think we're done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

The Arbitration Committee has declined the case request Warsaw concentration camp and has resolved through several motions that:

This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

1. The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
2. The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
3. Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.
   As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
5. The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
6. Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
7. Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
8. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.
9. Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [15] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [16]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [17]

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [18]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

Iduma igariwey

i request the page created by User:Hilspress be moved back (with both names correctly capitalised of course) as i had made an objection as per Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections. RZuo (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• User talk:Liz#Iduma igariwey BilledMammal (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• It appears Liz has this handled more than adequately on her talk page. And quite frankly, considering the resistance she is getting against her good (and accurate) advice, I'm happy to let her. You need to handle it there RZuo, not here, as it looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to come here. She has presented you with options that you have failed to take advantage of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

this request is simple and straightforward. Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." such a page can only be deleted by the consensus of an afd, which means any speedy deletion is inappropriate.

i have asked for the page to be moved back, six months ago and now again, so that any editor (including me) could work on it. it's futile to talk about any potential contribution from me or anyone else, if the page is sloppily mishandled through the "backdoor to deletion".

Wikipedia:Drafts also shows, that deletion (section 2) occurs only after working on the drafts (section 1). here an editor has made clear the original move was controversial as per section 1.5.4, before any deletion should be considered.

any capable user with the relevant user rights should comply with Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation. if the "policies" had been followed, i wouldnt have to post several times, and the page would have been improved. RZuo (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The draft is an unsourced BLP and, as such, will not be moved to the main space. If you want, I can restore the draft, you add sources, and then I can move it to the main space.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

the person is a national legislator https://nass.gov.ng/mps/single/378 .--RZuo (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here you are: Iduma Igariwey. I still do not understand why you could not have done six month ago what I have done now in five minutes, and instead preferred to complain about just everyone, but, fine, sometimes I am unable to understand why people behave like they behave.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the person is the Pope, BLPs without sources will be deleted or removed from Main space. Drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months will be deleted. Period. You can quote all the policy you want, but those two facts are at the core of our policies and take precedence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Admin removing my talk section

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

---

Hello,

I have been making a consistent effort to open a dialogue about an edit of mine which an admin decided was vandalism.

I am more than open to hearing out their reasoning and accepting their edits, however, rather than open a dialog, the admin is deleting my honest question on their talk page over and over again. I thought admins had some obligation to explain their removals.

The admin in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23.

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

For one, any editor can remove a talk page section from their own page (as long as it's not a declined unblock request). Secondly, the edit that you were talking about? I would have removed it as well. (For reference here's the edit in question.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that you were disputing Bbb23's removal of this edit I don't particularly blame them. I think you should just leave it and edit constructively instead. I see the rest of the page is like this so I retract this. — Czello 14:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Moments after you posted this, the admin responded in ample detail on your talk page. I think we can mark this resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: In all fairness, I hadn't responded to the user on their Talk page at the time they posted here. The user was moving too quickly; I was having trouble keeping up. :-) I removed the post to my Talk page with an edit summary saying to keep it on their Talk page. Then they reposted to my Talk page, and I just reverted having already explained once. Then I responded on their Talk page, as you saw.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your attention to this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 10 January 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Following an amendment request, the committee has resolved by motion that:

Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

User:31.55.145.33

I am pretty sure the IP belongs to Borden Grammar School, was there a way to tag that? I think a kid is being disruptive right now from there. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've given them another 3-year anonblock. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Three years sounds like a long time. I had thought I had seen some school template tags on other IPs before. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

They were blocked for 3 years in Nov '18, and clearly went right back to it when it expired. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

And yes, we have a number of school-based talk page IP templates, including {{Shared IP edu}}. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Weston Chandler page ("Chris-chan")

Just drop it. Nothing new, and the refusal to drop the stick is increasingly disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, The page Christine Weston Chandler is currently salted. While I understand why such a page was locked in the past, it seems that she has (in recent years, at least) risen to a particular level of notability and I am requesting that the page be created. Here is a small list of high-quality references speaking to her notability: KVIA, People articles on the recent incest charges (amongst others) Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment, by Kevin Veale (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2020) Event Horizon: Sexuality, Politics, Online Culture, and the Limits of Capitalism, Bonni Rambatan and Jacob Johanssen, (Zero Books, 2021) Vaughn, Victor. "Deposition, Conjecture, and the Word of Nod." (2015). It makes sense that the page was originally locked because of the widespread harassment campaign, but I do not believe that is applicable these days. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Those are supposed to be high-quality references? They are some news reports of a charge against her which, even if she was found guilty, wouldn't lead to notability, and some very fleeting mentions in a couple of books and an MA thesis. I can't see any other reason for allowing an article than a determination to be part of a campaign of intimidation. Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris Chan and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#Creating the "Chris Chan" article, where this was discussed after the charges. The advice given in the close of the first of those ("...find a different hobby-horse. Or a different hobby.") is good. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) There is almost zero chance of writing a biographic article on that subject that would not end up being read as an attack page on someone of barely (I would personally argue, not) notable accomplishments. Chief of which appears to be "antagonising people on the internet so much that they want a wikipedia article attacking them". Keep it salted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, I do believe discussion in academic literature and other circumstantial references speak to her notability as a figure of popular culture, for better or for worse. Note that none of the references I've listed have discussed Chandler per se but focus on the harassment campaign. If she is notable, it is not through her achievements, I agree. User:Only in death Phil Bridger, would you be similarly opposed to a page on the harassment campaign (akin to Gamergate (harassment campaign) or Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case) rather than a biographic article, where the pages in question could then be redirected to? --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Hypothetically yes, practically no. The problem is it will just become a massive time-sink and harrassment vehicle against Chan over time regardless of the intent of the article. And Chan is far from being a popular culture figure. Actually to describe someone who has been the victim of harrassment as being a popular culture figure because they are a victim of harrassment is largely just enabling the harrassment, even unintentionally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC) I understand your point. However I would like to point out that (1) there is already at least one page with its origin in the harassment campaign, including with a specific mention of Chandler albeit not by name, and (2) the Jessi Slaughter (Damien Leonhardt) page occupies a niche much like Chandler's, down to its origin on 4chan. There is in fact an entire category for cyberbullying victims. I do not disagree that, to a certain extent, it would be a time-sink, though that is largely subjective. I must disagree, however, that Chandler is not a pop culture figure, once again, whether for better or worse. I was particularly surprised at the amount of Twitter traction that Chandler's case received is evidence of that, as well as numerous references in media, including references in video games like Goat Simulator, McPixel, and Heartbeat; and YouTubers and internet personalities like the Angry Video Game Nerd. For what it's worth, I think that Chandler was severely mistreated, from the beginning. But that does not negate anything I've said here. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC) I think you are sailing fairly near the wind here. If Chandler is not mentioned by name in that article, that might be because no reliable sources would support such a mention. If that is the case, your assertion above is most probably a violation of WP:BLP (which applies to all spaces, including here). I already advised you to be careful about what you say here - please tread very carefully. Girth Summit (blether) 11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC) I understand and appreciate the caution. I will tread more carefully, thank you. Both sources for the statement do mention Chandler by name, though it is not reproduced in the article. Chandler's initials are mentioned in the first line. To the best of my knowledge I have only referenced published secondary sources about a well-known individual.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 11:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Let me just say in general, a thousand times no. This is a hill I will happily die on. To be clear, I don't mean this as an indictment of this particular editor, but about the broader context. "Memeing" a person to Wikipedian notability and then using this site to further amplify their harassment is just an evil, evil template. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Delisting of the Hungarian Wikipedia

Not related to enwiki — Golden call me maybe? 14:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Hungarian Wikipedia has covered up several scandals, including unfair edit wars, creation-protection of important pages (even one about a Formula Two driver), (Redacted), and rampant admin abuse. Due to all of the controversies, I suggest that it is either delisted or closed permanently. Hell, I even got blocked for being a crosswiki vandal, even though I only tried to create a page for a certain person! --2A01:36D:1200:4D41:D9E6:E7D4:9D38:6C3C (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC) The English Wikipedia has no authority over the Hungarian Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Also I have blocked this user for multiple, now rev-del'd, BLP violations and other disruptive edits. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC) @HighInBC: There's one diff in the page history that still needs rev-delling [19]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC) RickinBaltimore did the honors on that one. Miniapolis 23:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC) (ec)Thank you, looks like someone else got to it first. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AIV

There is quite an unusually large backlog at AIV. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Links are your friends: WP:AIV. Sandstein 11:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

There's currently 51 pending requests at WP:RFPP, some around 36 hours old. Would admin(s) be able to look at these- I imagine some would be stale by now. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I m looking in from time to time, but RL calls, and help would indeed be appreciated. Lectonar (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated all who helped, it's down to 5 requests now :) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit filters for Talk:Harry Styles and Talk:Louis Tomlinson

Can some edit filters be set up to handle the years long disruption at these talk pages, centered around edits like these? Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This might be more appropriate at the edit filter noticeboard Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested Vahurzpu (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't semiprot be appropriate if there is IP vandalism, even on a talk page? Seems more useful than an edit filter only for a pair of talk pages. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, and was actually about to close this as withdrawn, based on responses I saw at the edit filter request page. I don't think semi is a great idea though, as pages on celebrities do get a fair amount of IP and new user traffic. That said, I just took a quick glance through the talk pages and archives, and I don't think there's been any constructive editing that semi would have stopped, except an instance of letting us know about vandalism. In conclusion, I'd be fine with semi, or just removing the disruptive edit requests as they pop up until the heat death of the universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim Kaine

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.

---

There are discretionary sanctions for this page. I think that the time has come where they are no longer needed. I am requesting that the DS be rescinded since there hasn't been recent disruption to the article and the only disruption to this article since is vandalism. Interstellarity (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... no. The discretionary sanctions for the page (WP:AMPOL) applies to "all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people", which definitely applies to Kaine, an active American politician. As such, discretionary sanctions are mandatory, regardless of whether or not there's any actual, current disruption to the article. Besides, I'm pretty sure we can't rescind DS for a single article, only for a topic as a whole, which we absolutely should not do here. SkyWarrior 01:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: The op here is referring to the specific page restrictions imposed here (i.e. the 1RR rule and the requirement for talk page consensus) which can be removed via consensus here, per the process for appealing sanctions. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, those restrictions are actually the default for the entire AMPOL DS, not just this one article. Although, reading over the appealing sanctions page, it doesn't exactly say we "can't" remove DS from one specific article (unless it's stated elsewhere), so I think what I said above in regards to that can be ignored (unless someone else agrees with me). With that said, I'm not too sure rescinding DS for Kaine's article is a good idea given the fact that he is an active member of the U.S. Senate. SkyWarrior 03:09, 13 January 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.

Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli

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

---

You deleted a historical news item:

Wikipedia editors votedto remove an entry on IDF soldier Barel Hadarya Shmueli, who was killed by a Hamas terrorist in August.

“Those who voted in favor of erasing his memory, the only thing left for us, they should know that they spat in our faces,” said the soldier’s sister.

Such bias is vile. I have supported wiki every year via donation. Not a penny more now, neither from my family nor friends. You are a tool for terrorists and liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/2603:6081:7942:66F5:C152:E9CA:806E:BE84 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli? Also, contributors do not receive donations. —PaleoNeonate – 04:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate, they probably mean [21]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been receiving media coverage and it was the Hebrew language version of the article that was deleted following a discussion. Currently the only versions are English and Russian.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to make this clear to the IP editor, who is probably not familiar with the differences between different language versions of Wikipedia: decisions about content are not made globally; each different language version of Wikipedia is run as a separate project, with its own rules and internal processes determined by its own community of volunteer editors. The decision that you are talking about took place on the Hebrew language version of Wikipedia. This page you have come to is only relevant to the English language version. Editors and administrators here have no say in what happens to articles over there, except for those few of us who are bi/multilingual and who choose to contribute separately to that project. In other words - you're in the wrong place, we didn't delete the article, we have no say in whether or not it should have been deleted, and we have no power to restore it. If you want to complain about it, you need to go to the Hebrew language project to do so. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not familiar with their policies but when seeing this en-wiki one I did wonder about notability (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, although there are some mainstream news sources). Not seriously enough to propose it for deletion myself though. Since we're here, I invite editors to evaluate if the incident or shooter should be called terrorism/terrorist. I've seen two Israelian sources being careful not to describe it as such, with one citing some quotes calling it terrorism. The original en-wiki article didn't, but an IP address recently changed gunman to terrorist which I reverted for now. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it, if RS aren't themselves directly calling it terrorism, neither should we; probably something to discuss on the article talk page though, rather than here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 215#the falling of barel shmoeli נפילת בראל שמואלי discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 13 January 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.

Facilitating a merge discussion via RfC

There are many areas of the encyclopedia which are edited by two or three editors, at most. Merge requests do not (usually) attract a lot of attention and if these two or three editors disagree among themselves, there is a limbo for months. Preempting such an outcome, can merge requests be advertised via a RfC?

I do not intend to blame any individual editor but is this edit reflective of best practices? [WP:RFC is not a policy or guideline.] The more non-canvassed voices, the better - ain't that the spirit of Wikipedia?

Fwiw, I I had affixed all relevant merge-tags to the pages. So my invoking of RfC did not replace but supplement the usual procedure. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is, imo. The best way to publicise obscure mere propposals is to post notices at all the relevant projects. I recognise there is a problem here though. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Why do you think using a RFC in advertising any merge-process is a poor choice? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  We have an established process for mergers, described at WP:MERGE. Templates such as {{merge to}}, {{merge from}} etc. do not just put notices on the articles, they put the page in categories like Articles to be merged from January 2022 and All articles to be merged. They are picked up by certain bots and scripts, which log the event and may then add entries to Article alerts (example). By using RfC for something that it is explicitly not intended for, you are bypassing these. You may have affixed all relevant merge-tags to the pages, but removed one of them again. BTW - why take this straight to AN without, for instance, asking me on my talk page first? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Adding a RfC template does not either purge the page out of the category or affects the log? So, I am not bypassing any procedure but supplementing it.

  I removed one of the tags because I had chose the wrong target; my edit summary is self-explanatory. Check all the tags and log, as things stand now.

  I brought it to AN to evaluate the position of community. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  A problem across Wikipedia for the last few years has been people reaching for the stronger methods of late (if not last) resort, whether that be RfC, AN or even Arbcom rather than the most appropriate one, even if milder. Discussions are also often started on less-than-relevant pages: a merge discussion should be held on the talk page of one of the articles involved, and apparently Gilgit-Baltistan is not one of them - so the discussion should have been at Talk:Trakhan dynasty, Talk:Gilgit or Talk:History of Gilgit-Baltistan (Trakhan dynasty mentions merging to Gilgit-Baltistan but there is no reciprocal merge tag). Too many such processes are started for quite trivial matters. Was it really necessary to do this? Is this particular AN thread really necessary? No and no. If you want to broaden the remit of RfC, please suggest it at WT:RFC which exists for that purpose (amongst others). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  None of your reply suggests what is wrong with soliciting more comments via a RfC rather than pointing to a page that is neither policy nor guideline. If you think that escalating a dispute straight to ArbCom is a valid comparison, you need to come up with more originality and nuance in arguments.

  The issue with merge tags: I had mis-typed the target in Twinkle which created a mess. And I fixed that of my own barring a couple of trivial errors. Which are now fixed.

  If you have any reasonable argument about how advertising a merge discussion (concerning a page, that is almost watched by none) via RfC hampers the process of finding a consensus, I am all ears. This is my last comment and pending a day or two, I will start a discussion at WT:RFC. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, I have nothing against you or your edit. [Otherwise, I would have requested a revert or reverted you.] This thread is not about you; it is about the process. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  If a talk page has few watchers, and you want more participation, make sure that the talk page has relevant WikiProject banners at the top. Then either wait for people to arrive via Article Alerts, or you can pust a notice directly to the talk pages of those WikiProjects - templates like {{fyi}} or {{subst:please see}} are available for this. There are more suggestions at WP:APPNOTE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Global block of 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

I'm not autoconfirmed on meta, so I can't request a global unblock, but Operator873 put a year long block on all T-Mobile IPV6 IP addresses that prevents logged in editing. Is this okay? Can someone request a global unblock, or can we override this locally? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish is absolutely correct. That range should have been anononly and has since been modified by AmandaNP. I apologize for my slow response to the issue. I received an emergency phone call and was disposed shortly after making the block. Operator873 ^connect 20:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the quick response, which I wouldn't really characterize as "slow." Looked to have been within an hour. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ScottishFinnishRadish: The global block log indicates that AmandaNP (talk · contribs) amended this to "anonymous only" eight minutes before you posted here. Did you notice the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I did notice the advice page, what concerned me was the inability to edit from my account. When I was looking into the block and writing this report I was no longer using a mobile phone, so I didn't notice that the block had been amended. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of COIN thread by involved editor

Hi! AlexEng recently closed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006. I agree with some of the point raised in the close, such as the thread being inordinately long. However, the closure was made by an involved editor, and I also don't believe that it provides a guide for editors to resolve the issues raised within the thread in a constructive manner. I believe that two editors (Levivich and Sgerbic) on opposite sides of the discussion were slowly getting to a constructive common ground, or at least better understanding, and there were some good ideas (the creating of a new WikiProject) that merit further discussion. I believe that either an uninvolved editor should close the thread and provide some guidance on where to continue constructive discussion or the thread should be allowed to reopen for a few days in order to move towards this more constructive resolution that I believe is possible. Additionally, I believe the closure should've mentioned that functionaries had testified that editors in the dispute had been editing in areas where they have an undisclosed COI, as that is an important conclusion of the thread. Cheers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I explicitly approve of any review of my close, and I am happy to apologize and self-revert if there is even rough consensus that I was wrong. A. C. Santacruz should get no flack for bringing this here, because I invited her to. For visibility, there is some additional discussion on this closure at WP:COIN#Closure, which I expect may get merged at some point. First, I want to articulate that I closed the discussion as a good faith attempt to stop ongoing disruption and incivility as well as to bring a colossal and dense discussion that had grown stale and circular to a constructive end. I did this knowing that closure by involved editors is unusual and rare but not strictly against policy per se. This is a discussion that 1) sucked up a ton of time and effort from the community, affecting other discussions at COIN; 2) had grown extremely long and dense, featuring a lot of back-and-forth in massive threads; 3) would require, for a fair close, a contextual understanding of both the discussion itself and the veritable tree of branching disputes stemming from the equally massive and dense ANI thread concerning GSoW; and 4) had grown stale, with new editors coming in on rarer and rarer occasions and with no fresh takes on the situation or new commentary. I weighed the options, and I thought it would be a net positive to close the discussion after 22 days and 35,000 words, excluding links, videos, articles and diffs used as evidence. At this point, both the originator of the discussion and one of the two main editors in focus had withdrawn from the discussion; the former, assumedly, after 32 hours of no reply after having made increasingly brief additions in the previous few edits, and the latter by pointed assertion. ⏎

Given my somewhat involved role in the discussion and to try and avoid as much of a perception of impropriety as possible, I took pains to formulate a close in as neutral a way as possible. I was hoping to amend it based on feedback, which I explicitly invited in my close summary, on a point-by-point basis if there is anywhere that I erred in my attempt to faithfully summarize the discussion. Closure review is another viable option, and I would welcome the extra eyes. I would also welcome a re-close by an uninvolved editor who is willing to wade through the discussion. And, as I said earlier, I am happy to self-revert and apologize if the community feels that the close was inappropriate in any way. My agreement is not required, in any case. Thanks, everyone. I will be back when I wake up. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, two more quick things to add before bed. First, not that anyone needs me to remind them, but I think this thread on this board is supposed to be focused on the close itself rather than an additional forum to discuss the topic; correct me if I'm wrong. Second, if it's a WP:SNOW situation, any editor in good standing has my direct permission to revert/re-close before I wake up. You don't need to wait for fruitless rebuttals or anything. Thanks! AlexEng^(TALK) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes

• Endorse close. (non-admin view) I can't believe anybody believes it would help Wikipedia to resume that meandering megathread. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a painfully careful close and AlexEng deserves praise for being brave enough to end that WP:TRAINWRECK. In this case, following WP:INVOLVED would certainly have prevented them ...from improving or maintaining Wikipedia... and they were fully justified in ignoring it. Kudos to Alex. That said, it was opaque in the extreme what the original thread sought to achieve and it is even less clear what overturning it and subjecting everyone to even more useless debate would do. There is zero rational reason to re-examine the close. Seeking to overturn such an extraordinarily well-reasoned close takes on the appearance of pursuing a personal vendetta rather than trying to improve the project at this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Eggishorn: Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? is "opaque in the extreme"? Huh? Levivich 16:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree with Levivich that the only issue with the close is after wading through all the material, AlexEng appears to have forgotten to address the original question and someone should amend the close to include the community consensus on whether Rp2006 has to disclose their COI including reverts. Rest of the close is a great summary of the larger issuesSlywriter (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Besides what Levivich brought up, I'm also uncomfortable that the close was by someone whose involvement was very much non-neutral. I feel this raises legitimate questions over the purpose of the close itself, which even if in good faith (as I think it mostly is), can easily be interpreted as biased toward one party. I had considered closing, or at least commenting with my distillation of the discussion, before deciding my having commented in a couple prior threads with mild criticism of one aspect of GSOW's approach would make doing so unfair. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Is there an option to not reopen the thread, but instead have an uninvolved admin add a close summary? Because I agree the thread needed to be closed, not least (actually, maybe this is the least important reason...) because the "subscribe" function was no longer able to highlight all new comments which made it very difficult to track what was going on. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Quickly looking over that discussion, it belongs at ARBCOM as it's clear the community can't deal with it. No opinion on the specific close, but I agree it needed to be closed with no outcome. And, if anyone still thinks there is an issue (and I very much imagine they do) they should open a case at ARBCOM. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your perspective that the issue belongs at ARBCOM, seeing as it seems from my understanding most people agree that the thread is a shitstorm, all other threads on the issue have been a shitstorm, and as we have been unable to find a constructive way forward (on what should've been quite a straight-forward COIN thread) it is very likely this topic will be a shitstorm repeatedly in the future and therefore be detrimental to the wiki. I originally opposed the close partially on my belief that a constructive resolution through community discussion could be found. Many more experienced editors than myself do not believe so, so ARBCOM is probably the best way forward. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, and the only thing I know about you is that your signature is distinctive and makes it easy to see how often it appears in a conversation and that you have a current ANI partial block for CIR issues, maybe step away from this now. nableezy - 23:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Id re-close it, but the last time that happened several unfortunate things transpired. But happy to help if nobody objects. nableezy - 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Endorse - As someone who has read the complete discussion including how AlexEng mostly participated as an effort to be able to finally close it, then having read the closure message, it all seems fine to me. Although AN is the right place to review a closure, I have the impression that this is the continuation of recent FORUMSHOPPING. —PaleoNeonate – 02:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's concerning to me that a discussion of this magnitude would be closed by an involved, non-neutral editor (though it was a very thorough review and close). Some editors seem a little too anxious to sweep the concerns under the rug, say it's all just a big mess, and move on while the issues still hang in the air. The close offers no indication of what potential next steps could be. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Though most of the closure is OK, as a participant in that discussion I do share the concerns that some have raised here; that AlexEng was an inappropriate closer due to being involved in the discussion. Even if AlexEng's close is endorsed by those here, I would like to see it modified to address the original purpose of the thread; Rp2006' COI.
  Given that a functionary (GeneralNotability) received credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits, that needs to be addressed in the closure. Even if the recommendation from the closure is to escalate to arbcom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - Fully agree with Sideswipe9th BilledMammal (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's where I'm at as well. A functionary said there was undisclosed coi editing, and lying about it. I provided diffs of the editor using the source they have a COI with to add negative information to a BLP over the course of years. Seems odd that it wasn't mentioned in the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's worth quoting GeneralNotability's comment: Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise. Obviously close-worthy. JBchrch talk 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note that an ArbCom request has been filed, which makes most of the discussion here redundant. I would suggest to close this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Until Arb accepts, this is still a valid thread. If they decline, closing this beforehand would be a problem. I suggest waiting until it is obvious they will accept. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

    There are three outcomes possible here.

    1. Nothing, and it gets closed or archived eventually.
    2. The close is overturned, the thread at coin is reopened, and it sits around until it's closed by someone else, or is archived, since anything that should be said at this point would be at arbcom.
    3. Someone else takes the close as their own, and appends the closing statement. That doesn't need this thread open to happen.

    As far as process goes, yeah, this should remain open, but it can really only increase drama. Also, I bet you 10 edits to the article of my choice that it gets accepted. It's exactly what arbcom is for.

    I'm tempted to close this discussion myself so that we can have Closure of Closure of COIN thread by involved editor by an involved editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

    Can you imagine if I closed it? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It only causes drama if people keeping posting nonsensical tangential comments instead of waiting to see what Arb does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

    To be fair, I think the levity helps, rather than ratchets up drama. At least there's no aspersions, personal attacks or arguments. Instead we get chuckles (hopefully), cringes and face palms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I would agree with the close if anyone else had said it, so it does not bother me that this user closed it. I don't think this situational relationship is an absolute contraindication to closure, either. As long as it is NPOV in nature, and very carefully performed. Yes, it would be better if someone even less involved did so. But I think the only issue regarding closure reviews should be: is this a reasonable interpretation/summary of the discussion? Which I believe yes, it is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  The big issue is leaving out that a functionary said I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise[22] which is a pretty huge omission to the close of a COIN thread. That said, I still think that this thread should be closed as no action. It's already at arbcom, and nothing productive will happen here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy

The legal name of the madrasa is “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” but the name they proclaim publicly is “Darul Huda Islamic University” and its acronym, “DHIU”, which is intended to mislead people. They misuse Wikipedia editions, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata by creating and maintaining articles in various languages to protect their own interests. I don't know if the institution could be called a university or not and the articles was eligible to be kept on Wikipedia or not. I do not recommend deleting the following articles but I request a cross-wiki investigation including meatpuppetry. Admins can discuss and make the necessary decisions themselves.

Name

• The name was given as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” when it was registered under the Society Act in 1989 and filed as an NGO in 2019.
  • NGO Reg ID: KL/2018/0211502
  • Registration date: 12 March 2019
• Darul Huda has been promoting itself the term "university" and DHIU since 2009, which is incorrect.
• Their homepage was changed from darulhuda.com to dhiu.info in 2009 and to dhiu.in in 2016. They launched a Facebook page called “Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)” in 2011.
• Four bank account details, including two branches of State Bank of India, Canara and HDFC, are listed in the footer of Darul Huda's website. There the name of the account holder is given as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy".
• Leading universities in India refer to the institution as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” (2019) and “Darul Huda Islamia Academy” (2017).

Recognition

• Maulana Azad National Urdu University has approved Darul Huda's Madrasa Course as one of 220 Madrasas for the 2019-20 academic year and Jamia Millia Islamia for the 2017 academic year.
• UGC has not yet recognised Darul Huda even as a Deemed University.

Institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university in India. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school by Government of India or Kerala or any School boards like CBSE, ICSE and KHSEB, use the revered word "university"?

That's why, instead of changing the legal name, they only give the promotional name on their websites, profiles and biographies of students and alumni published in different websites, Facebook and the self-created Wikipedia articles.

Suspected accounts

Some accounts were involved in the campaign on various wiki projects. Most of these are students or alumni of the Darul Huda:

1. Faizalniyaz @ Faisal Niyaz Hudawi [23]
2. Fazal kopilan @ Fazal Kopilan is a former student[24] and Sub Editor of Thelitcham Monthly, [25] published by Darul Huda.[26]
3. Suhail hidaya @ Muhammed Suhail Hidaya Hudawi [27]is a staff of the Darul Huda[28] and Associate Editor of islamicinsight.in published by Darul Huda.[29]
4. Ashrafnlkn [30] and Ashrafulkhalq [31] are two accounts of Ashraful Khalq from Nellikunnu (nlkn). He is the major contributor of the article Nellikunnu. His both names are mentioned on his Twitter account.
5. Kunchava KK
6. Abjad3
7. Mckrntr
8. Nadwi Kooriyad
9. Bahauddeen Muhammed
10. YusufMohamedHudawi @ Yoosuf Hudawi
11. Tinkvu @ Rinshad C is a student of Darul Huda[32].
12. Nezvm is a secondary account of Tinkvu.
13. Suhail Chemmad @ Suhail from Chemmad. This seems to be Suhail's secondary user account.

English Wikipedia

Faisal Niyaz Hudawi, an alumnus of Darul Huda and current CEO of the Islamonweb, an Islamic web portal managed by its graduates, started an article entitled “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” in 2006 and another alumnus and current staff member, Suhail Hidaya Hudawi, renamed it “Darul Huda Islamic University” in 2011. After that, they often try to maintain their interest by creating/canvassing different accounts. A Wikipedia admin moved back to old name, Darul Huda Islamic Academy as per my request recently.

Students and alumni of the Darul Huda, including Suhail Hidaya has created numerous articles related to it on various Wikipedia sites, including English, Malayalam, Arabic, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Türkçe and Urdu, and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and modified related Wikidata items.

Articles

1. Darul Huda Islamic Academy
2. Darul Huda Islamic University
3. DHIU
4. Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)
5. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (deleted many times)
6. User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
7. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
8. Dr.Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
9. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
10. Bahauddeen Nadwi (deleted twice)

Updated the list now Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

Articles created by Suhail Hidaya related to it in various Wikipedia projects:

Malayalam

1. ദാറുൽ ഹുദാ ഇസ്‍ലാമിക് യൂനിവേഴ്‍സിറ്റി
2. സി.എച്ച്. ഐദറൂസ് മുസ്‌ലിയാർ
3. തെളിച്ചം മാസിക
4. ബഹാഉദ്ദീൻ മുഹമ്മദ് നദ്‌വി
5. ഫെഡറേഷൻ ഓഫ് യൂനിവേഴ്സിറ്റീസ് ഓഫ് ഇസ്ലാമിക് വേൾഡ്
6. സമസ്ത കേരള ജംഇയ്യത്തുൽ മുഅല്ലിമീൻ

Français

1. Académie Islamique Darul Huda

Bahasa Indonesia

1. Academy Darul Huda Islamic

Bahasa Melayu

1. Akademi Islam Darul Huda

Türkçe

1. Darul Hüda İslam Üniversitesi

Urdu

1. دار الہدى اسلامک اکیڈمی

Arabic

1. جامعة دار الهدى الإسلامية
2. بهاء الدين محمد الندوي

List of related domains

Darul Huda

• dhiu.in: Darul Huda's main website.
• darulhuda.com: the first domain name of the Darul Huda.
• dhiu.info: a redirect to main domain, it was early used as main domain.
• islamicinsight.in: a journal by the Darul Huda.
• islamonweb.net: an Islamic web portal by Darul Huda's graduates, Hudawis.
• thelicham.com: a online monthly published by Darul Huda.
• hadia.in: official website of Hadia (Hudawis Association for Devoted Islamic Activities), the alumni of Darul Huda.

News Agencies

• suprabhaatham.com: website of Suprabhaatham Daily. Bahauddeen is the editor of the daily.
• gulf-times.com: A Doha based daily and news portal. Shafeeq Alingal also called Shafeeq Hudawi is the Staff Reporter of Gulf Times[33] since 2019[34] and former Senior Reporter of The New Indian Express[35] and TwoCircles.net.[36]

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Updates

An article moved to new title

Tinkvu @ Rinshad C moved the Darul Huda Islamic Academy to Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and removed old contents containing the real name and related sources of “Darul Huda Islamic Academy”. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the old contents which wasn't referenced correctly. @Sabeelul hidaya is bringing his personal hate to the university over Wikipedia!!!

I am not a student, alumni or any employee of Darul Huda Islamic Academy. I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for 5 months and you can check my contributions on my User's page (And if needed, I can give you the records of my current University).

@Sabeelul hidaya Please note that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and as a contributors, we need to make it best. Please stop bringing your personal hate to Wikipedia.

Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be seen as a place to tell lies alone. Is it not a lie to say that you have not studied in Darul Huda yet? Did I say anything without the necessary references?

Why are you trying to mislead Darul Huda as a university?

Isn't Darul Huda an institution operating in India?

Isn't UGC the accrediting agency for the India-based universities?

Has the UGC or any other government-recognized council even recognized Darul Huda as a primary school?

Why did you omit the word "UGC did not recognize it even as a Deemed University until 2020" added to the article to avoid misunderstandings? This idea was contributed to this article by @Gab4gab:, not me.

Why did you remove the author's first name and last name from the citation linked to the http://www.bhatkallys.com/career-education/kerala-islamic-university-spread-wings-south-east-asia/ it was copied from a post that posted in Two Circles by Shafeeq Hudawi. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sabeelul hidaya I removed nothing from the citation as you're talking. The citations are auto-generated and it shows like this. Tinkvu (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What you say may sometimes be true. You answer other questions as well. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I did'nt get what you're talking about! Tinkvu (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will make it clear to you.

Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private University under the managing committee, Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it's because of the managing committee is Darul Huda Islamic Academy, all the bank accounts are under the academy.

There are a lot of institutions and other NGO's under Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Tinkvu (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.

There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.

I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

[Copyright infringement removed]

Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private Islamic University under the managing committee Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it has affiliations by the Islamic Universities League. Tinkvu (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: FUIW and LIU are not accreditation/affiliation agencies, even if it is true that Darul Huda was granted membership. The document only mentions as "membership" and "member" on both of the certificates you claim to be the certificates they granted to Darul Huda.

I told you earlier that, I do not intend to discuss the name or the notability of the organisation. I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists, and Wikipedians, presenting the institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(@Sabeelul hidaya) You have mentioned the wrong facebook account, Here's my facebook profile[37] and here's my LinkedIn.

And @Sabeelul hidayais a fake profile created by the haters of University to harm/destroy University. Sabeehul Hidaya Islamic College is a college affiliated by Darul Huda Islamic University and the @Sabeelul hidaya is a fake profile created only for harming articles related to Darul Huda Islamic University.

Please help Wikipedia grow, not to bring your personal interests on this Global Encyclopedia.

Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabeelul hidaya is an Arabic word meaning "way of guidance". I do not think there is anything wrong with this name, contrary to username policy. However, there is no objection to change if the admins suggest me that you behave. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okey! Agreed.

Can't be there different people with the same name? its not me that you're talking about above!

Prove your identity first and please help Wikipedia to be clean, not to be scrap. Tinkvu (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sabeelul hidaya Can you please mention about your previous Wikipedia User Account here or in your profile? User talk:Sabeelul hidaya#Previous account(s)?

If you have an old account, you should mention it on your User Page. Tinkvu (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: Would you like to collaborate with this discussion? Just talk if you're interested or I have other work to do. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rules are rules, always (You have to know it first).

And stop searching for the students of DHIU (who don't even have any user account on Wikipedia) with the same as that of the users contributing for telling that the article's self published.

I can prove that you're wrong. Tinkvu (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: Try to prove it with strong evidence. My first question. I have established on the basis of evidence that Suhail Hidaya is the major contributor to all Wikipedia articles related to Darul Huda. Can you prove otherwise? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Suhail Hidaya's last contribution for the article Darul Huda Islamic University was on 4 April,2020.

It's 06 January 2022. And the article and everything was edited by many people later. It's around two years and more than 200 edits were done to the article later. How can you still say that his contributions still exist on the article? Please explain @Sabeelul hidaya! Tinkvu (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: I did not refer to him as the latest editor, but as the major contributor. Who renamed the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy as Darul Huda Islamic University and created all related articles (approximately 13) on all non-English Wikipedias? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And I've replied to all your questions and please check if you have'nt seen.

Thank You. Tinkvu (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

List of references removed yesterday from the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy:

1. MANUU: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2019-20 academic year
2. About the vice principal
3. About former principal
4. NGO details at NGO Darpan, Gov. of India
5. Google Books
6. Kochi Post
7. Jamia Millia: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2017 academic year
8. AMU (dead link)

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion (Darul Huda Islamic Academy)

What do we needt do do at en-Wiki? Given the above I would suggest the article is moved back and move-protected. The Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi article is now at draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi - moved by Barkeep49 as the result of a request. As an unreferened BLP that has not been worked on in eighteen months or more, I sugest that it is deleted and both draft and article titles are salted. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University is a recognized university in Kerala and Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi is the vice-chancellor of the University. Do not delete articles related to the university and do not take any actions against the Wikipedians because they are published on English, Malayalam and Arabic only after checking the grammar and making good sources and necessary news coverages. This is not a promotion. We have provided accurate information about this university. We write clearly on different Wikipedias so as not to be misunderstood by the general public, universities and other institutions that search for information about the university on Google and other search engines. Even if you delete it now or later, we will rewrite it with the help of Wikipedia's admins. I'm asking the admins what's wrong with using the university's real name on Wikipedia. You should not use Wikipedia to protect your interests. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning of promotion? Taking action against articles and accounts is not my goal. The rules should be the same for everyone. I started the discussion here when I saw activities that were against the rules. But the rules do not apply as long as there are paid editors to help you. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious Suhail Chemmad, when you talk about editing Wikipedia, why do you speak in such a plural tone (we have provided ..., we write clearly ..., we will rewrite it ...)? I'd assumed it was a matter of differences in language but seeing: "I'm asking the admins ..." indicates more fluency than I'd originally thought. I'll simply ask: do you edit Wikipedia as an individual or are your efforts coordinated with and for others, perhaps even while sharing accounts?--John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't carefully read this whole thing but I would suggest on the article front we don't need to do anything - my refunding of the article to User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (not the Draft version) and full protecting it ensures it's not put into mainspace. Since many of the editors identified aren't suspect to be socks I'm not sure what else we need to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong place, if you think a AfD is appropriate for Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and it passes a good faith BEFORE then so be it, but I personally would probably be !voting a keep for most sorts of higher education establishments with RS regardless of country, ideology etc. Regarding Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi has at least one viable source as far as I can tell, I wished i'd moved and stewarded into draftspace rather than letter CFORKs. The newer CFORK draft is way off mainspace requirements at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Common names are fine. Loads of organisations don't use their legal name. Secretlondon (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for devoting your precious time to this. I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.

There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.

I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

1 January 2021

Tinkvu is still trying to misrepresent the madrasa. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Meatstuff resumes

@Djm-leighpark and Barkeep49: Are TheAafi and Irshadpp involved in this conspiracy? Can their accounts also be included in the suspected accounts?

Tinkvu, TheAafi and Irshadpp are likely to be paid writers. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Suhail Hidaya, Aaqib Anjum Aafi and Irshad are not any relationship to the University. They are respected contributors and promoters of the Wikipedia. Don't drag anyone into controversy unnecessarily. It will destroy their sincerity. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Your account also listed in the suspected accounts. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Having spent rather more time on this than I'd planned, it seems clear that there is an active and sophisticated brigade of accounts - meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets - dedicated to claiming for the Darul Huda Islamic Academy the status of university, to which it has no right. The appropriate action on their article Darul Huda Islamic University is being [38] discussed elsewhere, the possible relevance for this board is admin action on the puppets. I'd have thought a Wikimedia-wide topic ban to be appropriate. Hunc (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (Pinging you because you've been pinged above), Admins should take this accusation against longtime contributors like me serious. I was browsing through Islam related AfDs and came here through the Darul Huda AfD and I find this guy is here accusing me of not only being a paid editor but someone who is involved in some stupid conspiracy. Strange that I wasn't even notified on talk page which is necessary and "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.". I seek admin help against this bullying and harassment unnecessarily. I haven't even ever edited that page. The best part of this game is that the user who has accused me is just here since last month..... ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi I've been pinged three or four times to this thread. I have made the only substantive comment I am planning to make above. I simply don't have the capacity to dive into this. I'm sorry that I can't look further into what is troubling you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi I'm definitely not accusing you. Nor User:Irshadpp. To @User:Sabeelul hidaya, please provide evidence, and be careful, when making accusations. However, the edit war continues, and I'd hope for some admin attention to the repeated reinsertion of the claims of Darul Huda Islamic Academy to University‎ status, along with other promotional material. Hunc (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no doubt whatsoever that TheAafi is here to build an encyclopedia and their contributions are in good faith. They have been completely transparent in their interests and RL pursuits and I'm not aware of a single edit of theirs made with malintent. I find the accusations against them specious at best and should not be entertained. This approaches BOOMERANG territory to my mind. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabeelul hidaya saying that TheAafi might be a paid editor is a little paranoid, but I don't think it rises to the level of approaching a BOOMERANG. Especially considering the sheer amount of paid editors that have actually been involved in this. IMO in cases like this it's much better to caste a wide net and allow each person who has edited the article in a questionable way to say they don't have a COI then do the opposite. Otherwise you risk not holding people accountable for meatpuppeting simply because your afraid of retaliation over asking if someone has a COI. All TheAafi has to do is say they don't and everyone can get on with this. Accusing Sabeelul hidaya of bullying and harassments over it in the meantime is kind of ridiculous though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No one has a right to cast baseless accusations, we presume good faith until *proven* otherwise. TheAafi has aldready made a perfectly clear statement, which in my opinion it was not necessary since any examination of their edit history reveals good faith contributions... and that is the whole point, we don't allow people to run around accusing anyone of being a "witch" and place the onus on the accused, we expect evidence and proof before we adjudicate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying "I think someone has a COI" on this forum isn't making a baseless accusation. That's literally what this is for. People say they think there's an issue here and other people get involved to figure out if there is one not. Someone saying they think someone has a COI isn't "adjudicating" anything either. There's no judgment or decision being made about it in this discussion. Let alone does Sabeelul hidaya have any power to act as a judge or take action against anyone for anything. He isn't an admin. In the meantime, multiple accounts that he has reported have been blocked. So in no way is this at all comparable to the Salem Witch Trials. The hyperbole on your part really isn't helpful. An admin will review and deal with this regardless of your opinion that it's meritless. At this point your just bludgeoning things. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Even though Tinkvu declared their COI I think it would be worth giving them a topic ban from editing articles related to this university if nothing else. Since they seem incapable of working on articles related to it in a neutral, guideline based way that respects other users edits. Even after the extra scrutiny brought on by this complaint. I could care less if they edit other areas of Wikipedia, but they clearly have no business editing the Darul Huda Islamic University article or anything even slightly related to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-requested review of my WP:XRV close

Close in question

I just closed the above thread surrounding a complaint of misuse of rollback by an administrator. I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus to remove links to the page from other noticeboards as not being ready to be live, and with how we've typically handled such things in the past. Since I was in opposition to the creation of XRV and am still a skeptic, I'm posting here for review, but I believe that closing off that thread now was in line with our normally accepted practices and on the whole benefited the project. For the record, I'm not involved with the case itself, but since this is all so new and I suspect someone will object, taking here for review seems ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand you wanting a second opinion as, as far as I know, there aren't any guidelines on how this board is to be used, how discussions are to be closed or by whom. If I'm wrong, please point me to where this was all decided (not discussed but decided). I mean, for example, can non-admins close reviews of admin actions? It just seemed like the board appeared after a discussion but prior to any policy consensus on how business there is to be conducted. I mean, considering admin and advanced permissions actions are under review, it seems to be something along the lines of WP:AN but, I don't know, more specific about a particular action that was taken instead of a focus on a pattern of conduct? 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't scroll up and see the other discussion on this review board. I guess I'm not the only one ambivalent about how it was introduced. Now, back to Tony's original question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close As the close notes, a temporary rollback-usage problem where the editor has issued an apology does not warrant an ongoing investigation. If there are any special rules for WP:XRV, they don't apply unless a specific RfC supports the rules—an RfC on a dedicated page that does not include 26 unrelated proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close - the thread under discussion relates to a one-off questionable use of rollback, debated over 36 hours and ending with the editor in question apologising for the incident and committing to do better in future. The new noticeboard has a rule of 7 days before closing, but this issue really doesn't need another 5 and a half days of conversation.

Unrelatedly, I respect the consensus of the RfC to create this additional noticeboard but agree that it needs to define a clearer purpose to avoid duplicating ANI and/or simple usertalk. Something for discussion on the noticeboard's talkpage perhaps. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also don't see why threads there can only be closed by admins. If a close is based on determining consensus and doesn't need admin tools to implement, surely that close can be done by any experienced uninvolved editor as is the case on multiple other noticeboards. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am the user who opened the WP:XRV close under review. I had a demotivating experience when I tried to convert Yat Siu from a redirect back to an article. The article's full history is here from Herostratus (talk · contribs).

  David Gerard (talk · contribs) reverted back to a redirect twice: first with rollback and second with the edit summary "Please keep to consensus". I asked him three separate times about where a consensus to redirect was formed. He made numerous edits in between each time I asked him but did not reply to my questions. Hobit (talk · contribs) repeated the question during the deletion review and the administrative action review discussion but did not receive a reply. As Hobit asked, "Was that statement in error or was there such a consensus?" This experience has taken up a lot of my and the community's time which could have been avoided if David Gerard had responded to my questions.

  I thank David Gerard for his apology for the rollback. I appreciate that. I thank TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) for closing the XRV discussion as I agree that closing it benefits the project. It now is clear that it was better to have raised this at WP:ANI instead of WP:XRV as XRV was not ready to go live yet.

  Cunard (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Cunard, Johnuniq, and Euryalus: John Cline raised this on my talk page as well, hinting at the idea that I was involved because I was a skeptic, which is part of the reason I took it here since I'm aware of the optics of a skeptic making a close when something is first opening up. I have a very long reply here, which I won't repeat, but the short of it if anyone else wants a tl;dr is that my understanding is that expressing opinions on how a board should work does not make on involved in regards to specific closures, especially if there is a rough consensus on things on the talk page discussions. I think an other stance would risk a Wikipedia:Fait accompli type situation, but like I said, I'm very open to the community telling me I'm wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We would say you were wrong, but you're not. WP:XRV might be the best thing ever, but it needs to be set up in a dedicated RfC and procedures such as "must stay open for seven days so passers-by can needle anyone in the stocks, no matter how silly the case" can be fully aired. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You would be involved if you were a party to the specific dispute about this use of rollback. You are not "involved" simply because you commented on how the noticeboard should be structured. Worth adding that I wasn't a skeptic about XRV when it was proposed, but have become one in watching it over the last few days. This thread is a good example of why. I wish the new XRV "regulars" all the best with setting this up, but for now I've unwatched the page. -- -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    Comment - I can hardly imagine a worse outcome than to know the discussion Euryalus linked above gave them cause to stop watching the XRV page, especially considering that I offered a comment in the said discussion. I would sooner have redacted every comment I'd ever published there and taken a wiki-break for as long as necessary to avoid having fostered such an offense that could lead to such a sorrowful end. FWIW, that particular thread is no more than a thought provoking exercise with nothing else proposed or endeavored. If it was a proposal, I'd have been somewhere in the long line of snow-close opposition. And I hope you will reconsider and resume the lend of your eyes for the entire process is better with your watchful presence, and considerably diminished when without instead. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • WRT the closure under review, I do not endorse the closure and recommend that the discussion be re-closed by another uninvolved administrator. While not suggesting the closer acted in deliberate disregard while being directly involved (regarding the discussion he'd set out to close) he had become too closely involved in related talk page discussions to even realize that conflicting interests had affected his ability to properly asses and close the very discussion now under review. To illustrate, just as TB states upon self-requesting this review: "... I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus ...", his close summary begins similarly, by saying: "Bold/IAR close per the emerging consensus on the talk page ...". When, if ever, is the formal closure of a discussion (requiring closure by an uninvolved admin) closed per the emerging consensus (which never did emerged and, quite arguably, never was in an actual state of emergence) on the talk page, while practically ignoring the consensus (emerging or otherwise) in the very discussion they, ostensibly, were obliged to formally close? I suggest that such a misstep could only occur when rational judgement was in a state of serious compromise. And TB's was in fact so, by vertue of his involvement in and strong affiliation with the side of that talk page discussion that he monitored and commented in. I'm not going to enumerate things further because I have a life too, and anyone serious about establishing the property of this closure can see it easily enough by simply having a look, anyone not serious isn't going to look or give a damn no matter how hard I try. Quite literally, the only thing said in summary that actually was in the discussion supposedly being closed were the things Euryalus rightly said about closing the discussion early (not to imply there was nothing within the discussion to summarize and no actual outcome to mention, which there were and was matters worthy of each (not said) every other point made in the summary were either related to forces external of the discussion, from more mention of the talk page discussion, through how he felt about the page title and his interpretation of what an administrative action is, all the way to posting a final link and instruction directing people away from XRV when if there ever was anything even closely resembling a talk page consensus, it was about removing links from high visibility places that directed people to XRV, never even once was it suggested that people coming in of their own volition being directed away. There's a lot more I could say about policy violations and other mishandling of accepted best practice but I'm out of time and done with this. I know without any doubt that if TB hadn't held such a conflict within his closure would have been on queue and beyond reproach. To his credit, I admire his fortitude to bring it here for review. Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose as a bad close based on a bad invocation of IAR. Per WP:CLOSE, the closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. Knowing this, the closer invoked IAR to enable himself not to make a relevant determination regarding consensus and outcome, but instead to close based on his personal view about the status of the process page. The closer is entitled to express such views in any number of ways, it is just that closing is not one of those ways, because closing is not about the closer's opinion, but about determining consensus. So why did TB subvert the role of a closer in order to advertise his opposition to the process instead of commenting somewhere relevant? Obviously this was done to take away the opportunity for the discussion to get a proper close, where consensus is determined. That means that the discussion was rendered pointless and that the venue isn't functioning. Talk was cited, but it wasn't agreed upon beforehand that the venue isn't functioning—such an idea has been discussed, but hasn't garnered consensus. This is true even if the mentions on the noticeboards are removed (logically, doing so or not does nothing to render the venue inoperative). In fact the venue had been, and is, operative (proof). So TB stated his opposition to the process and immediately acted on it to make the venue appear as not functioning.
  The closer's choice to invoke IAR, and to file this for review at AN immediately afterward, shows that he was aware that an anomaly is about to happen. The community held an centrally advertised RfC in which an idea was accepted that the project would benefit from XRV. It was established in a subsequent MfD that there is a sufficient correspondence between the XRV process stipulated in the RfC and the existing XRV page (i.e. that the page is not "illegitimate", but that is an actual process page). TB could close any XRV discussion like that with the same IAR argument for an indeterminate future period. Shutting these discussions down through such clearly inappropriate closes is against the wider community's idea for how Wikipedia would be improved (per RfC), and so it was not justified to invoke IAR in this case as it was done contrarily to that idea, and it can reasonably be presumed not to have improved Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I don't see what would be gained from further discussion. An apology has been issued, there does not seem to be a community desire for punishment. This whole thing could have been resolved on a user talk page really. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not thrilled that someone who disapproves of XRV has speedily closed a thread, I must say. It might be the right decision but it's not a good look. At the time of closure we had already reached consensus that these discussions should last seven days, and the reason for that is to enable people to reflect and consider before they say something. At AN, where threads can be closed at any time, it's a rush to speak your piece before someone hats it up, which is great for those who're on wiki 24/7, but not so great for others. I wouldn't advocate un-closing it now but I'd ask TB not to do that again.—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - In a forum with no established format, rules, scope, or anything else except authority, it was a close over a fairly trivial matter that probably is out of scope anyway (it is in not "administrative" to use rollback), AND where the problem was already solved, the closing makes sense. It's already a cluster-mess over there, dragging it here really isn't helping. Allowed, but not particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Dennis. Am I understanding you correctly (when you say "dragging it here really isn't helping") that you disapprove of the admin who closed the discussion's decision to self-request a review of the (potentially controversial) closure? I personally thought it was one of the better things done and loathe the idea of discouraging such an open willingness to be admin-accountable. I hope you'll reconsider that criticism. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I see no point in dragging a rollback to that board to start with, it isn't an admin function. Use of rollback, and community review of it, is a trivial ANI/AN issue, easily reversible, and didn't really belong on that board. Reviewing it here without cause or expressed concern from the community is just as pointless. Blocks, moves, deletions, etc are really what that board is for, not reverts and rollbacks. It's akin to taking a content dispute to WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Category emergency

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 don't know where to post this concern, so I'm starting here: there's a problem with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, in that it currently shows over 600 pages in the categories included in it, 18 in one, 91 in another, 246 in another, and so on, BUT most of those categories are actually empty. This began several hours back, and I eventually rebooted thinking my browser had gone wacky, but no. Where does one take this? – Athaenara ✉ 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Problems with speedy deletion category counts. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. – Athaenara ✉ 16:54, 14 January 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.

Can an administrator investigate this case of anti-semitism please?

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

---

An administrator named Doug Weller has a very unsettling interest in anti-semitic topics and Jews. Just in the past 24 hours he edited Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League a page he is trying to create even though it was rejected for lack of notability, Category:Jews where he reverted the addition of Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East and said No, there are Jews who are not genetically related claiming we are not really a nation or descended from Judea, and Swastika where he removed the word gammadion so the word swastika is emblazoned on the page. Shandor Newman (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you honestly complaining that the word "swastika" is 'emblazoned' on the article ... swastika? You will need much, much better evidence before you can accuse people here of anti-semitism, per WP:NPA. I would suggest that you simply retract your claims or come with evidence which is a lot more convincing. Fram (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Shandor Newman: Doug and others have answered your concerns more than adequately on Doug's talk page. Retract you implied accusations of anti-semitism or you will be blocked indefinitely for personal attacks! Favonian (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See this discussion and then decide how long Shandor Newman's block for personal attacks and tendentious editing should be. Outrageous comments. SN54129 16:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Favonian: Did you just threaten to silence me if I raise concerns about anti-semitism? Is this how wikipedia works? Someone should report this kind of thing to a major news network besides the Times of Israel, hopefully the New York Times will be next. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wikipedias-jewish-problem-pervasive-systemic-antisemitism/ Shandor Newman (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Having seen the discussion going on at User talk:Doug Weller, and looked into what was behind it (e.g. the discussion on Talk:Yahweh), I'm going to cut to the chase here an suggest that Shandor Newman be blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Competence is required. This obnoxious and meritless complaint against DW is based on nothing at all beyond utter cluelessness, a complete refusal to take in anything anyone says, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how to engage in conversation with people who don't share every last detail of ones personal world view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've indef'd the user for disruption. Also, I think we are very likely being trolled here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 19 January 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.

Edit war at Dadivank

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.

---

Is it possible to semi-protect Dadivank? There is a bunch of sock accounts and IPs edit warring there. Please also see my report at WP:AN3: [39] Thank you. Grandmaster 23:10, 18 January 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.

Category creation!

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! Province no 2 has been renamed as Madhesh Province. therefore I request creating Category:Nepali Congress politicians from Madhesh Province based on politicians from our province. And hence link it to Category:Nepali Congress politicians, Category:Madhesh Province — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.28.178 (talk) 09:29, 18 January 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.

Turkey changed its official English name.

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 Stated in the title the Asian nation of Turkey has Changed its name to Turkiye, and I am requesting the protected page be altered.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-turkey-is-now-turkiye-and-why-that-matters-52602 — Preceding BlerStar95 comment added by BlerStar95 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to raise this is Talk:Turkey, although FWIW the article is extremely unlikely to be retitled until the majority of English-language sources start using that name instead (per WP:COMMONNAME). For a similar case, see Czech Republic, officially Czechia for a few years now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Once this spelling becomes the norm in English, follow the instructions at WP:RM for potentially controversial cases; if there's a consensus to rename, this will be done without any need for a message on this board. 93.172.243.103 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the page is move-protected, so the only way it's going to get a name change is following a successful RM. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 18 January 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.

Need Logo Updated on Wikipedia Site

Hello! Mercury Filmworks has updated their logo and it is not reflected on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Filmworks Can someone assist with updating this? It can be found on their social media accounts, glassdoor, and a quick google image search. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethAmyotte (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

Hi. There's a backlog at WP:RFPP, with some requests being more than 12 hours old. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've done a dozen but will have to give it away soon. More needed! Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers John, and thanks to all those who've helped with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Skilyr Hicks

Please delete this edit with DOB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean hide it with OS or RD, but the current consensus/practice is that an unsourced DOB does not fit either of those categories (especially if the subject is dead). Primefac (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spin-off films

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.

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Bison X (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I can see that spin-off films are listed in the List of film series articles, just look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Is it correct to list spin-off films there? Althrough a spin-off film is a part of the franchise, it's not a part of the film series. It's a standalone movie in the same franchise as the film series. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Karamellpudding1999 How does this specifically require administrator action? 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karamellpudding1999: - please ask your query at the Film Project for further input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 17 January 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.

Should we protect this?

Very unsurprisingly, this talk page is getting vandalised by those who probably would vandalise the article instead. Should it be protected? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some vandalism today, but then nothing going back to December. Looks like there's something inappropriate once or twice a month, which I personally do not think requires protection. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability

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 I wrote here at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).

It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would support scrapping the close followed by a re-close preferable from an admin, especially after the closer's response at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Jacobin (magazine). To start, the close is very long and quite hard to navigate. It consists of a lot of redundancies and over-emphasises particular arguments, some of which only had the support of one or two editors. On the other hand, it downplays and in some cases completely ignores other policy based arguments, including those that directly addressed the other set of arguments and enjoyed wider support. In the end, the close somehow ends up coming to a conclusion that is even harsher than most of the opinions expressed by Option 2 !voters and more in line with those expressed by Option 3 !voters. If the response to this is simply that the arguments were stronger, then this is a supervote and not an appropriate summarisation of the consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Any updates? Davide King (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Not yet, it seems. Hopefully, others would eventually comment after looking into it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm unarchiving this section, as it did not recieve sufficient participation and the closer has till now been largely irresponsive to concerns depsite contuining to uphold the close. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Jacobin (magazine). It would be helpful if the community could please weigh in on it and resolve this.

To clarify a bit upon why I said what I said in the previous comment, I'll give one additional example. The close assesses the arguments for poor "sourcing practices of Jacobin" to be stronger than those for "the use of Jacobin as a source for facts by reliable sources". The former argument was expressed or supported by 4 participants and explicitly argued against by 3 participants, while the latter argument was expressed or supported by 6 participants. Note also that the former links "sourcing practices" to WP:LAUNDER, an essay that wasn't even linked by any of the participants and might as well be a novel argument. In contrast, WP:UBO is part of a content guideline.

In addition, looking at the closer's degree of involvement in the topic area of American left wing politics, I do not think they are sufficiently uninvolved. Take for instance, The Grayzone was mentioned by participants in their arguments around sourcing practices, which was prominently reproduced in the close summary, all the while the closer has considerable involvement on its article. This is a fairly controversial and complex RfC, involved significant participation from a number of experienced editors with well articulated reasoning for their positions, but was closed by an involved NAC. My position is therefore to Overturn and reclose by an uninvolved admin regardless of whatever it is, with a close summary that is more concise and coherent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm lost as to what your position is and exactly what the complaint is. If I understand right, your ultimate concern is that its designation is yellow on WP:RSP, rather than green? And that the closer did not close with an option 1/2/3/4 response? On the latter, I don't think that's a requirement; I've closed RSN RfCs with statements not resulting in a clear option answer. RSP regulars can turn the closing statement into whatever colours/entries they think best represent the statement. As for the former, there's no consistency on how that's handled. e.g. The Spectator is pretty decent, but WP:SPECTATOR is yellow. Reason wasn't subject to an RfC and I'm not sure its RSP rating is actually indicative of the consensus in the recent discussion (which, incidentally, it appears I started). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not my concern. The concern is the summary in the RSP entry does reflect the close but the close doesn't reflect the actual discussion. It overweighs arguments presented by those favoring general unreliability. One central point being that it concludes that there is "a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable", which is not reflected in the discussion as it implies that either some form of additional considerations should apply or that it is generally unreliable. Most participants who !voted Option 2 don't indicate support for this kind of position so it appears plain inappropriate. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

On a sidenote, the recent discussion on Reason took place after the Jacobin one and the participants supporting "Option 2" make explicit references to the Jacobin. Its entry is not indicative of the consensus of the last discussion though it is for those before it. So it seems instead of the practice shifting, this is an inappropriate close making us deviate from WP:RSOPINION for the sake of consistency. Incidentally, the closer of the Jacobin themselves is the sole person expressing support for the general reliability of Reason with a WP:UBO arguement which is quite ironic. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Reason thing, it is not an outlier. I would point out that the closer has extensively weighed in on RSN discussions over sources perceived to have a left / right bias, virtually always, relative to the average of the discussions, on the side of low reliability for left-wing ones and high reliability for right-wing ones eg. dubious right wing sources [40][41][42][43][44][45] vs. an eagerness to depreciate or limit the use of left-leaning ones [46][47][48][49][50]. On top of that, Mikehawk's top-edited talk pages include Uyghur genocide, Mass killings under communist regimes, and The Grayzone, staking out clearly positions on socialism, the far left, and left-wing media coverage in general. It's fine to hold those positions (eg. believing there are a lot of left-leaning sources we use that we shouldn't is a valid position to take), but when it comes to closing RFCs where that is a major focus of discussion - like, say, a source called Jacobin - they are plainly WP:INVOLVED to the point where I'm honestly slightly shocked they thought it would be acceptable for them to close it or that it escaped notice until now. Would anyone involved in that discussion on the other side have been happy if, instead of weighing in with my opinion in the proper way, I had waited a bit and then closed it as generally-reliable (which I do think is the accurate reading of the consensus?) People knee-deep in something like that should not be closing RFCs about it, especially not in close or controversial cases, and especially not with closes that are so obviously at odds with the actual discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• The close is from September and it is almost January. I think we have passed the point of a reclose --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've seen older RfCs being closed though I suppose it can be overturned and just left as is, not the option I prefer. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• That close doesn't sufficiently reflect the discussion that gave rise to it. It should be overturned and reclosed, regardless of the amount of time that's passed. A mistake doesn't become less mistaken because it's an old mistake.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with S Marshall; all else aside the close is plainly a WP:SUPERVOTE, not an accurate summary of the discussion. Numerically the numbers favored option 1; and the closer did not even attempt to argue that the arguments otherwise were stronger, yet they baldly claimed that there was a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable, which is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. No plausible good-faith reading of a strong consensus to that effect exists. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, this is now quite old, but the alternative to keeping a bad closure is redoing the RfC, which is more of a waste of the community's time. So I would suggest the closure be reversed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with the need for a reclose. The window for a review request is completely arbitrary, and can be either minutes or years. CutePeach (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• A reclose seems reasonable to me. The conclusion does not seem to match the discussion, and the closer does not address this discrepancy in terms of weight-of-arguments or policy. A seemingly-flawed close is a bad close and should be reviewed. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose. Clearly not an accurate summary of the discussion. No need to hold on to it just because of time elapsed, nor for a fresh RFC. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• The points regarding the closer's editorial history might be of interest and it is not unreasonable to see this as a less than disinterested close, ie INVOLVED. Nevertheless, it's important to state that problem only arises because the close does not accurately reflect the predominant trajectory of the discussion. Overturn and reclose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose: Per Aquillion, Guettarda and others. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 16 January 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.

Images of sex workers

I noticed diff at Sex tourism which added an image (File:Sonagachi jon gresham 2.jpg) with caption "A sex worker in Asia's largest red light district, Sonagachi, Kolkata, India." Checking the image shows it is also used at Prostitution in Kolkata, Sex industry, Sex work and Sonagachi. Is it reasonable to use someone's image in this way? Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how we can verify that it actually represents what is claimed. It obviously depicts a woman, but I don't see how we can say anything more than that with any degree of confidence. So, no - I don't think we should be using it in this way. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Then how can we verify these women's images (File:A German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg, File:Inkorrektes tournage1.jpg, File:SexWorkers2009Marcha2009.JPG or File:Woman lying on bed, looking at mirror, Berlin 2001.jpg. I don't think we can make a swiping statement like this. Though I agree it is difficult to verify those women's images as sex workers. Please check these three images of women which all are from the red light area of Sonagachi (File:Sonagachi jon gresham 1.jpg, File:Sonagachi jon gresham 2.jpg, File:Sonagachi jon gresham 3.jpg. If necessary then we can change the caption of those images. One thing is for sure those images of women are from red light area Sonagachi. Whether they're sex workers or not that is debatable. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The first 4 images you linked clearly show a connection with the things they're claimed to be. The Sonagachi images, however seem to be pictures of random women on the street. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

1. The jon gresham images aren't very good anyway. Even if they are sex workers, it isn't good enough to use someone's blog as a way of verifying this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On a human level, this is pretty distasteful. I don’t think we should be labelling or even implying that identifiable non-notable people are sex workers in this way - even if they were. These are real people and we don’t know their circumstances and what their familes etc know about them. Apart from anything else there could well be a BLP issue. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Guys I got one source of one of the images of those women. Author says "A shot I took from the taxi as we drove through Kolkata's red light district, sonagachi". Guys if necessary I can do one thing by changing the caption of those images but keep at least one image in those articles. Don't you guys think so it would help the ordinary users to understand how big the prostitution industry is in India. Yes we can't verify weather they're sex workers or not. But those images are from red light area, sonagachi. And in future if we get a better image we'll replace it no problem. As of now keep at least one image and given source is also quite reliable. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s not even a reliable source and likely a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn’t be permitting this. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines aside, I find it in incredibly in poor taste to label persons as sex workers on an encyclopedia for everyone to see, unless it has been permitted by the subject of their own volition. Outing people in professions like this could literally subject them to threats and put their lives in danger. Whatever encyclopedic value can be extracted from such images can be identically done by obscured images and not face close-ups. nearlyevil665 10:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed that particular image from our articles here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I had also taken it out of 5 other articles (as well as 2 other similar/related) images. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The intersection of images and WP:V is really tricky for a wide range of subjects that cannot be easily verified, but which we trust the photographer/uploader for unless there's a reason to doubt it. Let's not start down that path except for one thing: the photographer didn't even state unequivocally that this is a picture of a sex worker -- just that she was in a red light district. Existing in a red light district does not make one a sex worker.
2. The main issue here is the use of photos of identifiable people (identifiable in the broad sense, not in the WP:V sense).
3. If this was taken from a taxi, he obviously didn't ask for consent. Per Indian law, consent is not required to take a photo of someone in a public place, but there is a clause that publishing a photo of a person in a public place can be illegal if it's "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [the depicted person's] activities". I don't know it well enough to know if it applies, but it sounds like it could. Looking at this a bit more, the "sense of insecurity about their activities" looks to be more about photos taken in private places (insecurity going about one's business).
4. The image quality is terrible.
5. For any article like this, we should be looking for photos where the subjects either aren't identifiable (a larger street scene, or even blurred faces) or where photos were taken with consent (regardless of whether that's absolutely required by law). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidencing consent to being publicly described as a sex worker (which I believe is what is needed) is I think unlikely to be feasible for the most part. Here in the UK, as it is in many countries, the norm in responsible media is to blur out faces in equivalent photos. DeCausa (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've encountered the image before in the same place and wondered the same thing—I really should have raised the issue. I agree with the removals. The images do seem inappropriate under WP:BLP. — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The creator of the photograph describes as "A shot I took from the taxi as we drove...", that is all I need to read. Not even the photographer knows for sure. This could just be a lady walking home in a bad neighborhood. Surely there exist photographs from self-identified individuals, and if not then the encyclopedic value of the photo is not very high anyway.

I was once videoed on the street and used in B-roll for a news bit on homelessness, guess what I was not homeless. I just has a big beard. I think we can do better than that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as someone who's been mistaken for a homeless man more than once (I know I have long hair and a beard and live in a minority/majority area, think maybe the Rush concert T-shirt might've been a giveaway?). Unless Wikipedia somehow thinks humans can't figure out that another human might be a sex worker, there's no use in proclaiming a picture of a random human to exemplify said procession. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was once approached in Paris by a decidedly seedy character, who seemed to think I was a sex worker. Fortunately, he didn't photograph me and upload it here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Guys in Wikimedia Commons some editors had uploaded photos of sex workers and incidentally images of above mentioned girls are their. WikiMedia Source. And they're mentioned under category:Prostitutes in India. Nobody has removed those images from that category; anybody would get confused and again put back those images in those articles. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not under our purview. If there are problems there, take them up there. Don't be too hopeful though, because my experience with Wikimedia Commons is that they don't have the best management and don't do enough to protect image subjects in situations like this. Not a single image in that category has a working link to a reliable source.Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed another equally questionable image, added yesterday by the same IP user, from Prostitution in Brazil (diff of addition). While those people have their backs to the camera, making them less easily identifiable, there is nothing in the photo that shows that they are sex workers, and nothing about the photo that helps explain the topic. IP user, have you also added other similar images to other Wikipedia articles? --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have something in our (en.wiki) image use policy saying to the effect that not all images at Commons are necessarily appropriate or should be used on en.wiki. Eg: En.wiki has strong BLP-favored rights (particularly for people unknown) and thus if we are talking potentially controversial pictures of random people (eg these sex worker photos) or with dubious include, editors should remove them and seek if there needs to be a separate discussion on commons to remove them. --Masem (t) 13:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Just because you find media at Commons, do not assume it complies with English Wikipedia policies. You need to make an independent determination under our policies. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Added to IUP. I do note that even without this, these sex worker images were not appropriate without the subject's consent (potentially derogatory images of identifyable people). --Masem (t) 14:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main takeaways for anyone looking to address issues like this one Commons are (a) remember that COM:PEOPLE isn't quite the same as WP:BLP - a lot of it is about the law, but COM:DIGNITY is relevant; (b) try editing/recategorizing before deletion. For better or worse, the most likely outcome if these images were nominated for deletion is that they would be edited to say they just depict the red light district, and not necessarily sex workers. It's a really low quality image, but brings me to...; (c) anything being used on any wiki other than Commons is automatically considered to be in scope on Commons, no matter how poor the quality or questionable the description. Those can still be edited/recategorized, but it needs to be an exceptional circumstance for them to be deleted. Personally, I do think there are a few admins there who insufficiently consider COM:PEOPLE, and several others who get frustrated when people don't understand what Commons considers to be in-scope so err on the side of keeping/doing nothing, but there are, I'd wager even more people who do care about this stuff but don't see it. I'm generally content to be pinged for an opinion on issues of COM:PEOPLE/consent, or to try to translate what Commons is doing for an enwp audience. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've always said that the easiest way to undermine Wikipedia is with images, due to the inability to WP:V the information shown, which can easily violate WP:OR, WP:BLP and host of other acronyms. Yanking these images was the right move. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• This reminds me of Seedfeeder's drawn explicit illustrations (in this case presumably mainstream public porn would be less of a BLP violation), but it may possibly be a good approach for this situation if an illustration is necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Viewer is fundamentally broken, and should be turned off

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T68606

In any case where there is more than one Creator of an image, Media Viewer will only show the first Creator. If there's more than one Creator template, it'll only show the first. If one Creator has a Creator template, and others don't, it will only show the one with the Creator template.

This means that it fundamentally breaks copyright. In any case where there's more than one creator, it will screw up showing this. This means that on any CC-by licensed work with two or more creators, if any of them has a Creator:Template, Wikipedia is violating Creative Commons.

Until it can be fixed, we need to turn it off.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems like either a Commons or a Phabricator issue; I don't think there's anything we can do here. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I will also note this has been posted at ARC (which will shortly be removed) and Jimbotalk (which... might get some traction?). I get wanting to get things resolved, but forum-shopping is probably not the best way to do it. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I kind of hate the idea that, after 8 years of waiting, when I finally get upset because there's been no progress the entire time, and when I can literally point to an example of MediaViewer turning a CC-by into a public domain - while stripping me of the credit in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Spotsylvania_Court_House#/media/File:Battle_of_Spottsylvania_by_Thure_de_Thulstrup.jpg ... that me complaining about it is the problem. The situation is starting to get fixed, probably because I did make such a fuss. Wrong gender, but... "Well-behaved women seldom make history" and all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You complaining about it is not a problem. You complaining about it to people who cannot do anything about it (ArbCom, enWiki admins, Jimbo...) , though, is more akin to shouting in the wind; it doesn't really do anything. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

enWiki doesn't have the ability to turn Media Viewer off if it's unfit for purpose? It's not an ideal solution by any means, but if it can't be fixed, it seems both the best way to mitigate the harm to the encyclopedia (and probably would have the side effect of causing it to be fixed after all) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a server configuration issue that has to be flipped by the server admins, which is the WMF coders. But please see what I wrote on Jimbo's page, there's a potential route around using the "Credit Line" template at commons. --Masem (t) 18:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has made one of their best and most memorable experiences with turning off the Media Viewer. 5/5 stars. We should totally do that again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Jomart Allaguliyev and socks

On 15 October, Canterbury Tail blocked Jomart Allaguliyev for disruptive editing. I do not exactly what the story was, and this is not important for now. 15 December, Jom Allaguliyev was registered and started editing. A couple of days ago I have realized that he are a sock of a blocked user, and blocked him for block evasion. Today, I saw Jo Allaguliyev on my watchlist. The account was registered yesterday, and I have blocked it as well. The guy does not seem to care that he is blocked, he just registers a new account every time and continues to do what he is doing. I am not sure whether anything should/can be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I have  Confirmed that these three accounts are operated by the same person. I agree that not much more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably we just need to block on sight, and I do not see what else we could do.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The account has been abandoned for months, but there's also User:Jomart Allaguliyev (real) which is obviously the same person. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked this one--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, J. Allaguliyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be them also. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is clearly an account registered after I have blocked the previous one.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Jomart-Guly is the newest one.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Allaguliyev, Jomart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new incarnation. Folly Mox (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked this one, as well as a couple of socks who showed up in the meanwhile. I guess he is just going to continue like this for the foreseeable future.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Back again as Jomart Allakuliyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked this one, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Back as Jomard Allakuliyev. We need an edit filter? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked this one as well. I would not know how to write an edit filter - they do not have a recognizable edit pattern, and blocking the name would not help much.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Their edit pattern is simply editing short descriptions, possibly still through the #suggestededit-add 1.0 tool included on the Wikipedia Android app. That is all any of the accounts ever do. Don't know how to filter it, but at least it's mostly harmless. CMD (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring

• User Koitus~nlwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article Van Cittert–Zernike theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After previous thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#Koitus~nlwiki was archived, without any comment from user, resutling in edit warring block by user Girth Summit (talk · contribs), Koitus~nlwiki starts edit warring (4 days ago [51] and [52], today [53]) against consensus (Tercer (talk · contribs), Brienanni (talk · contribs), 172.82.46.13 (talk · contribs), Headbomb (talk · contribs)), and multiple given sources contradicting the claim they make in their edit summary ("In Dutch last names (without first names or initials) begin with capital letters"), which is clearly false.

Discussion with sources on article talk page Talk:Van_Cittert–Zernike_theorem#Uppercase_or_lowercase_"van", and, 2 days ago, on their user talk page: [54]. See also User_talk:Brienanni#Last_names.

I have restored the original version: [55]. - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked from article space for two weeks. I am hoping that they will take the opportunity to learn how talk pages work in that time: they have occasionally edited talk pages, so they know that they exist. If they choose not to engage, and return to edit warring after the block expires, the next block may need to be indef. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, GS. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note, regarding the warning here, see their own block request here. - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that I have just indefinitely blocked Koitus~nlwiki, for posting this after I had expressly warned them what would happen if they continued calling people idiots. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Never met a bigger idiot than you, DVdm... they never met me though ;) SN54129 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Am I the only prude here? Surely the username "Koitus" is also completely inappropriate? Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

  That was brought up last time; apparently it doesn't mean anything in Dutch. Kind of does in English though, and this is enwiki... Girth Summit _(blether) 09:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I actually said it does not mean anything different in Dutch than in English--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oops - somehow my eyes glided past that rather significant word. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

IP editing prohibited?

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.

---

Is IP editing prohibited in WP? If not pls. check Dasun Shanaka. My edit was reverted by user:wgullyn. 212.104.231.233 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You changed "right-handed" to "right-han*ded" and added a typo in the lead section. Please review your edits before submitting them. Wgullyn (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

IP editing is not prohibited, but your edits introduced typos and were properly reverted. This is not an issue that is pertinent to this board, so I'm closing this thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 19 January 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:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) - repeat my request for a topic ban

Coldstreamer20 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which WP guidelines specifically instruct us *not* to use.

In accordance with previous concerns raised about Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, I advised him on his new Coldstreamer20 talkpage (User talk:Coldstreamer20#Smaller unit Templates) on 4 January, several days ago, that he should not use the 1991 Master Order of Battle, in view of longstanding WP:CIR - Competence Is Required - concerns.

Now I find it utilized and added at 51st Infantry Brigade and Headquarters Scotland, on 8 January, after my warning. This breaches at least two sub-clauses of WP:PRIMARY, those being:

• "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
• "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.

Concerns by others regarding use of dubious sources have also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Peer review? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assistance requested; as well as copy-paste moves at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Field Army (United Kingdom). I also raised a confusion of units separated by twenty years being conflated at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Leave United Kingdom Land Forces alone unless you want a block request, please, after misuse of a source (Colin Mackie) which is good on officers' names but *not* titles of posts, and have now reached the point where I believe a topic ban, if not a block, is desirable in the interest of avoiding future extra clean up work.

I was advised after the last post at WP:AN that I could seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.

In accordance with the last parts of the archived Archive 334 proposal for a topic ban, and continuing concerns about this user's adherence to referencing, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and other CIR issues I would like to propose/request a sitewide topic ban for Coldstreamer20 ex J-Man11 from any military topics after 1850. Such a restriction would allow this user to gain more experience at building and referencing articles properly using secondary sources only. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from all Milhist articles Coldstreamer20/J-Man11's long-standing propensity to use online sources leads them into this quandary. Instead of slowing down and borrowing books from libraries to properly source the articles they work on from reliable secondary sources, they work very fast and seek the most accessible sources of information, despite some of them being unreliable SPS. The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a Ministry of Defence printout using military abbreviations and multi-alphanumeric codes obtained via FOI, and even someone like me that actually served with the British Army around that time has to interpret what it says using my existing knowledge. The requirement for the use of PRIMARY sources is that you cannot analyse or interpret the source, and it is clear that Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 is doing that, and inaccurately. It is therefore not an acceptable use of a PRIMARY source. After so many instances of Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 using unreliable online sources for military history articles, I agree with the CIR issue and actually think an indefinite TBAN from all military-related articles is warranted. The clean-up and monitoring work involved is just too much to expect other editors to do, and Buckshot06 has done the bulk of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Would a more focused tban that excludes coldstreamer from citing any: 1) Websites, 2) self-published sources, 3) primary sources on milhist related articles work? I'd certainly agree that they do not seem like a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I do not believe so. The amount of fast sloppy work, not demonstrating any underlying understanding of how forces fitted together, especially for the British Army, after 1900 makes me believe that a topic ban is required. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20 would benefited from gaining access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library ages ago, based on the accusations levelled here. I am somewhat surprised nobody has pointed them to that. Peacemaker67's repeated insistence on offline sources is mistaken as it's presenting a false dichotomy that the "quick and easy way" is not the right way. It is quick and easy to find actual secondary sources if one has access to online databases and I would highly recommend that regardless of what happens here, Coldstreamer20 should endeavour to gain access to an online research database. It would seem that TWL checks if an editor has an active block and not a "ban" per se unless it's enforced by a block. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a new problem, Chess. My "repeated insistence on offline sources", is nothing of the sort. Many books, journal articles, newspapers etc are available online, and I am not suggesting they can't use those, as long as they are reliable. But instead they use SPS fanboi sites that are clearly unreliable. My suggestion about the library is just one way of obtaining access to reliable sources, as is TWL. If Coldstreamer20 does not learn what a reliable source is, they will never be able to utilise online sources in a way that is acceptable on WP. And they have been given plenty of rope already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Chess, The Wikipedia Library does not include the kind of extremely detailed data points (individual company locations, exact command chains etc) that Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 is trying to write about. The information is usually only reliably available from official sources or through specialist publications with years of delay. Instead this user has repeatedly tried to patch together WP:SYNTH listings for 2019, 2020, or even now 2021. This user does not appear to be able to interpret what a reliable source is, and does not appear to have an underlying understanding of how for example the British Army has fitted together since 1945 (eg problems distinguishing United Kingdom Land Forces, 1972-1995, from HQ Land Forces, which only appeared in the 21st century, c2012). This is why I have been forced to make this TB request. I'm tired, very tired, of running around after her/him to clean up. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a participant in the two previous AN threads. (The second is further down on Archive 334, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11.) Both were unanimous, but not everyone agreed on the precise scope, and the thread went stale and were archived without action. I'll stick with the post-1850 cutoff from the second proposal, unless someone can demonstrate evidence of disruption on a pre-1850 or timeless military topic, or explain why such behavior is likely to occur. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou LaundryPizza03 I was going half bananas trying to find the second thread. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Tban from military history articles Seems like IDHT problems. To note, there's probably nothing easy about finding the right sources for these kinds of specialisized subjects. However, if you cannot find reliable sources for a topic, that does not make it acceptable to use unreliable sources. The proper response is to move on and edit something else. Clearly this user needs official nudging in that direction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from all Milhist articles I don't understand how a user who claims to have a Master's Degree in History is struggling to properly utilize reliable sources after repeated warnings from others.--Catlemur (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (non-admin) I have found Coldstreamer20's editing to be good faith disruptive and that Coldstreamer20 fails to rectify edits when advised of mistakes or omissions. Example for WP:UNSOURCED and WP:COPYVIO - advised in August 2021 for edit, no action with acknowledgement that "I DID get a ping and notification", in January 2022 I removed UNSOURCED, I gave Coldstreamer20 another opportunity on their Talkpage to address COPYVIO, Coldstreamer20 has failed to act again, afterwards Coldstreamer20 edited the article with edit summary "(Some changes, also millions of infobox cats removed and image added"), COPYVIO still on the article. Examples for WP:DISRUPTIVE: WP:MOVE edit with mistake, advised and no action (I had to revert); creating essentially a duplicate template that had mistakes and that displays a lack of understanding of military terms; misrepresenting source edit (corrected url) that has been removed; lack of understanding of military ranks edit, reverted by another editor, reverted by Coldstreamer20 and finally I removed.--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

For anyone concerned about this report, the user was blocked a few days ago and and perhaps the current unblock request there should be addressed before any action is taken here. (jmho) - wolf 06:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for lifting of community block of Commander Waterford

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.

---

We received the following in UTRS from CommanderWaterford:

"First of all Happy New Year to Everyone. Hope you are all doing good and healthy. I previously raised an Appeal via UTRS but response from it went unfortunately to spam so I did not take notice of it. I had been banned by Community Decision more than half a year ago, at the end of may. I now would like to ask kindly for an unblock by WP:SO and a New Beginning. In 2021 I translated dozens of articles and instead of learning and being thankful for being noticed about it I got angry and upset. I admit that I definitely made several mistakes not only but mainly while translating articles by not tagging them correctly. By making several hundred edits every single day - thousands a week, 6-8 hours entirely every day - I surely had been involved by far too much and at this time I took criticism too often as a personal attack since my main task - or let us be honest: meaning of life at this time - was to edit and improve Wikipedia. Since my ban you may perhaps has noticed that I still have been from time to time active on the Spanish version and several other Wiki projects. I would be okay for removing all of my previous User-Rights since I am only planning to edit from time to time and not even by far that much and in the areas as last year. Thank you in advance for considering my appeal, stay safe. Best, CommanderWaterford"

Posting this for the community to review, the discussion that lead to the block is here: [56] RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note that the link that RickinBaltimore has provided was the initial close of that discussion. The discussion was subsequently re-opened, and a bit more was said. See this additional section. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reading through that discussion, several concerns were raised about copyright violations in work they had written. This unblock request does not appear to mention that issue, which seems quite a crucial one regarding editing here. CMD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• RickinBaltimore - I believe that it's customary for a banned user to have talk page access restored for the period of a discussion such as this in order to allow them to respond to queries. I will not take any administrative action here - after I unblocked them the first time around, I acted as a sort of mentor/sounding board for them off-wiki, and so would consider myself too involved to make further use of the tools with regards to their account. Would you consider whether or not talk page access restoration would be appropriate in this case? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'll do that right now, sure with a note that the talk page is to be used solely for responding to queries that may arise here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) And that is now done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Following a request, I opened a CCI on CW at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/CommanderWaterford. The issues went beyond not attributing translations and also included copying text from sources. A particularly bad case can be seen at the history of Port of Arrecife, where CW adds a copyvio, some of the copyvio is removed by the article's creator, CW reverts the user, claiming "Please do not remove without seeking consesus, content is included in references, no copyvio at all and if it will be treated in a different way". The copyvio is finally completely removed a few weeks later by Diannaa. Had I seen this when it happened, I would have indefinitely blocked CW. There are several other problematic behaviors not related to copyright violations highlighted in that discussion- CW often had aggressive responses when his poor behavior was pointed out, such as this, this, and this. Further aggressive responses can be seen in the ANI discussion and the autopatrol revoke leading up to his ban. But most importantly to me, there is the indefinite July 2020 block by TonyBallioni for "concerns about competence and unwillingness to engage with others"- the same issues that resulted in CW's May 2021 ban. There is also this discussion about CW's admitted previous account (which he has never disclosed) where he claims TonyBallioni is "stalking" him, simply because Tony was being careful with giving permissions to a clean-but-not-really-start. Unblocking at this point may very well just re start the block-unblock cycle CW is in. I am sympathetic toward CW; I do not think the ban discussion was very fair, it felt like a setup with far too much offsite coordination. I feel like CCI was used inappropriately as a weapon in that discussion, which I am very unhappy with. I will not be currently opposing this unblock request, but I will not be supporting it either, as the plethora of concerns with CW's editing are not really addressed in it. If I were to support, there would need to be some engagement and clarification from CW on what he would do differently. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• This appeal is clearly inadequate as the ANI thread brought up a number of issues which have not been addressed sufficiently, mainly surrounding CW's interactions with other editors and inability to take criticism. I can't see what CW has said he would do differently, other than edit less. I suspect there is a maturity issue, for which just 8 months away may not be long enough to resolve.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• For transparency sake, I’m quite fond of CW, and would support that their block be lifted as they showed a sincere commitment to better the collaborative project, although overzealous at times, having said, I do also note that Pawnkingthree does make a rather solid point. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• It should be pointed out that this is in fact CW's 2nd indefinite block, not their first, they've already had another chance. As a result the text above isn't going to sway anyone. They will need to make a much better case and request to get anyone to take it seriously in any manner, list all all the issues that people have raised in the past and address how they'll do better on them, along with what restrictions they'll willingly place upon themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I typically don't believe in third chances. An unblock from an indef means that the community has decided the potential benefits from unblocking outweigh the known risks of disruption. A reblock after an unblock such as this means that we were wrong when we took that chance the first time. Let's not be wrong twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I understand that finding oneself in financial ruin can take a toll on one's mental health, and it's not out of the ordinary for stress to facilitate aggression and irritability. I'm very saddened to read CW's admission on his talk page about his life being turned upside down because of the pandemic, and I wish him a healthy road to recovery. These unfortunate circumstances do not absolve the somewhat extended history of hostile interaction with other editors and unwillingness to take criticism, but it seems to me that reflecting on past mistakes and recognizing one's own faults should count for something, especially in such trying times. That being said, I don't see this unblock request going anywhere unless CW elaborates on his other wrongdoings, namely persistent copyvio, and how they would do better on them in the future. nearlyevil665 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblocking I am not an admin, and I have a fondness for CW. While I habve not always found our interactions to be cuddly and sweet I have found them as an edityor to be diligent and normally responsive to criticism. I am saddened that they worked hard to achieve this block. It was obvious from their reaction that they were highly stressed and reacted poorly. They have now stated their reasons. I understand TonyBallioni's thoughts on third chances, and would usually concur. The special circumstances of the pandemic and its effect on us all affects that, and I would offer CW that third chance. I keep wondering what conditions one might attach to that, but find that I feel none should be required. I think we have seen a foolish set of aberrations, and I believe that sufficient contrition is shown. THey have provided a fine example to us all of what not to do. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to CW's real-world concerns and am very sorry to hear about them, and I hope beyond hoping that they really were the sole explanation for some of the frankly awful things that happened here. I can't, however, do anything but oppose this. Very similar promises were made in the leadup to the un-indef, which resulted in even worse semi-automated tool misuse and civility issues than the pre-indef behaviour. (Also, to point at some terminology, CW isn't blocked as several of the responses are saying but rather community banned.) I'd like to believe as Timtrent suggests that this is aberrant behaviour of a productive editor, but I don't see that in the persistent pattern of behaviour between both the edits predating the indef, and the edits after the indef's lifting but before the ban. I also have concerns about offwiki behaviour that are difficult due to the current setup of our outing policies to discuss onwiki but leave me personally concerned about being harrassed by CW if he's unbanned. I agree maturity might be a concern here and I genuinely wish CW well in life, regardless of where it takes him. Vaticidalprophet 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Vaticidalprophet I apologise for my misuse of terminology (ban/block). I took my cue from the section heading, and have obviously misinterpreted. I take your points on board. I am only able to comment on my personal experience, so I hope your concerns are misplaced, but I respect your feelings on the matter. I do not disagree about the circumstances leading to the sanction. I have rarely seen such determination to achieve a sanction. I am still standing by my opinion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm very saddened though not fully surprised to hear CommanderWaterford's unfortunate real life situation. The pandemic has been a horrible, horrible time for many of us. I hope that they are doing better, and that this message is an indication of that. To unblock, however, it is not a matter of whether we are going to be fair or unfair to an individual, but whether the unblock will be a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia. I have not seen CW address the behaviour referenced by Vaticidalprophet above, which I was about to mention myself. Some of it was onwiki but I can attest to off-wiki issues too. I do want them back on Wikipedia one day, but this unbanning request may not be the one. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The original appeal posted here fails to address much of the problematic behavior that CW was twice indeffed for. The response he posted on his talk page today addresses more, but I don't find it convincing, as it mostly just blames the pandemic for everything. He says he will accept any unblock restrictions placed on him, but when he was unblocked in January 2021 he agreed to not use high-speed editing tools and to accept constructive criticism. By late March he was breaking this promise by using Huggle for high-speed reverts; these were pointed out by others as being problematic in and of themselves. He also failed to uphold his commitment to taking advice, responding with hostility and sarcasm to even the softest criticism. Given the history, how we can trust him to hold to any unblock conditions this time around? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with a caveat, and echo Bilorv's sentiments about the pandemic and CW's RL situation; however, we differ relative to the substance of the appeal. What I see in CW's appeal is recognition of his unacceptable behavior, and acknowledgement of his editing mistakes which not only demonstrates a remarkable change in his attitude, it speaks to the lessons he has learned. We certainly need good reviewers helping out at NPP but another idea just crossed my mind for those editors who may be hesitant to give him another chance. Considering copyvios were a big part of the issue, why not school CW in that very topic? If Moneytrees is receptive to a little mentoring/guidance, or can recommend someone else who is receptive, what would it hurt if we gave CW a 90 day probationary period that limits his activity to helping out at copyright investigations? CW is certainly open-minded and receptive to learning and growing, and has demonstrated good qualities while attending NPP school. A substantial portion of his time as an editor on WP has been productive, so why not AGF one more time? Atsme 💬 📧 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with a caveat I second this. Seems like a reasonable compromise. nearlyevil665 06:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Atsme I'd be fine with doing that if CW agreed to it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Moneytrees - as proficient as CW was in NPP, (and he apparently got along fine with most editors as noted in some of the comments here) it wasn't until the COVID moment that drug him down and made him feel unappreciated. Yes, there were the mistakes with copyvio that he admitted to making, but what would it hurt to put him to work under your tutelege where you can help him learn the ins and outs of copyvio? He could learn so much from you, including patience, how to better phrase his frustration, and at the same time be an incredibly productive editor. If for any reason it doesn't work, well...out he goes. Why throw away a potentially productive editor without at least giving it a try? Atsme 💬 📧 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose And in reply to Tony - this wouldnt be a third chance if CW's editing history is looked at as a whole. Supporting at this point is just handing someone a stick to beat you with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support. For what it's worth, the few interactions I had with CW have been positive, and I do believe in WP:FORGIVE. I know, I know, I am weird that way, but still... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. I see no issue with a fresh request in 6 months that addresses the points made above. The two previous cases with CW presented themselves as large timesinks, and as editor time is valuable, I cannot support right now. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose while I'm sympathetic to the pandemic's effects on CW, the reality is his temperament issues didn't start then and all of us have lived through this without having such conduct issues. I feel that if he's unblocked (again) we'll just ultimately be back here. Further, I see no addressing of the copyvio concerns. Star Mississippi 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would not support an unblock this case, for the same reasons Star Mississippi gives.—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking/banning, per Star Mississippi & others, and having reread the orignal ANI discussion.. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I was going to post earlier, but I kept getting edit conflicted. His unban request did not adequately address why the community was upset with him. I see no reason to believe that he has changed enough to not be disruptive in the future. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 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 don't blind-block socks

As I work cases at WP:SPI, I find lots of accounts which are blocked with a generic "abusing multiple accounts" in the block log. Please, when you block somebody as a sock, put in the block message who they're a sock of. Even better, put {{Sockpuppet}} on their user page, since that gets them into the right category. If you're feeling really adventurous, you can open an SPI report, mark it "pro forma", and immediately close it, so it gets into the SPI archives. All of these things help future people investigating cases. Thank you for your support. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes it is clear that an account is a sock, but we don't know of whom. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to know that someone is misusing multiple accounts, you have to be able to at least point to multiple accounts. (I say this as an editor whom many people think is clearly a sock, but they don't know of whom.) Levivich 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You know, Levivich, you could just tell us whose sock you are and save us all some time... ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WO already figured out I'm Jimbo's WP:BADHAND account. Levivich 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is just inviting an "I'm Spartacus" response. Let's get it started by saying that Levivich is my sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops! I accidentally signed into my Phil Bridger account when I typed that! --Bison X (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There are some cases where I look at the actions of an account, and it's clear that it's a sock, but I'm not sure of whom. In those cases, I tend to go with long-term abuse for the block reason. Does that fall into the same problematic area? If I know who it's a sock of, I usually flag it; there have been times I've messaged other admins to ask if a particular user rings a bell as a sock. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. How could it be clear it's a sock, but not of whom? I apologize if I'm being dense, this is a sincere question. valereee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking of situations where a new account goes to another user's talk page and launches into a rant against them. Usually it's blockable for some other reason, like personal attacks, but often you can tell it's somebody who got blocked and is back to continue the argument that got them blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to push on this point, but in that case, it should be fairly easy to figure out the identity of the prior account (whomever was previously engaged in the same argument) so it doesn't seem to be a situation where we can't figure out who it's a sock of. Also, in that situation, you'd be blocking for a reason other than socking (PA). Is there a situation where the only thing a person is doing wrong is socking, they're blocked only for socking, but we don't know who it's a sock of? Levivich 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Saying to an apparently good-faith editor "You look really experienced, so you must be a sock" is WP:ASPERSIONS. But saying to a disruptive user "This obviously isn't your first rodeo so I'm skipping the Four Warnings(TM) bullshit and going straight to a block" (not in so many words) is not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Well, but then you know whom, don't you? Again, apologies if I'm being dense. valereee (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

1. (ec) They might be one of those LTAs who like to imitate other LTAs. If you spend too much time worrying if it's the original LTA, or the copycat, you're dancing to the LTA's tune.
2. They might be doing something really obvious, like leaving a homophobic slur on an admin's talk page, as their first and only edit. Obviously, they're not really a new user, but is it worth figuring out which of the 10000 users blocked by that admin they are?
3. Sometimes you do know but for privacy reasons the connection shouldn't be stated. Perhaps the user is a child, and used their real name for the "master" account.
4. Sometimes you do know, but prefer to WP:DENY. We have some LTAs who like to tag their own userpages. Some don't take it that far, but might still be getting a thrill out being "recognized". Why feed them?

Obviously this list is not exhaustive. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But 1 and 2 cover the cases I'm thinking of. Basically the kind of block where you know it's not their first rodeo, but they're persistent enough that it's not their last, so you block this go-round as a sockpuppet, not here..., or LTA. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But there are 4 billion people with internet access. If it's #1 someone doing the things that got the LTA blocked last time, do we care if they're a sock or not? #2, leaving a homophobic slur on an admin's page, fine, they should be blocked for that, again why do we care whether they're a sock? #3, but then we do know who? Same #4. I feel like I'm not getting the point here. #1 and 2 are doing bad things. #3 and 4, we know the socks. Where are we blocking account simply because they're abusing multiple accounts but we don't know which? valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well you have an user who is (A) disrupting, and (B) socking. I think it's admin discretion what to mention in the block summary. There's nothing wrong with ignoring the socking and just blocking as NOTHERE or VOA or whatever. But if some admins want to mention the socking also, I don't see the harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just took a look at the last time I did it. I could find the last user to get blocked for the same behaviour, and that user's talk page block message was vandalism-only, but their log message was checkuser-block. All I knew was it was the Johnny Gilbert date of birth account again, so I blocked the user and picked sock. In retrospect, I should probably have picked LTA, since the checkuser did not note related accounts or a SSP investigation, so there was none of that to link to. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The most obvious case to me is when the user self identifies as a sock, without specifying previous accounts or IPs. The taunting "I have access to lots of IPS or accounts and you'll never block all of them" Block on sight, and it does not matter who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• From the above, it looks like WP:VOA might be an acceptable block reason in some of these cases as well, sidestepping the issue. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the ultimate in WP:DENY: pretend you had no idea. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update:. Yes, I know about DENY. And, yes, I agree that sometimes it's obvious that somebody's socking, even if you can't identify the master. But, I'm really talking about the case where you do know who the master is, and there's no reason to keep it a secret. Recording that knowledge really helps in future SPI investigations. When you're working a case, what you need is examples of previous behavior to compare the current suspect to, and if you can't identify who the previous socks are, that's hard to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Talysh people

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.

---

Is it possible to semi-protect Talysh people? Anon IPs change sourced statistics to unsupported figures. This has been going on for quite a while. Maybe permanent semi would be good. Grandmaster 10:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Best place to request that is WP:RFPP. Indef semi is extremely rare as a first corrective action. More likely, you'll get a few temporary semis before an administrator seriously considers a request for a permanent one. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 17:41, 20 January 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.

CounterPunch RFC and extended confirmed

A user with all of 16 edits, 12 of them on one day in 2020, and none since August 8th of last year, found their way to the RFC on CounterPunch at WP:RSN. The user made a comment referencing Israel Shamir, which a quick look at Talk:Israel Shamir will show to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Many of the comments in the RFC are specifically discussing material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Additionally, AlexEng has reported an attempt at stealth canvassing by a suspected sock of יניב הורון, a banned user largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict topic with his various socks, see here. The last RFC had 6 confirmed socks in it, 5 from Icewhiz and another from NoCal100, both active in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich undid the striking of the comment, claiming that neither the comment nor the RFC is related the ARBPIA topic area, despite the comment specifically discussing a subject that is listed as being in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. The most recent clarification by ArbCom shows that such discussions should be treated as extended-confirmed protected, and given the comment specifically discusses the ARBPIA topic area I find the removal of the strikeout dumbfounding. Can we get a ruling on if EC applies to that discussion? nableezy - 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all the user is probably a sock and his edit will be struck soon but lets assume they are not, their edit is not about the conflict but about holocaust denial that has nothing to do with I/P conflict Shrike (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the comment at issue: Special:Diff/1065201226. It's in an RFC about whether CounterPunch should be deprecated -- not an RFC that is covered by ARBPIA. The comment doesn't mention Israel/Palestine. It does link to a source that mentions it, but I don't think that 30/500 in ARBPIA means that no non-ECP can even link to a source that mentions I/P without having their comment struck. That's too much attenuation. No doubt that the editor is a sock, and I'm simultaneously !voting in favor of ECPing all of these RSN general-reliability RFCs... but merely linking to a source that mentions I/P in a comment that doesn't mention I/P, in an RFC that isn't about I/P, can't be grounds for striking a non-ECP's !vote. Levivich 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit is about Israel Shamir, and Talk:Israel Shamir shows that to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Non extended-confirmed users may not discuss material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area in the WP namespace, full stop. The very idea that an RFC that had its prior run infested with Icewhiz socks is not related is absurd, and having editors obfuscate that relation away is dispiriting. nableezy - 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell they did not and Israel Shamir does not only write about the israle/Palestine conflict (and the material posted mentioned neither). In fact, it seemed more related to his work as a notorious holocaust denier.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the banner at Talk:Israel Shamir? I have zero interest in discussing the merits of the comment here, this is not the place for that. nableezy - 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that no non-ECP editor can mention Israel Shamir anywhere on Wikipedia, even in a discussion not about ARBPIA, in a comment not about ARBPIA, simply because Shamir's Wikipedia article is tagged with the ARBPIA tag? By your logic, no non-ECP editor can mention Alan Dershowitz. Levivich 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Broadly construed" covers a lot of ground.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Do you not understand what broadly construed means? Do you believe that many of the comments in that RFC do not directly relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Whatever, I dont want to waste anymore time with this type of crap, and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. nableezy - 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you guys completely lost your minds? So you think non-ECP editors cannot mention, anywhere on Wikipedia the following topics: Simon Wiesenthal Center, Religious war, Military occupation, or Alice Walker, all of which are tagged with the ARBPIA tag. That is not what "broadly construed" means. Non-ECP editors can't engage in discussions about the topic; they are not prevented from mentioning anything related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be my take, what it means is those ARTICLES are covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not even that, in many cases, it's just parts of articles that are covered by it. It's nonsensical to suggest (as some here have) that no non-ECP editor can even mention Media bias, Jewish diaspora, Israeli cuisine (including Israeli wine and Israeli salad), UN Watch, Settler colonialism, Max Blumenthal, Stephen Walt, Richard Goldstone, or Richard Behar, all of which are tagged ARBPIA. There are thousands of articles tagges ARBPIA [57] (I'm not sure who went about tagging all these). It's patently insane to say any article tagged ARBPIA == a topic that no non-ECP can talk about anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

From the Arca "I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual" so let's wait for someone like that who has not "lost their mind" to say. Although I have to say I feel quite sane. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE - Levivich writes (his own words) - No doubt that the editor is a sock [58] so why did Levivich consciously restored (un-striked[59]) (in his view) sock puppet's comment? What is such action called again administrators? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Becouse we struck only after CU confirmed it he will probably do it before RFC ends and that the reason I tagged his comment as SPA till that. Shrike (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor's comment was struck becasue that editor is not eligible [60] to comment in that topic area, NOT becase they were declared a sock puppet. Levivich restored their comment and later discloses that they have no doubts that user is a sock puppet. What is such action called again @Shrike? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You knowingly restored a sock puppet's comment (your own words [61]). We have an issue here. Would you mind undoing your action, since you have no doubts the user is a sock-puppet Levivich ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if you used more bold I might agree with what you're saying but until then I'll follow WP:AGF. Levivich 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on my writing fashion does not explain your behaviour, neither WP:AGF does. I'm done commenting here and will leave it for the administrative team to evaluate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

wp:spi then look into it and ban them if they are. But an accusation is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE - it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{spa}}, and then before the discussion is closed a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of sockpuppet investigation can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. It may also be useful to let the person closing the discussion decide whether the EC restriction should apply, rather than the involved editors debating this issue endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Seems fair, as long as it is Arbcom closing it after they decoide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We just got that clarification here. What is needed now is editors not disrupting an RFC that was already subject to rampant socking in its past iteration by making comments like it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here when discussing even an editor they call an obvious sock. I am asking for administrators to determine if an editor may make comments about Israel Shamir in an RFC on deprecating a source in a discussion that has several explicit references to a restricted topic area, in light of the fact that two ARBPIA sockmasters voted 6 times in the last RFC, and that another ARBPIA sockmaster has engaged in stealth canvassing at both the last RFC and the current one. nableezy - 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Very good. The key point seems to be It is of course a case-by-case decision, but I would suggest the following general rule: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. (L235). It seems that the discussion should be flagged as "EC restriction is potentially in effect here. A closing or patrolling administrator should make a determination whether an EC restriction is in effect based on ArbCom's guidance." Whether the EC comes into play could depend upon the course of the discussion. I am not sure whether this question can be judged in advance, or if it is better to wait for the discussion to play out, see what participants say, and then decide. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My question is can an editor specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. I find that to be a clear question with an easy answer, and does not need to be judged in advance as it has already happened. This is a fairly clear question and administrators can say no if they feel that way, but I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. The question at the start of this section is clear, and I hope an admin will evaluate it before this devolves further. nableezy - 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the editor did not specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. In an RFC about CounterPunch, they linked to an article in CounterPunch written by a guy who has a BLP on Wikipedia, and whose BLP is tagged ARBPIA. They did not discuss the BLP article (or ARBPIA), meaning they did not discuss a Wikipedia article at all, they discussed a subject about which we have an article. Levivich 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. in case you didnt see it the first time around. nableezy - 17:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You still need to accurately describe the history here; "specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area" was not accurate. Note, by the way, that CounterPunch does not have an ARBPIA tag. Levivich 17:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You might have a point, except for the fact that they linked to Israel Shamir in their comment. Which, again for the obtuse, is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area per its talk page. So maybe you need to accurately describe the history here and stop blustering. Ah dammit, you got me to waste another keystroke on you. nableezy - 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, linking to an article is not the same thing as discussing it. I agree non-ECP editors shouldn't discuss articles that are tagged with ARBPIA. But you seem to be saying a non-ECP editor cannot even link to an article if the article is tagged with ARBPIA? That is so irrational. Levivich 18:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the article linked to on CP by that user does not discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict either. Oh wait, no it does. And because quoting a person is not discussing him. And Im the irrational one here. ECP was designed for this purpose, to prevent these throwaway accounts from having an impact on our articles through voting in RFCs and AFDs and in editing the articles. And editors like you who so blatantly undermine that goal should be treated as the WP:MEAT aiding editors that they are, that is treated the same as the meat puppets themselves. Remind me of this the next time you say give me a diff of an editor sticking up for Icewhiz, before or after he was blocked. nableezy - 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussing a person is not the same thing as discussing a Wikipedia article about that person. ARBPIA doesn't mean that non-ECP editors can't link to outside sources if those outside sources mention ARBPIA somewhere. See my response to Selfstudier below. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

See my response on how people who aid WP:MEAT accounts should be treated above. Going back to my disinterest in discussing anything about this with you, but thinking it be better to remove the about this qualifier at this point. Toodles, back to waiting for an admin to deal with this. nableezy - 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You would need to consider why they would link it, wouldn't you? Anyhoo, Man on the Clapham omnibus applies (sorry, idk the US equivalent of that).Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason why they linked to it is because they were pointing to an article about that guy as evidence of antisemitism published by CounterPunch, and the link helps inform the reader (us fellow editors) of who this guy is (a notorious antisemite). Now, of course, every notorious antisemite will at some point write something about Israel, but that doesn't mean that just because a guy mentioned Israel means non-ECP editors can't mention that guy anywhere, even in a comment not about Israel. The problem is that ARBPIA is not the same thing as "anti-semitism", and we don't have 30/500 on "anti-semitism" as a whole. This (Special:Diff/1065201226) is clearly a comment about antisemitism in general, not about ARBPIA in particular. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AS -> IHRA -> Israel/anti-Palestine, this picture gets drawn all the time so "not the same thing" but "broadly construed"...? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's stretching broadly construed too far. Antisemitism is not a part of the ARBPIA conflict, and ARBPIA doesn't cover all of anti-semitism. There's some overlap, but it's really quite small (antisemites are also anti-Israel, but I think that's the only overlap) (giving no credence to the argument sometimes made by some zealots that anti-Israel = antisemitism, which of course is bullshit). Levivich 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich - their comment in fact applies to both - ARBPIA and Holocaust in Poland, the topic area also covered by the same restriction. Quote from the user's statement - ..by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds.[62] Please give it a rest now and let administrators examine your behaviour, okay Levivich? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we not have this discussion here and at RSN (which is a derail anyway)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This is about whether or not extended confirmed applies to the discussion, which would normally be appealable here as per usual. RSN is for discussing the source, I am asking if the RFC is covered by the topic area. El C, any chance I can ask you to take a look at this? Or any other admin familiar with arbitration enforcement and the ARBPIA topic area? nableezy - 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking we stop discussing this at RSN until this is resolved here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that I agree with, sure. nableezy - 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What this seems to be is trying to equate extended-confirmed with a topic-ban. A topic-banned user who mentions the taboo topic anywhere should and would get dinged for the violation. A non-ECP user who mentions an ECP topic somewhere on the project getting dinged? That is a curiously invasive stretch of policy, IMO. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

For RFC and other formal discussions ECP is essentially a topic ban. nableezy - 18:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Outside of the "is it covered by ARBPIA" question, there's a "would it improve the project for this RfC to be EC-protected" question. I'm landing on "emphatically yes" for the latter. The history of socking and canvassing makes that clear. Could we hold the RfC on a 500/30 protected subpage that's transcluded onto RSN for visibility? Firefangledfeathers 18:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Smart! Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO, tagging with {{spa}} for the benefit of the closer, as FFF just did in this RFC for a single-edit account (see the Streisanding Note: below), is all that's needed to completely defeat this problem and neutralize any possible harm. Levivich 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: We have another one that just arrived - [63] - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Which for all we know could be a sock of a user trying to prove their case there is socking. So maybe we need a CU?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What a shocking development, a users first ever edit is to an RFC at an internal WikiProject. But dear me no, shouldnt worry about the socking and meatpuppeting in ARBPIA related discussions. Anybody who thinks that Icewhiz would use 5 socks in one RFC and it is somehow not related has drugs that I want to buy from them. I dont really care if it is purposeful or not, editors doing things like this are aiding in that disruption and should be sanctioned for it, but in the meantime can we deal with this issue? There is documented stealth canvassing, there is documented extensive sockpuppetry. I more than any of you want to stop talking about CounterPunch. I swear there will not be another reply from me in that RFC, just deal with this issue so that it can actually come to a valid consensus. Otherwise just say this topic belongs to Icewhiz and be done with it. nableezy - 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Given the prior disruption of the same discussion, to the point that it had to be redone, I think it is prudent that the new discussion be held on a subpage which is transcluded and EC protected to prevent further abuse. Could an administrator make it so? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion its a trolling just mark it as spa and carry on the closer smart enough to discount his !vote Shrike (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. That might be appropriate in the first instance, but once some banned editors have disrupted a discussion, they should not be given a second chance to do so. We have an easy technical means to prevent this disruption. Let's use it. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that it is extremely unlikely that this particular RFC will be decided by socks - now that everyone is aware of the issue, people who comment will be scrutinized, and the closer will definitely know to examine commenters critically and take into account if someone looks suspicious. But my problem is that we can't realistically apply that level of vigilance to every single RFC; part of the reason the previous Counterpunch RFC was so different than how this one is going is because normally editors don't look closely at RFCs that seem to have an overwhelming conclusion, which allows socks to push things through by making their consensus appear obvious and inevitable if nobody is looking closely. And when it comes to combating that, I'm not seeing how we can realistically put only some RSN RFCs under ECP, since it is so easy for someone to base their opinion on a source on eg. just a single ECP-related article that source published. So I feel that while the Counterpunch RFC is a good example of the problem, we ought to be worrying more about long-term solutions - sockpuppetry is most dangerous in situations where we aren't paying close attention. --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Under current policy, the only reason to have this covered by extended confirmed required to participate is if it is broadly construed to be related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Given the extensive amount of material already in the RFC related to that topic area I find that to be fairly obvious, but thats the only thing I was looking for here. Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, but doubt its going to happen here. Still would like some uninvolved admin making a decision on if it, the RFC, is covered by ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry

We should insist the issue be dealt with here and now since such behaviour is very disruptive. Note how much energy is being wasted right now because of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are "the users" you are referring to? You didn't name anyone so it's unclear who you're talking about. Levivich 23:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought I was clear. You. nableezy - 23:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Please sanction Levivich for disagreeing with me" would be even clearer :-) Levivich 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s a serious problem Levivich you appear to be attempting to turn it into a joke. I expect it’s not going to work this time around. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't worry too much about this specific RFC. If socks can slip into and decide an RFC where we are at maximum vigilance then we're in so much trouble that there's not much we can do; fortunately I don't think that that's the case (as can be seen from the fact that we seem to have caught one sock already.) So I'd worry more about how we can tweak policy or practice to solve this problem for future RFCs rather than this one, which requires ideas that are practical, sustainable, don't require constant maximum vigilance, and which we can reasonably get the community to agree on. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Sorry, nableezy, I'm too busy for the next little while to look into this (or much of anything) even if I was so inclined. But carpet bombing the thread with collapseses might help with the lulz. Ah, cherished memories of RFRRRRRRR. You really had to be there. El_C 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Two comments, having now read all of the above. 1) I think Aquillion is right; the level of scrutiny on non-extended confirmed editors at the current RfC means it's not a problem. But I also don't think policing non-extended conformed eds would have made any difference to the original CounterPunch deprecation: I think the socks were all extended confirmed, and the two non-ECR editors who joined the discussion joined !voting very late and said almost nothing. 2) I don't think it is practical for editors or admins to check the articles non-ECR editors mention and see if they might be broadly covered by a protected topic if it's not immediately obvious. For example, I don't understand why Israel Shamir is considered to fall within ARBPIA: there's perhaps two sentences in the article that vaguely relate to Israel/Palestine, and it's not a topic Shamir has focused on much. (How do articles get tagged as ARBPIA, and what review and scrutiny does that get? Alice Walker also seems pretty tendentious, or even Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, which is being invoked in relation to another recent RSN RfC.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There were 4 non-EC accounts there, and one of them I suspect is an IW sock as well. nableezy - 15:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah OK. I guess that means that one of them became ECR since the RfC. And am I right that none of them said more than a sentence and that they all !voted late in the period the RfC was open? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Estnot and Crystalfile had the most substantive contributions. Incidentally, that was Crystalfile's last edit, and first since March, and excepting the 6 edits in early March 2021, all at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, third since 2014. Wonder how that happened. nableezy - 22:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question for uninvolved admins

Does the edit Special:Diff/1065201226 violate WP:PIA#500/30? Levivich 19:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A little insufficient, that framing, also this ARCA Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ARBPIA discussion or not?

@Nableezy: and I have a disagreement over whether a discussion at RSN falls under ARBPIA. Nableezy seems to be under the impression that anytime they mention the Arab-Israeli conflict that automatically excludes all non auto-confirmed editors from participating in the discussion even if the RFC is not about the conflict and the non auto-confirmed editors have not even mentioned the conflict or participated in threads which mention it. By my understanding this is too far down the slippery slope, almost every source has covered the Arab-Israeli conflict at some point so are we essentially banning non auto-confirmed editors from RSN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed above without resolution, and the discussion has further gone unambiguously in to the ARBPIA topic area. Forget how heavy the I/P socking was in the prior RFC, just look at the comments in this one. The majority of substantive arguments directly relate to the ARBPIA topic area. My own, Zero, Aquillion, non-extended confirmed and no edits made since (cough cough) DoraExp, BobFromBrockley, Nishidani, RaiderAspect, Dr Swag Lord, Loki, Chess, Charles Stewart, Tritomex, and Mlb96 all directly discuss either topics or authors that are listed in the ARBPIA topic area. Add all the per any of those people !votes and the discussion substantially centers around ARBPIA topics. And now, please remember what I asked you to forget. Seriously, 5 Icewhiz socks, a NoCal100 sock, and Yaniv mass emailing multiple times to canvass to that discussion. How exactly is that not, broadly construed, related to the Arab-Israeli topic area? nableezy - 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Most commenters don't mention those authors or the conflict broadly construed, now to you that may mean that they aren't substantive but I think your hyperfocus on one single topic area may be coloring your perception. To put it more cleanly I think you may be wearing ARBPIA tinted glasses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Most do, or they cite other editors that do. That is 100% true. I dont think I can say what I think about the people running interference for a collection of banned editors who have already repeatedly disrupted the discussions related to this source without being blocked for failing to assume good faith, but I think I am seeing this more clearly than you are, despite my "hyperfocus". nableezy - 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Also can you clarify whether or not your comment about "people running interference" was directed at me or not because as written it would appear to be a WP:NPA violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I find edits like this to be, whether purposely or not, actively assisting a collection of banned users who have repeatedly disrupted this and other discussions about this source, or more succinctly running interference for them. I have no idea if it is on purpose or not, but that is its effect. If this is related to ARBPIA you can report that comment to AE if youd like. If not, then idk ANI? nableezy - 17:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Being flip and uncivil isn't going to get us anywhere, I would really appreciate it if you could take a step back, WP:AGF, and stop making this personal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a secondary question but nableezy is also claiming that a list of authors which fall under ARBPIA exists[64] but I havent been able to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand, by listed as being in the topic area I mean the article on that author is shown to be in ARBPIA per its talk page. See for example Talk:Edward Said to give one example repeatedly discussed there. Or Talk:Israel Shamir for that matter. Both of those people are in the ARBPIA topic area, and discussions about them are likewise in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that how it works? Does this really mean that an entire discussion about postcolonialism comes under ARBPIA the moment someone mentions Said? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How what works? If an article has the appropriate notices then yes it is considered to be in the topic-area. Discussions related to those topics are likewise within the topic-area. nableezy - 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And you can link to something which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict", Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction. nableezy - 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything in either of those which says what you're saying, can you please be more specific? Note that Talk:CounterPunch does not appear to have a ARBPIA tag, perhaps that is a mistake? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of the area of conflict: the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"). At standing sanctions at primary articles: All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Both of the authors I listed show the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template on their talk page and as such are "primary articles". At extended confirmed: However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. nableezy - 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither CounterPunch or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is tagged with that edit notice. This wasn't a discussion about the articles for those authors even if the authors themselves might have been discussed by other people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, discussions that focus on authors within the topic area are definitionally related to the topic area. No shit RSN does not have the edit notice, thats why the extended confirmed restriction specifies it applies to noticeboards and RFCs. The recent arb clarification (here) also contains this tidbit an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic This RSN discussion substantially discusses the ECR topic. nableezy - 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But this discussion did not focus on those authors, they were only mentioned in passing (primarily by you). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, the discussion with Chess was not at all related to the topic area. The repeated invocations of Israel Shamir were all by me too (including by non-EC users), and all just mentioned in passing. Obviously. That thread substantially discusses the ARBPIA topic area, and I cannot honestly believe that anybody can argue otherwise in good faith. Whether or not that is purposely running interference for said group of banned editors ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 18:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find out were the line is here, I would also note that I've had much more conflict with that group of banned editors than I've had with you... If any discussion of Said is automatically ARBPIA I think thats an overreach, I also don't like the idea that an editor can effectively exclude non confirmed editors from any given discussion simply by bringing in a topic tangentially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That seems too easy to misuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The question of how far "broadly construed" should reach was ducked at the ARCA on the grounds you could not generalize the specific circumstances of any case in advance. So it needs to be time by time, somehow.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case it seems that one would not be able to tag non confirmed users as ineligible to participate until an admin has made the case-by-case determination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"The matters under consideration here may be "broadly construed" as falling under Arbpia rules and the closer is asked to consider whether, in accordance with this ARCA, opinions from editors not ecp qualified, should be taken into account when evaluating consensus." or something like that parked at the outset of a discussion? Maybe.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The tag which was used is this one. The user also has under 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (now that I look at it I realize that the "also" is not part of the tag but is bleezy ad libing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As well as ducking the question, no guidance was given as to what precise process ought to be used. So we need to come up with one, I guess (strictly speaking, it's not just Arbpia, it's any ecp area).Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The section up the page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#CounterPunch_RFC_and_extended_confirmed is also about this subject.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I asked Nableezy's permission on my talk page to open a centralized discussion [65], they replied "of course" [66] but neglected to mention that such a discussion already existed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like it would make sense to close this thread and direct people to #CounterPunch_RFC_and_extended_confirmed. Any objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just make it a subsection of #CounterPunch_RFC_and_extended_confirmed instead of a close and redirect, it is essentially a continuation of the same discussion and would have been opened as such if Nableezy had been kind enough to inform me about its existence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floguenbeam: I thought I'd written that non-ECP editors cannot make comments that relate to the A-I area. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Floquenbeam.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ping. Unfortunately, I'm confused why I was pinged in the first place. @Doug Weller:, what does that have to do with my suggestion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:so am I. It was an error. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Its not so clear cut. This site publishes other stuff too. For example general reliability discussion about NYTIMES wouldn't be I/P though it publishes plenty of I/P stuff Shrike (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Jewish_Chronicle) is a better example.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Orrrrr you could just make a ruling on if it is in the topic area, appealable to AE or ARCA and then we can close everything? nableezy - 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

IP hopping abusive vandal

Just a head's up, there's an IP hopping vandal that leaves "charming" messages like these that has led to a bunch of user talk pages being semi-protected. There's too big a variation to range block. If this carries on, I think we've got a use case to ask the WMF to disable IP editing permanently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to sound too glib, but this is your idea of what will convince the WMF to end IP editing? This is basically nothing as far as abuse goes around here. No threats, no outing, no BLP violations, just a self-censored swear word. And in this case, all that happens if we ban IP editing is that this person is mildly inconvenienced and has to create a new account every time they get blocked, and if they're already an IP-hopper that's hardly an issue. Nobody should have to take abuse, of course, but if you're going to strike a dramatic pose and say we've got a use case to ask the WMF to disable IP editing permanently, at least say it about one of the real abusers. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Inconveniencing vandals is precisely the point. To elaborate, we can't stop disruption from determined attackers, but we can certainly throw up barriers to make achieving their goals more difficult. I can only think of one other large site besides Wikipedia that doesn't require registration to post: 4chan -FASTILY 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fastily, don't get me wrong, I'm solidly on team "require registration" (guess that makes me Team Iron Man in this discussion). I'm just astounded that a vandal who uses a few self-censored naughty words is supposed to be the big example of why IP editing needs to go, rather than one of the folks who got WMF-banned for very good reasons. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Even when Eric Corbett was telling somebody to fuck off in a heated debate, he didn't need his comments redacted, like this, that and the other - which are a heck of a lot worse (AFAIK Eric never accused anyone of supporting the Third Reich, nor would I ever have dreamed he would). That's ended up with my talk page semi-protected (I don't like that, I like to keep free speech there), along with one other, and Wikipedia talk:Administrators and at least one other article talk page - which is just the sort of thing I wouldn't want to protect as it stops IPs making simple changes and requests. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So your answer to IPs not being able to make simple changes and requests is to ban IP editing altogether? I think your circular reasoning rather defeats itself there. WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the average user will not be able to see the IP addresses of anonymous users, anonymous editing should just be disabled. I am not satisfied with the WMF's decision, and I'm especially annoyed that they can't give us any good reason for it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Block of LittleFinn9

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.

---

LittleFinn9 (talk · contribs) was blocked for NOTHERE and trolling; two unblock requests were declined. I am of the opinion that they should be unblocked (as unblocks are cheap and so are reblocks). I propose a reminder to follow NOTSOCIAL and perhaps some restriction from unnecessary user talkpage edits (i.e. not required by our processes). Discussion at their talk page was inconclusive, so here I am per BLOCKPOL. (The blocking & responding admins will be notified.) I could certainly be wrong and will happily accept that they should remain blocked. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unblocks are cheap, go for it -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. My opinion remains unchanged from when I declined an unblock request by the user, but I won't stand in the way of unblocking. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm with 331dot. If you (or anyone) would like to lift the block, I won't stand in your way. It may be the right call. But their continued insistence they did nothing wrong concerns me. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per TNT. I can understand Finn's reaction given their lack of experience on Wikipedia. 15 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• meh (oppose) - Normally I'm fine with second chances, but it's hard to see this as a second chance when they don't really seem to get why they were blocked in the first place. Not saying "no" directly, but I don't feel like it's a good idea. I'm also concerned the comments they are making are more likely what they think we want to hear rather than sincere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock. To me this looks like possibly a younger user who may not realize their behavior would be seen as suspicious. Could it be yet another troll pretending to be that? Sure, but if they are it'll become clear soon enough. valereee (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I've stated my reasons on the user's Talk page, and they haven't changed. I don't find the user's reasons for their edits plausible, meaning bluntly that I think they're lying, and their disingenuous "What about my aforementioned actions and conduct constitutes as 'trolling'?" only confirms my suspicions. Nor do I think this is "a younger user" - "aforementioned"? how many young people do you know who write like that? Also, what new user says things like "I assume a checkuser has already verified that my IP is unique"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I do get it. I've wasted my time on trolls. My feeling is that if we have a hundred trolls and one not-troll-who-looks-like-a-troll, we still are made better off by making sure the looks-like-a-troll really is one. valereee (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes it's better to unblock a user and keep an eye on them instead of having them make a new account and restart the whole process. How about asking this user to explain what productive thing they plan to do, and if they enunciate something that's actually productive, give them a chance to redeem themselves or to prove beyond a doubt that we need to play Whac-A-Mole? Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  We unblock to prevent them from socking? The user has said they want to edit manga and anime articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Unblocking provides fresh CU data. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  They've already posted today on their talk page. That logged their IP, user agent, etc. Nothing further to be gained for CU by unblocking; that would be the wrong reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  That data will be stale in 89 days. If they are unblocked they will keep supplying fresh data. Meanwhile, there’s chance they might settle down and be productive because they’ve taken the effort to request unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not a CU, but I'm pretty sure you are underestimating what they can do and maintain. And as someone whos worked a LOT of SPI cases in my early admin-hood, the idea of unblocking someone so they won't sock makes me want to do a spit-take. That is not how it is done. Dennis Brown - 2¢

• Unblock, even if what they did and what they're saying is a little suspicious, it's plausible the editor just doesn't know how to properly behave in Wikipedia because they're new and that they'll learn shortly. As others said above, unblocking and reblocking is cheap. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock because the user violated no policies, caused no harm, and was not warned (or even talked to) before being blocked. This was a bad block and bad unblock denials, too. We don't have a system where admins act as gatekeepers and decide who gets to edit and who doesn't based on an evaluation of early contribs. Ahem. Levivich 16:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock I fully agree with Levivich here. People oppose unblocking the user on the grounds that they haven't plead guilty to the "epic felony" they committed... but what exactly is the real crime here? I agree that leaving extraneous messages on user talks isn't the most productive thing one can do around here, and I agree, it is a bit suspicious that a newcomer knows the permissions of a CU, but all of this isn't enough to warrant an indef block. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:28, 18 January 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.

• Procedurally, it was inappropriate for Enterprisey to close this discussion and unblock the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  They posted here to get feedback, and then decided what to do. The thread closes because the issue is now moot. Any admin can unblock—no consensus is required. There was no community ban. If the user does something further that is bad, they could be blocked again. I strongly urge the opposers not to go looking for a pretense to block. This is a human being, not a football. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I dare say we'll find out we were wrong soon enough; it's just a shame these things tend to waste a lot of time and energy before getting resolved. SN54129 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I dare say spending all day every day blocking editors is WP:NOTHERE behavior. Levivich 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't particularly want to interact with someone who thinks this is a clever thing to say, but I also don't want this smug bullshit to pass into the archive uncontested. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not clever; true, and needing to be said. It really is bad for the project that we have a few editors who spend all their time blocking other editors. Levivich 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, because blocking trolls and socks is not helping the project, and the people who do the yeoman's work of making this a hospitable place for the rest of us are to be belittled by those who have nearly 10% of their edits to ANI despite not being an admin. nableezy - 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• In the rush to assume good faith with LittleFinn9, an important task has fallen through the cracks; who is going to leave a message for CreecregofLife, explaining that we at WP:AN do not care that they are being serially harassed by a series of socks, of whom LittleFinn is no doubt the latest? I don't really want to be the one to do it, as it would make me feel bad, but someone needs to, so I guess I will. Someone up above mentions that it's better to let 99 trolls continue to troll for a while longer, so we don't accidentally block one innocent person. I don't think the plight of the 99 targets of the 99 trolls has been taken into account in that benefit/cost analysis. And at least we could have picked someone more plausibly innocent than LittleFinn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I regret my post-closure comment. I think Jehochman was correct and that I was looking at this discussion from the wrong perspective. I can't say I'm happy with the unblock or especially Enterprisey's apology to the user on their Talk page, but, based on the discussion, Enterprisey was entitled to unblock. I can also assure Jehochman that I have no intention of blocking LittleFinn9, no matter what they do, and not because of Jehochman's comment, but because it would be highly irregular and probably wheel-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I personally would keep an eye on how long they take to get going in the mainspace.--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I didn't fully review the sock-related aspects of the situation because I'm used to dealing with blocks where everything is spelled out more. For that, and for jumping the gun a little, I apologize. I certainly care that CreecregofLife has been serially harassed, so I'm fine with the initial block. However, my evaluation of LittleFinn9's talk page hasn't changed, so I stand by the unblock. Reblocks are cheap. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban 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.

---

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on a subject matter concerning "Erica Nlewedim". The TBAN was implemented on 30 June 2021 as a result of my inability to edit around the subject neutrally because I'm a big fan of hers. Since then, I have refrained from editing articles covering this subject and also refrained from resubmitting the draft at AfC.
I have been contributing actively at AFC and AFD especially in the Nigerian space because that’s an area I understand. I have also been doing article creation, deorphaning articles and welcoming new users. I have not had any warnings or come under fire for any untoward behaviour. I have earned barnstars for my AfC work and content work. The editor who caused me stress apologized for being overly critical of my work and praised me for my ability to edit in a collaborative manner.
Also, I would like to emphasise that I understand the rationale behind the TBAN and have no interest in resubmitting the draft at AfC any further. I just want to be able to edit without being worried about sanctions. Thank you.
Princess of Ara 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm always for lifting tbans if possible. Would you be willing to adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on all things related to Erica Nlewedim for a period of 12 months if the tban was lifted? It would automatically expire, you wouldn't have to ask for it to be lifted. This means that you could edit things related, but you couldn't revert more than once per 24 hour period. The 1RR would only apply to Erica Nlewedim topics and edits, nothing else. I haven't looked at your history yet, but this is common idea I like to throw out early. Since it has only been 6 months or so since the tban was instituted, a little extra caution on our part is warranted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Dennis Brown, I'll be willing to take the restriction so far it gets my username off the editing restrictions list.
Princess of Ara 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It would remain for one year, as 1RR, but automatically be lifted afterwards. But I'm not the only one here, it's just one idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not @Dennis Brown, but believe a 1RR would still have you listed. Can you clarify why exactly you want the restriction removed? Is it just so you're not on a list? Star Mississippi 15:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Affirmative @Star Mississippi, My username on the list really discourages me so I want my username removed from that list. What led to the ban did not involve edit warring so if the 1RR involves remaining on the list, I'm promising not to get into trouble surrounding that subject. Princess of Ara 15:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

My personal opinion, should the topic ban be lifted but 1RR be implemented, is for you to pretend it the topic ban exists. Don't edit in the area, that way you won't have to worry about sanctions. Courtesy @Celestina007: as they don't appear to have been notified. Star Mississippi 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

But @Star Mississippi @Dennis Brown, what will be the essence of 1RR when there was no edit warring prior? Princess of Ara 15:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The justification is to prevent diving in too deeply into an area where you've already had enough problems that it warranted a tban. A tban is a more severe thing than a 3rr block, after all. It doesn't limit how much you can add to that topic, but it limits how much you can remove other's work, a much milder restriction than a tban. It is not required to have 3RR violations to get a 1RR restriction in a topic, it is only necessary to demonstrate that there has been a problem with that topic, and the tban indicates such. Since you are asking for the tban to be lifted so soon after it was placed, it is compromise, one I suggest you accept gracefully if a consensus supports it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Anything to get my name off that list. Thank you. Princess of Ara 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support the lifting of the TBAN. The 1RR restriction seems like a good idea, though I'm not too sure if it needs to be as long as a year. Few months would be enough. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support lifting with 1RR restriction of a duration of 0 to 12 months. The restriction isn't a deal breaker, but I think a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Lifting of TBAN with 1RR for at most 6 months(or maybe less) since their TBan is already more than 6 months. I believe Princess of Ara have learnt from the past and will never go near the aforementioned draft just like they have abstained before now. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support lifting the TBAN, preferably without the 1RR restriction at all, but with it if that is the only way for this proposal to pass. I am more concerned by the interactions between Princess of Ara and Celestina007. Despite being banned from asked not to comment at Princess of Ara's talk page, for instance, Celestina007 filed a frivolous ANI report against Princess of Ara a couple of weeks ago, and the report strikes me as extreme rudeness with only a thin veil of politeness. Despite this, Princess of Ara responded politely at ANI, and did not escalate the situation, though I am not a fan of the edit summary "Don't archive hysterics". I'm afraid an interaction ban (IBAN) would be logged as well, possibly causing distress to Princess of Ara, but perhaps we are not yet at the point where it is needed. I would say to Celestina007: here, you have been reminded that civility and NPA apply even to editors you are accusing of UPE. Your behaviour has not been the correct way to act; even if everything you have claimed is true and needs to be recorded, the tone of your reports makes it look like grudge-bearing and hounding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Slight rewording per below. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The consensus in that ANI discussion was very clear, that the community made it very well known that Celestina007 needed to pull their head in and quickly. I haven't been keeping track of the situation, but if that hasn't happened to an extent that we're happy with, I would absolutely support a wider community discussion around whether further action is required (either now, or in the future if it persists after your direct remarks to Celestina007 above). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

    Bilorv and Daniel, just 24 hours after I defended Princess of Ara on this Celestina007's time wasting ANI report. As a revenge, Celestina007 accused me of COI without evidence [67], and she also created this delete discussion that ended in keep. And before the above, she has opened an SPI with me as the suspected socks few days after an AN discussion. Lastly, she also posted this personal attack [68] against me and Princess of Ara. I don't know if all these is right? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support — First off @Bilorv, please correct yourself I wasn’t banned from her TP, she asked me to not post anymore on her TP which I obliged, following the ANI. Furthermore please do not cast aspersions of hounding, because up until that ANI, i initiated a week ago, I hadn’t interacted with them, so where is the hounding? The very ANI you are referencing was closed on 26th of July 2021 (from that moment up until now, i have matured immensely), I’m not without flaws and I am far from perfect but I make conscious efforts and strive to be better, Please do retract your aspersions of me hounding. In-fact see here, where i expressly state that I certainly didn’t handle matters appropriately in the past and that I wanted to mend relationships, although they didn’t reply, I totally know they mean well. Myself and Princess of Ara definitely did disagree on several things but moving forward I am making conscious efforts to handle things better. So yes, I certainly support this, coincidentally i had been trying to reach them in order for them to make this very appeal unfortunately as she asked me not to come to her TP thus I was constantly at an impasse, having to deal with other aspects of the project predominantly NPP & Teahouse hosting, I intended to e-mail them at some point but it seemed like a horrible idea, since they didn’t even want me on their TP. @Daniel, I stated in that very ANI that I’d handle things in the collaborative project with less confrontation which I believe to a good extent I have tried to abide by my own promise, please i support that the TBAN be lifted. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I did not mean "ban" in the sense of "community ban", but in the informal sense you described. I've changed my wording accordingly as I can see the confusion. The ANI report is what resembles hounding. I really cannot see why the AFD alone would not suffice as the action to take. However, I happened to see the ANI report within a minute of looking, so if it really is the case that you have not interacted with Princess of Ara since July 2021 other than that report then I may have got a mistaken impression of the scope of the issue. I would still encourage you to take this on as feedback (as you say you did after the July 2021 ANI thread). — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, all is well, thank you for making the adjustment, all is well Bilorv, I never miss, nor take for granted any opportunity to learn as I stated in the ANI in July 2021, i see every mistake I make as an opportunity to learn, i do not take for granted any feedback from a community that has trusted me. It took a number of sysops to tell me to be less confrontational and still carry out my duties when dealing with potential article spamming, of which I have, I haven’t been perfect Bilorv but my goal (which ought to be the goal of us all) is to be better than the person/people we were yesterday. I’m still largely accurate when dealing with possible unethical practices and have nabbed several unethical editing and multiple possible sock rings with next to no confrontation, with the help of Timtrent, Dan ardnt, DGG, and a host of co-editors. To the best of my ability I have abided by the promise I made to myself and the community of approaching possible unethical practices with little to no confrontation. Once again thank you for the adjustment you made. Please I believe Princess of Ara has potential to do good and I honestly would want to work with them moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please I’m currently heavily multi tasking and shuffling between co creating a new article with another editor, new page reviewing and Teahouse duties. Please if there are specific questions directed at me please I would appreciate the {{ping}} function be optimized as I may not be manually checking here for new comments due to how busy I am right now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support conditional removal of topic ban and replacement with 1RR for 12 months We seem to have become distracted with other matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these it is a shame to dilute this discussion with those other matters. The appellant deserves clarity im their appeal discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with a 6-month 1RR restriction - the reasons for removing are fair, and there is some basis for the 1RR, but 12 months seems overly long. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support A trusted editor with a demonstrable track record. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Any chance this thread can get closed? Princess of Ara 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  The result here seems obvious but I would wait two more days so that it runs a full week. This makes the result stronger, especially if we collect a few more opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Another opinion wanted? Sure, i support with a six month restriction of 1RR just for safety; time to close this ~ it's clear. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Lifting the topic ban with a 1 year 1RR sounds good to me. SQL^{Query Me!} 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) It has been over a week since Jehochman said we should wait two more days . FWIW I support lifting the topic ban. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:22, 21 January 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.

Swear comments on my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

---

This 2409:4060:2014:13C2:0:0:1D8F:38B0 ip, left some swear comments on my talk page. See this, and this. He has even vandalized past 4 warnings, and I have reported him to WP:AIV. Just though to keep the notice here, as he also harrased me. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. You are of course always welcome to remove garbage like that from your own talk page; no need to let it sit there. As a random question, why is your talk page flagging as a dab? Primefac (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, what is DAB? Can you please tell me properly? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Itcouldbepossible: It is a disambiguation page. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the my talk page is a disambiguation page. Can anyone solve it? Why should it be a disambiguation page? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a category that wasn't properly linked, but it looks like it's been sorted now. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I corrected that erroneous attempt to link a category, but I can't see why the user talk page had been believed to be a dab page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph@Primefac I understand it now. Once an IP user (long time abuse report and sockpuppet user), was asking me to link to categories. I did not quite understand all that he was telling me, but he guided me, and I finally managed to do all that he wanted. It was later that I came to know that he was a banned user.

While he was guiding me, he forgot to use ":" before writing [[Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories]], and so my talk page got categorized as an disambiguation page. I hope things get clear now. And lots of thanks to you David, for correcting the error. You know what, I find that many editors are 'really' there to help others, and not just busy with their own work. If it would not have been you, then I could not have understood what the problem was. Thanks again. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not have regarded Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories as implying that your user talk page was a dab page, but perhaps others interpreted in differently. I noticed also that your user talk page is sitting in Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, but again this seems to be the result of one of your experiments. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Oh my god! How should I remove it then? Why did it end up there? I did not perform any experiments. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes you did! In this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph I still don't understand. I put {{subst:uw-username}} between the nowiki template. Then why did it create problems? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're obviously not reading very carefully. Just above the line which starts: "PS. This is not a real warning. ...", you have placed Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Ok, now I understand. The last time, I clicked on the old diff that you had given me, but it is clear to me now. But what can be done now? How can I remove my name from that category? I don't want to get into trouble. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the inappropriate category in this edit, in accordance with the instructions in the comment preceding it. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's one of the categories that triggers a link highlighting change in User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Can you be a little clear? What does that linkclassifier.css do? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It, well, classifies links, by changing the wikilink colours of certain types of pages. The documentation tells more and will waste less space than me typing it all out here. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So, by the look of it, the confusion arose from the fact that the defaults show dab pages in the same colour as soft-redirect-cats. The OP's user talk page was in the latter category, but Primefac interpreted it as being in the former. Problem solved, I think. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph@Primefac Yes, I have now got the facts. Thanks for the clarification. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:57, 17 January 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.

Compromised account

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

---

I've blocked OscarWongLara1999 as an apparently compromised account. There are a bunch of page moves involved, which is my weak spot admin-wise, so any help in reviewing the edits and fixing the disruptive moves would be appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they have a history of this type of behaviour and were blocked by Liz previously for page move vandalism. Regardless, clean up still needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block. I'm not so sure the account is compromised, or if it is, it has been since at least September of last year, when the user was making similar vandalistic edits to other users' pages. Firefangledfeathers 21:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Page moves and deletions handled. Thank you for catching this Ponyo! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Back to our regularly scheduled programming...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 20 January 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.

Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes (again)

Unfortunately, it is time for admin attention to Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes again. The Request for Comments on the structure of the article expired a little more than 36 hours ago, after running for 30 days. The RFC needs closure. A panel of closers is probably in order again. The RFC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#RFC:_Structure_of_Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

I know that there already is some admin attention to the article, because a user was blocked within the past 24 hours at Arbitration Enforcement for a personal attack and a 1RR violation. There is a tagging dispute, and most tagging disputes are stupid, because the objective should be to improve the article. To be sure, improving the article needs to be done as decided by the RFC. The tagging dispute seems to have degenerated into a dispute over the date to put on the tag. Maybe closing the RFC will solve the problem, or give the quarrelsome editors something different to quarrel about. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Robert's call for some admin attention to the page, and also that possibly the most helpful thing admins can do to quiet the page is to close the RFC. TIA, Levivich 02:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I actually don't see a need for a panel here, as the RfC's framing does not appear to have caught the media limelight the way that the AfD did. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I've already (several hours ago) put in a RFC closure request. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The AFD was a special case because, as User:Rosguill says, it caught the media limelight, and was brigaded, by editors and one-time users who thought that the question was whether there had been mass killings under communism. We all agreed that there had been, and that the question was how to write them up. The reason I was proposing a panel for the RFC is to reduce the likelihood of the close being appealed back here. So the question is whether there is a likelihood that editors will appeal from the close. On the other hand, it is likely that some editors will simply ignore the close. If so, some of us know where Arbitration Enforcement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• {{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  And so the {{closing}} tag was applied, and editors prepared their ritual sacrifices to Janus, God of Openings and Closings, that he may bless the closer with Wisdom, and bring a time of Peace, with neither editor-, nor editing-, nor edit-conflicts. Levivich 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

   Done, happy January, though the legendary older roman calendar actually started with what we now know as March (hence the names september, october, november, and december). Janus can thank the Republic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Julius and Augustus, arrogant enough to add eponymous months to the calendar. I shouldn't judge though: for a while, I was worried the Republic I live in was going to declare a new month called Trumptember. Levivich 03:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not forget The Faces of Janus ;o) --Nug (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please can you block my IP address indefinetley

Block my ip indefinitely please 95.148.137.248 (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, we don't do usually that. There may be other users using that IP while logged in, we don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tips and help

Hello. Please have one of the moderators review this article. I created this article but another user uploaded it and the fate of the article is unknown at this time. Sincerely.Musiban (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the concern was with Draft:Shahin Farhat, which was copied from the mentioned draft without attribution. I have redirected that draft to the original linked by the OP, which I believe should sort everything out since AN is not a place to actually request draft reviews. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not copy this article from anywhere. I created it using the article in Persian Wikipedia and its sources.If this is not the right place, please help determine the fate of the article. Thank You.Musiban (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement; I never accused you of anything improper. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is strange. Draft:Shahin Farhat was created by User:Rasooool on 4 July 2021‎. On 22 September 2021‎, the OP created Draft:Shahin farhat. Then, the next day, User:Dan arndt declined Draft:Shahin farhat & copy/pasted it overwriting Draft:Shahin Farhat. What is the protocol for one user creating a draft with different capitalization of a draft that already exists? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Review what's there. In this case, the decline on the OP's draft was invalid because Draft:Shahin Farhat was not submitted. Now that the OP's draft have been resubmitted it's a bit of a moot point though.

In general, users are allowed to create duplicate drafts, though if that sort of thing is discovered we do try to point the authors to the other draft(s) so they can work together. If there are duplicate submitted drafts, then the reviewer should (in theory) review the better draft and decline the "lesser" draft(s) as duplicates. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP proposal regarding NSPORT that would potentially affect AfD closes

A Village Pump proposal — regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must also demonstrate SIGCOV in secondary independent RS when challenged at AfD — may be of interest here for its potential effect on close decisions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The impact on AFD results is not just 'potential'. The purpose of the RFC is to change AFD closes. Thats the whole point. But thanks for the alert.McClenon mobile (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

Kind of tired of seeing my own signature on everything. If any admin have some spare time, it would be good to see new faces over there. Not overloaded, but still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Question of admin actions on a specific page

Hi all,

This is no slight against the admin who initially responded to the situation---I believe they act in good faith.

A subsection of of the Sandy Stimpson page about a politician referring to local articles as first-hand sources was declared to be breaking the rules by an administrator and I'd like a follow up on it. While this is a politician, and necessarily will be subject to a variety of viewpoints, I attempted to continue the inclusion of a section which described acts caused by their son. The following rule was invoked: WP:ONUS.

Specifically, I'm asking if this rule applies in this particular case. I personally believe that the politician's reaction and relation to events was covered by this rule. Recently I've recognized that thsi rule does not apply to this article given the present wording. I may be interpreting this wrong, in which case I'd hope this rule was updated to be more specific. A person publicly reacting to events (in that public citations exist and are relevant) should be included in Wikipedia articles. I want to make sure myself and others are able to easily follow this rule moving forward.

Thanks so much for considering this! Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring it up---it's what I found that made sense, and let me know if it should be posted elsewhere!

--Marx01 ^{Tell me about it}

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

This appears to concern Talk:Sandy Stimpson#Wrt Stimpson's son's arrest from October 2020. The edit was diff which was added then removed by Marx01. It's easy to use Wikipedia articles to pile-up muck concerning a living person (see WP:ADAM) but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. In particular, an article about a person is not available to coatrack negativity about family members. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marx01: I also see two edits from last year you made to the article that were reverted by User:Neutrality who you should have notified. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marx01:We can't tell what or who you are talking about. Please provide diffs, and you are required to notify the editor in question. You have not touched the article in five months, so we are really guessing here. If this is about the 2020 attempt to mention the subject's son's legal problems, I agree with its removal. Meters (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why, yes. If this is the edit in question, I should have been notified of this discussion. I removed negative BLP about a third party that had no bearing on the content of the article. There was no indication of it's relevance beyond the personal relationship involved. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses! Apologies for the confusion; I haven't gone through this process before and missed that I should have notified the editor in question, though reflecting that makes complete sense. I was mainly bringing this up after thinking about it again for the first time in quite a while, I've left the article alone as a result of worrying about this rule. I think this clears up my concern, though I'm still a little confused about the line drawn by this rule. --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 20:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marx01: simply put, just because a Wikinotable person's son commits a crime, it doesn't mean that the Wikinotable person is guilty by association. We do not tar the parent with the son's brush. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to block the page RPDR 14

Hello I want to point out that some registered users in particular Slay-12345678910 and Lorenzo 1109 who are repeatedly removing the DragRaceProgressTable/14 template on the page RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14), as usual, by inserting tables that do not respect the neutrality of the platform quoting the "Can yall give credit to the queens work .... like only showing who won the btm and elim can completely make someones track seem better or worse. like crystal methyds track looks way worse than it actually is. This is why people don't use wiki for track records anymore", which I find IMO nosense since we report the data that are actually announced during the episode (WIN - BTM - ELIM).

Of course, I've already helped re-adjust the table to standards, but ut there is an urgent need for blocking changes for both users cited and anonymous IP addresses that persist in modifying the progress table. --- « Ðømīnīk • Cåpuån » 16:58, 24 January 2022 (CET)

WP:AN3 is the place to deal with edit-warring (as I suspect even if these users are blocked now there will be others). Primefac (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlogged

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.

---

A user alerted me on my page that there's quite a backlog at WP:RFPP, so if anybody has the time and inclinination? Bishonen | tålk 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

I reduced the backlog to 24h but have to stop now.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I finished the rest up! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 25 January 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.

plate:hes-->

Red Del needed

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

---

Can someone Rev Del this and block the IP? [69] EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Between 28bytes and I, I think we got it all, but they're old revisions, so I don't think there's much point to blocking the IP at this time. Just for future reference: please don't ask for RevDel on public pages like this, as it can draw unnecessary attention; there are several better ways to ask for RevDel, which can be found at WP:REVDELREQUEST. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Here you go: Del. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A fitting color, given the geolocation. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks EnPassant for the heads-up and Writ Keeper for the cleanup. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 2 February 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.

Closure of a close-challenge

Can some kind admin close this thread? The consensus is clear and discussion has died. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Now archived. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As a note, while the need for a reclose is indeed crystal clear, the admin will need some spare time to redo the original close - I was going to handle until I realised I wouldn't have time to do it justice --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PERM is backlogged

Hi, several parts of WP:PERM are currently backlogged into something like 6 January, specifically the AP and AWB sections (full disclosure: I have a open request at PERM) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've granted three requests for AP and will examine some more as time allows today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to remind administrators here, that there is quite a big backlog at the request for AutoWikiBrowser page. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed your header because it's the same issue as the preceding section. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac No problem, I did not know that there was a previous thread already. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Talk Page for Battle For Dream Island doesn’t Exist.

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

---

I noticed there’s an Article called Battle For Dream Island Which Doesn’t have a Talk Page.The Talk Page appears to be Locked under Administrator Access only.Can The lock be Removed so that way a Talk page for the article can be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danubeball (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Should be available to edit now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:20, 29 January 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.

IPBE 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.

---

Akua Taylor was exempted from IP Blocks by zzuuzz but the situation still pertains.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinvidia (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Kinvidia, try my talk page first next time :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz apologies for not informing you earlier. Thank you so much for the quick response. Kinvidia (talk) 01:25, 30 January 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.

Multiple IP edit warring on January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm

There are multiple IP editors that are in an active edit war on the article. I did not want to create multiple edit war reports, so I think this is the best way to alert the admins to it. Here is a list of the IP’s involved:

1. User talk:76.69.7.202 — Main instigator
2. User talk:184.146.205.69
3. User talk:108.176.101.253
4. User talk:72.43.250.158
5. User talk:24.97.254.222

List of edits involved: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], (18 edits (in a row) by 76.69.7.202 between 21:09 - 21:28 January 21), (Revert of the 18 edits). [76], Smaller instances between January 22 to today's last edit for this discussion [77]. It is hard to keep track of all the edits, so instead of one very long/large confusing list, I recommend viewing January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm's revision history to see the edit war.

I do not know if all of the IP’s have broken the 3 revert rule, but the edit history shows the crazy ongoing “war” between them. User talk:76.69.7.202 is the main reverter. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous accusation calling me the "Main instigator" on a non-existent edit war. I have clearly summarized each edit and used the talk page. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That was not meant to be a "ridiculous accusation", as you are correct that you did use the talk page and edit summaries, you are the one who appears to be the main reverter (By reverting the edits of the other editors). Based on all the reverts done by other editors, I would estimate you broke it "unofficially" multiple times already, by reverts over the course of a few days (Stated below by Fram). While I believe you did the correct thing, at least to start with, you did continue o revert the edits instead of asking other editors to communicate on the talk page. That continuous revert, without asking for talk page communication, just added fuel to the fire to keep this edit war going. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, 3RR only applies when you do three reverts in 24 hours. The 76 IP made one revert the 26th, none on the 25th, one revert the 24th, 2 reverts the 23th, 2 reverts the 22nd, ... If you want to accuse people of "officially" and "unofficially" (???) breaking 3RR, you better provide evidence or retract your claims. Incorrect accusations only reflect badly on the accuser. Fram (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that Elijahandskip changed their comment after I replied to it, and that their addition of "stated below by Fram" may give the impression that I somehow support their assertion of an editor "unofficially" breaking 3RR, while I have said no such thing and have no idea what "unofficially" breaking 3RR even is supposed to be. Fram (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've only been on wikipedia a month. I tried to add some useful text to the article AND to ensure the references given actually contained the numbers 76.69 was adding. I think she/he only found one reference for an area of Toronto getting 45 cm (but others say 50 or 55) after myself and two others kept saying there was no reference for 45 cm in Toronto. I didn't even make any changes for 4 days until today and just tried to mention 3 different measurements in parts of Toronto - downtown and Pearson Airport are the recongized En. Can weather stations. I note that even the reporter of this war (Elijahandship) tried to unrevert 76.69.7.202 reverts twice and 76.69 reverted his unreverts both times. Another editor, 72.43.205.158, even said on the talk page for the Jan. 14-17 storm that 76.69's conduct should be reviewed. User:184.146.205.69

Note Since this dispute is still ongoing(I assume) I have requested temporary full protection, so that this discussion may take place and the dispute gets resolved. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• @CycloneFootball71: - are there extended-confirmed users involved in the edit war? Otherwise regular semiprotect would work just as well, without the huge side effects -- Nosebagbear (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, I did see 2 extended confirmed users who appeared in the conflict, however after looking at the edit history again they stopped conflicting just before they reached 3rr. When I first noticed the discussion, I looked over the history and then decided to request to fully protect it, at least until the discussion had been resolved so that there wouldn't be continued disputing at the same time. Unfortunately I didn't go more into depth on the history so I missed many key points most likely, and I would like to apologise for acting too quickly on that. My request was denied, so you're probably right to semi protect at least in the mean time to sort it all out. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Commen/Proposal - After a careful look at the edit history, I can say no one broke the 3RR rule. That said, multiple editors conducted 1-3 reverts every day. So it is one massive content dispute more or less. I do not believe any editors should be punished as no rules were actually broken, however, there is too much going on to leave it as is. I would support some level of page protection for a month or so too let editors discuss on the talk page rather than continuous reverts mixed with talk page discussions. CycloneFootball71 had a denied full page protection request, however, Nosebagbear suggested a semi page protection. I do not know which would be better, so I will let other editors do a small discussion on my proposal and see the next course to take. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawing as content dispute appears to have ended just after this AN began. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I give up again. Editor 76 insists on making this statement which has absolutely no source in the refernces and ignores the fact the Ottawa LRT never stopped operating and 80% of the TTC subway (all sections underground) were still operating. "Many cities' transit systems were unable to provide service." Also, "many school boards throughtout province closed schools" is erroneous. School boards in western area of southern Ontario and throughout central Ontario and northern Ontario were not closed at all. GTA school boards were closed 2 days which shows the severity of the storm. If anyone wants to actually review the info Editor 76 keeps insisting be in, go ahead please; or maybe some of the editors who were involved before will do as such (such as Elijaahandskip). They also sometimes put references in wrong places. I just give up for good on this. [User:184.146.205.69]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.205.69 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction and one-revert rule. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Miki Filigranski unblocked

Revdel on Himachal Pradesh

Moved from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 18

I would like to see this revision deletion reverted. It was done per WP:RD1 to remove a small amount of copyrighted text. Given that the copyvio was noticed relatively late, this resulted in the deletion of a large number of intervening edits and obscured the provenance of a decent amount of newly added content.

This is against current policy: see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the details, including a caveat about a novel interpretation that – if adopted – could result in a change to those policies. But even if that were to happen – so far there has been zero indication of that – this revdel would still likely appear as disproportionate. That's because in order to completely expunge less than 0.7 kB of copyvio text, it resulted in the deletion of about 60 intervening edits and so has erased traceability for the numerous changes introduced in them, as well as for the 2.5 kB of text that they added. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything we can do about incorrect use of revdel: per WP:REVDEL#Appeal and discussion of actions, "[s]uch a review should take place at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I do agree that deleting 61 revisions is a questionable large-scale use of revdel, although it may well be within discretion nonetheless. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:XRV might also be a reasonable location--it's not listed on the things that belong there or the things that don't (I don't think). But yeah, DRV is the wrong place I'm afraid. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is an example of one of several ways in which Wikipedia's policies relating to copyright are in fact unworkable and self-contradictory. If I find text which infringes my copyright, I can legally require all versions of the page in which it appears to be removed from public view. However, Wikipedia policy is that history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question. It isn't possible to satisfy both requirements. Personally, if I see a relatively small copyright infringement which would require the loss of dozens of revisions in order to remove it, I normally leave it alone, unless it seems to me that there's some reason why it's particularly problematic. However, once the content has been removed, I absolutely would never restore it, no matter what Wikipedia policy or consensus among editors might say, because if I did so I would be knowingly breaking the law. Also, I wouldn't recommend that any other administrator do so either. The law has to take precedence over what a group of Wikipedia editors think. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the situation, but it seems to me that that's how it is. JBW (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've no idea what was there, but copyright law (in the US and in general) isn't black-and-white. Unless this was a huge portion of the original work it is very likely it falls under "fair use". I feel like I should give a Wiki-seminar on the issue some day. Or maybe I'll write an essay. But no, it's almost certainly not breaking the law. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you lawyer and are you giving legal advice? nableezy - 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to offer a well-informed view about copyright on a Wikipedia discussion page without being a lawyer or giving legal advice. Hobit does in fact know what he's talking about.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "if I see a relatively small copyright infringement..." Perhaps I should, to be strictly accurate, have said "if I see a relatively small element which I think is likely to be a copyright infringement", but my statement was premised on there actually being a copyright infringement. It is perfectly true that many so-called "copyvios" on Wikipedia aren't actually copyright infringements under United States law, but that is a different issue. JBW (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hobit: I have thought very carefully about this, and I am confident you are mistaken. "Fair use" in United States copyright law applies to a fairly limited set of circumstances, and it pretty clearly doesn't include telling everyone in the world that they are free to reuse the material for any purpose whatsoever, including purposes which aren't covered by the concept of fair use, which is what anyone posting it to Wikipedia is doing. That is why Wikipedia's copyright policies make an exception for "fair use" only for images, not for text, for which Wikipedia's licensing terms are significantly different. JBW (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Sorry, been away. I don't have time right now, but I'll jump back in soon. But no, fair use isn't a fairly limited set of circumstances, it applies quite broadly.. But [78] gives an okay overview, [79] is better. But fair use is rarely a black-and-white thing and while I'm not a lawyer, small quotes of text are often much safer to grab than an image because of point 3--it's harder to grab a useful portion of an image than it is a useful part of text. Now if you are copying a novel and putting the whole thing on the web to make money while adding no commentary, fair use is pretty much out the window (fails 1, 2, 3, and maybe 4 if there really is a market for it). But things here are almost always going to do well on point 1. Gah, sorry, really don't have time for this right now, but it's more fun than what I should be doing. Oh, last thing, as I recall, the reason we have fair use stuff for images is partly (mostly?) so commercial enterprises using our work can figure out what they should pull out. Because images are a lot harder to justify wrt fair use. I'll find links to that later. None of this is hugely relevant--it's generally good that people are really careful with copyright here. Again, INL, but I do teach some of this so I've had to learn the basics. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind, US Fair Use law is a defense, not an allowance. The scales are weighted against the entity that reused material to prove it meets fair use, it is not a presumption that it is allowed. As we should strive to keep WP out of copyright problems, we generally edge on making sure we're tighter on copyrighted materials. --Masem (t) 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that after the amount of time I have spent on Wikipedia I should have known better than to think I could come to AN and make a statement relating to copyright which broadly expressed what I meant, without the risk of then being dragged further and further into having to more precisely define the terms I used. When I said that "fair use" applies in "fairly limited set of circumstances" I didn't mean in a closely defined or precisely delimited set of circumstances; I simply meant that there are some circumstances in which it applies, and many more in which it doesn't. Hobit, the first link you have given above says, amongst other things, that an example of the criteria likely to be used in assessing a fair use defence is "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". (My emphasis.) That is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to: someone may post something on Wikipedia in a way which in itself might be defensible as fair use, but announcing to the world "Hey, I give you permission to use this if you like, including commercial purposes to enrich your business" might well be seen as violation of the copyright holder's rights. I believe that statement to be substantially true, but even if a lawyer could find reasons why it is not exactly accurate, I don’t care, because I am 100% sure of the essential point, namely that using copyrighted material in a particular way is not the same as announcing that you have the right to give blanket permission to others to use the same material in any way whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, and that you are hereby granting such permission. I am confident that there are situations where the first of those would stand a chance of being accepted by a court and the second wouldn't, and I really don't care whether the particular way I have expressed it is precisely legally correct. JBW (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

JBW, which policy requires that "history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question"? WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) both mention "a list of all authors" as sufficient, despite that method being less precise than your statement. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flatscan: The policy on revision deletion states that revision deletion for copyright reasons cannot be used if it would remove "any contributor's attribution". We could fill up a very large amount of space debating whether there is any way of making sense of that compatible with "any contributor's attribution" meaning no more than a list of contributors, since revision deletion of copyright infringing content doesn't remove contributors' names, but doing so would be totally pointless. To me that is a policy saying that we should not remove the record of what contribution one editor made because another editor infringed copyright, but if you prefer to mentally substitute some expression such as "the preferred practice, supported by a strong consensus of editors" for "policy" in my comment above then you are welcome to do so. JBW (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: The longstanding wording of RD1 has consensus, but the disagreement centers on the meaning of "attribution". I believe that the RD1's weight of policy originates from WP:Copyrights, so these pages should have the consistent interpretation that "a list of all authors" – name only – is sufficient. Previous discussions WT:Revision deletion#RfC on Change RD1-wording (2017, 5-3) and WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording (2014, 3-1) leaned in this direction. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• However, Wikipedia policy is that history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question. It isn't possible to satisfy both requirements. This is not merely policy. We are required to maintain attribution under the CC license, which has the exact same legal force as the copyright concerns you are raising - revdel-ing an edit because it contained a copyvio while retaining content added in that edit without the necessary attribution is, in fact, introducing an equally serious copyvio, since we are now in violation of the CC license and therefore have no right to host the material in question. This means that as a strict matter, if we wanted to eliminate all civil liability, we would have to completely delete all revisions after the copyrighted material was added, reverting to the version prior - we cannot, strictly speaking, retain any text in Wikipedia without attribution, which means by the same strict reading of absolute-zero-civil-liability you are applying to the copyvio we must also remove all text that was added in any version that was revdeleted. However, both of these are merely civil matters; our policies are time-tested in terms of keeping Wikipedia working without undue liability, so I think it's reasonable for us to simply follow them. If someone raises a specific copyright objection then that is an WP:OFFICE matter and they can decide what to do (and instruct us either handling that specific case or updating our general policies for future compliance if necessary), but beyond that I do not think we should overly concern ourselves with worrying about the intricacies of civil law or possible liabilities outside of our existing policies. None of us are lawyers officially working for Wikipedia, and therefore none of us are really qualified to speak to legal concerns. But (to get back to my main point) I object to your implication that attribution is some sort of "if we feel like it" policy - it is a hard requirement, every bit as serious as any other copyright issue, and we absolutely cannot treat it as the less serious concern when handling copyvios. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• The above has been moved from DELREV (diff). – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Deleting a revision is an administrative decision so I feel that XRV would be the preferred venue for this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletion of 61 revisions within two months as within discretion. Uanfala, are you looking for something specific in that history range? The majority of non-revert additions were by User:UnpetitproleX (then User:Unpetitprole). My assumption is that 2409:4060:2D98:9A3A:5C0B:B19A:F479:9256 added a {{Pie chart}} (which you removed) and updated some numbers. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  The deleted revisions [80] added 2,542 bytes of text and made a number of modifications to the existing content. Deleting these revisions means that we don't know who contributed which content, and why each of the changes was made (see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the various problems that this may cause). – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I am asking for specific revisions, content, or changes that you believe to be inaccessible or muddled. For example, if data or a source was lost when the chart was removed, an admin would be able to retrieve that. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, we have the following options:

1. No revdel, each edit is clearly attributed
2. Yes revdel, keeping the list of intermediate authors intact as attribution.
3. Revert to pre-revdel version, take each author in turn and do an edit summing up his/her cumulative edits, with attribution in the summery. This attribution, of course, won't change if the user is ever renamed.

93.172.243.103 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've linked to the WT:REVDEL thread with the explanations above, but I guess it may be of benefit to summarise the more salient points. The policy at WP:RD1 states that blatant violations of copyright can be redacted, though if doing so would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. The how-to guide at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins further elaborates that [i]t may be a good idea to use revdel for copyvios, but [o]therwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it. I don't know what others take away from here, but for me this clearly shows that revision deletion is not obligatory and that it is explicitly forbidden in cases like the one here. For those endorsing the deletion, it may be helpful to explain why it's within admin discretion to violate policy here. – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with your interpretation of "attribution", expanding it to incorporate "traceability", as I find it at odds with its meaning in WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline). (I linked them in a previous comment above.) RD1 would be hamstrung if its use were restricted to a sequence of edits by the copyvio-introducing user interrupted only by reverted or reverting edits. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• As someone who has done 1000s of uncontested RD1 revision deletions, I don't believe there is any issue with this revdel. I read "any contributor's attribution" as keeping the editors name in the page history; non-admins can see the user's name in the history and non-admins can see that they made an edit, they just can't see what was added in the edit. Therefore, attribution is still kept. That said there's no exact standard for what is revdeled for copyvio and what isn't. I tend to be more liberal with not revdeling some edits than others, but I am willing to delete 1000s of revisions if the plagiarism is that large and extensive. On the other hand, I think it is overkill to delete several revisions for some paraphrasing issues and try to not do so. Every admin has different standards and opinions on the matter, and I've been meaning to start an extensive RFC on the matter to get consensus on the scope of revdels. I would like a co-drafter, so if someone wants to do that please reach out. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your reading of "any contributor's attribution" may well be right, but as I point out below, the actual wording of the license is that each contributor is to "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". I don't see how what we're doing here would succeed at doing that. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• A JBW points out, we are between a rock and a hard place. First of all, the Foundation's policy on copyright infringement is much stricter than US law in some respects. The entire purpose of RevDel isn't to remove copyright infringement "because we are nice guys". It is to remove any liability in a court of law, as we can demonstrate we took action to remove the infringing material from our archives and pages. When it comes to copyright and RevDel, it is probably better to err on the side of using too much, rather than using too little. There is still attribution to the editors caught in the middle, we just don't know what they attributed for. Keep in mind, Oversight/Suppression removes even more, although typically for different reasons. But it's the same problem. I've never heard of an editor needing the specifics of attribution to maintain their copyright on an edit caught in the middle of one of these RevDels, so weighing the potential damage versus the damage of not removing all instances of infringement, again, you err on the side of removing. So I endorse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't know the details in this case and IANL. But doing what you propose--losing track of who contributed what, is probably more of a black-and-white violation. The CC BY-SA license we use indicates that Wikipedia can use other's work, but that you are to "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". [81]. I don't think contibutors are going to sue us over this, but if they did, as I read it they'd be in the right. One could even make an argument that anyone who edits such an article is in violation of the license because they aren't retaining an indication of previous modification. But this is all a bit silly--there are so many steps before anyone could really have a case against Wikipedia, worrying about legal liability for something like this is pretty far fetched. The DMCA's safe harbor provisions probably apply to Wikipedia, so the worst reasonable case is a takedown notice I'd think. TLDR: it's good to be careful with copyright, but attribution is required under CC BY-SA and if we are violating that license for a given contribution, we have no rights to use that contribution and any use of it is now a copyright violation. It's not a rock and a hard place, it's a rock and the same rock. But in most cases the situation is likely worse when we don't respect the rights of our contributors--it's more text and we're taking the whole thing they contributed which makes a fair use argument a lot harder. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • According to wmf:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content, editors agree that a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions) is sufficient attribution for their contribution. DanCherek (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) also cover this. (I have linked them a few times in this discussion.) Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The confusion here stems from the fact that you're quoting CC-BY-SA 4.0, while we use the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license, which has no similar language requiring to carry the specifics of any modifications or adaptations of the material of contributors. Unless memory fails me, the addition of the line you quote is one of the reasons the WMF has stuck to 3.0. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Hobit to add on to what MLuaba says, we can't even use text licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, as the WMF has said it is not compatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    And this is why I'm not a lawyer. Details like that are important. Thanks to those that pointed it out. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I also have over a thousand (mostly) uncontested revision deletions. For me, this is an edge case. Copyvio stayed for two months in a high-traffic article, and several dozen revisions had to be deleted. Probably still a reasonable time period and almost a reasonable number of revisions. I would say it is still within discretion of the admin, but close to the limit.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but "discretion" is a nonsense argument. Administrators have no special discretion when it comes to implementation of WMF's terms of use and licensing. Fortunately for us, it's also an entirely unnecessary argument. As noted above by several users, Wikipedia's licensing requires attribution in the form of a list of authors. Revdel maintains the list, which is still accessible through the page history. We have no requirement to attribute every tittle of the text to each individual author on a byte-by-byte basis. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, and of course IANAL etc but if we're talking about legal issues, putting aside what out terms of use say and what the CC BY-SA 3.0 says, we don't actually have to comply with CC BY-SA 3.0 in most cases. We only have to comply with one of the CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL since all contributors here have agreed to dual licence their contributions. The only case when we must comply with the CC BY-SA 3.0 is when we've added content from somewhere else that is only licenced under the CC BY-SA 3.0 or some other compatible licence which isn't compatible with the GFDL. While as a matter of policy, we require that our content is compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 hence you cannot import text which is only licenced under the GFDL, this does not affect ultimately we only have to comply with one of the licences to fulfill our obligations to our contributors, just like any re-user of our content. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that if we put aside what the ToU says and what the licences say and the advice we've been giving for a long time for how we ensure copyright compliance; if we really couldn't delete revisions without violating our contributor's copyrights, we'd have a major problem. Let's put aside revdeletions of copyright violations, there are sometimes other reasons why a lot of revisions have to be deleted, especially BLP or privacy issues. Remembering also that even deletion of revisions on this page and other talk pages is a problem unless you argue that a list of revisions isn't but a list of revisions along with talk page signatures is enough. Again IANAL etc so perhaps an "end justifies the means" argument could be made that to protect against libel but it seems a bit odd to me that we can violate someone unrelated's copyright for this reason. But in any case, there is also a lot of stuff where there's no risk of libel e.g. real names and other personal details of article subjects or even family members or other people, and also of contributors (sometimes including outing) and it seems even more dubious to claim we are allowed to violate contributors' copyright to rev-delete in those cases. Also, as mentioned my Moonriddengirl and others, it isn't just random advice but it's the pratice we've been following too when the issue arises. (Nowadays we generally try to ensure the article is undeleted somewhere whenever possible and if it's translation link to the translation, but I'm fairly sure you can find cases where all we have are a list of contributors.) So if we didn't already cover this in the ToU or it wasn't enough, we really need to fix this in some way. I mean we could somehow craft an exception that covers those cases only, but why? It makes much more sense that we ensure we legally can rev delete whenever, and decide by policy when we should do so. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask the WMF

I just sent this email to Legal:

As a result of this AN thread (permalink) I'm asking a question about whether revdeling copyright violations, in particular revdeling several revisions over a long period of time, is consistent with Wikipedia's creative commons license.

In particular, the RD1 criteria for copyright violations says "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used". There has been some debate over what this means; my reading is that, as long as the usernames of the editors are kept in the history, then attribution is still kept, even if non admins cannot see it. Therefore, revdeletions over a long period of time are ok. In doing larger revision deletions for copyright, I believe most admins adhere to this particular reading.

I'm asking if my interpretation of keeping attribution is correct and in line with Wikipedia's creative commons license and the related attribution requirements. If it is not, I ask what should instead be done in the case of large scale revision deletions. I will post this email to the AN discussion, in order for the community to know what I have exactly asked, and so that this question can have a public answer.

Also pinging Moonriddengirl who may have something to say. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Moneytrees, I am one of those admins ("attribution" to me means "who edited" not necessarily "what each person added"), so please either ping me here or otherwise let me know of Legal's reply to your query. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It will definitely be good to have that issue clarified, though I would like to point out that the notion of attribution is not confined to its legal aspect. There's also one other thing that we'll need to ask the legal team about: whether revdelling is necessary in the first place. One of the competing assumptions in this discussion is that having small-scale copyright violations in the history of pages will pose a legal risk to the foundation. I think we need to find out if that is indeed the case. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I do have something to say although it won't be as useful as what Legal will have to say. Nota bene that I have not read all of the discussion below. Somebody pointed out to me that I had been pinged, and since I don't have a ton of time I've only read the above. Also, I am not a lawyer. I work for WMF Legal, but copyright is not part of my job other than leading the team who executes on the attorneys' directions in cases of DMCA. I'm speaking in my volunteer hat totally. :) Legal has spoken to the issue of copyright violations in page history in the past, but it's always important to remember that legal opinions will change according to evolving issues of precedent. See m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories. (Frankly, knowing that the Foundation's attorneys are not able to provide legal advise to volunteers, I've always found that a bit opaque - but I understand why it is.) However, for me, revdeletion of copyright violation was never primarily about the issue of hosting copyvio content in a past edit; it was primarily about the many times those of us who worked on copyright infringement saw material inadvertently returned. When page histories become complex, people do not necessarily notice even ALL CAPS edit summaries saying that copyrighted content has been removed and must not be restored, and in cleaning up present copyright issues by reverting to earlier versions, I have myself returned major infringing material without realizing that the older edit was problematic. It has long been Wikipedia policy, well before I began working in copyright, that a list of authors was sufficient to meet the requirements of the license. Before revdeletion was a thing, guidance in some cases was to restore the content without the copyvio and include an attribution list of authors on the talk page. This suffices according to Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#List_of_authors. As the Terms of Use notes, an attribution may be supplied in any of the following fashions: "in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)" Just as we have supplied lists of contributors in the past on talk pages, I myself have considered edit histories a list of contributors even if individual edits are not identifiable (as they are not, through lists of authors). However, I have also always yielded to Wikilegal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So it turns out we already have some guidance from the Legal team. Even though it doesn't give us the sort of "OK"–"Not OK" answer that we would have liked to, it certainly provides a lot of useful context. And it does seem to throw out of the window the notion that the foundation could get into legal trouble because of unredacted copyvios in old revisions.

The question then arises, why do we do revdel for small-scale copyright infringements in the first place, intervening edits or no intervening edits? Moonriddengirl's comment above points to the expedience of preventing the restoration of the infringing content by editors digging through the page history. But as hinted in this subsection, revdel'ing may also make it more difficult for the watchers of a page to recognise it if the infringing material is added again. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To avoid having to drag either the well-meaning newbie through 3RR, or the volunteer who removed the infringing material to get dragged to there. To signal that the content was problematic and should not be readded. To ensure that future editors don't look at the history, notice that 2k text got suddenly removed a few months ago and just paste it back in without paying attention to the edit summary that removed it, or the copyclean notice on the talk page. To follow the precautionary principle in all copyvio matters. It's far from perfect, but it's the least imperfect system we have, even when it comes at the cost of occasional wall of text ANI discussions and confusion between license versions. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the current practices are all down to these minor – and, as pointed out above, not uncontroversially relevant – practicalities, then it seems really difficult to see justification for them. Unless someone points out relevant new legal considerations, then I think the best way to avoid such walls of text at AN in future is to have a big RfC reconfirming our policies and then making sure people stick to them. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Uanfala, you state And it does seem to throw out of the window the notion that the foundation could get into legal trouble because of unredacted copyvios in old revisions. No it doesn't. She opined as an editor, talking about some of the motivation. She did NOT say there is zero risk of legal action. You need to read more carefully. If you had read what she linked, you would have seen "Section 108 of the Copyright Act[2] allows libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works under certain circumstances. However, this statute likely does not apply to archives with only a digital presence, such as Wikipedia page histories, and therefore probably does not exempt the use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia from infringement liability. Fair use may be invoked as a defense in the event of copyright infringement in Wikipedia page histories, but the judicial outcome of asserting fair use is generally unpredictable. " which is the official position, and certainly is NOT saying there is no liability. In fact, is clearly saying we are not immune to action by a copyright holder, we would have to invoke Fair Use, and that may not stand up in court. So you are mistaken, there is a legal consideration when we RevDel infringing material. It isn't always the only reason, but it is always one of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It was precisely because of reading that document that I posted above. The passage that's most relevant here is the following: In the case of Wikipedia page histories, [if a fair use defense fails in court,] the potentially liable party would be the user who uploaded the copyrighted work, as that initial upload is what allegedly violates the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Additionally, downstream re-users of the work may risk liability if their own use of the work is not permissible under fair use or another defense. Is there anything I'm missing here? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • What you are missing is the fact that you don't want Wikipedia to be dragged to court to begin with. Even if you win, it is very expensive and time consuming. You avoid this by removing obvious infringement from the archives. Because Wikipedia is hosting that infringing material, and they don't qualify as a common carrier (the standard in US law for exemption), the infringed party could still tie up a lot of time and money. So we RevDel. The only loss is the rare listing of specifics of the edit someone is credited for, which isn't required for attribution under the current license. So no, it does not throw out the window the idea that it could cost the Foundation/Legal time, money, effort, hassle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • So we're going to gear all our practices towards the eventuality that someone may one day spot one paragraph from their website in an old revision on Wikipedia and then instead of asking nicely or sending a takedown notice would go straight for a court case that they know they won't win? If this is indeed the case, then I would really like to see that spelt out by the legal team, because there's nothing either in our policies or the documentation presented so far to suggest that revision deletions like the one Himachal Pradesh are necessary.
        All this matters because the losses from such deletions are not as insignificant as they're made out to be. It's not about satisfying the legal requirement for attribution, that's a red herring (though yes, even here it would be nice, for example to be able to re-use content by citing only the actual contributors rather than be forced to enumerate everyone, including all the vandals, who has touched the page). It is about our ability to look after articles. Revision deletions erase the link between the edit, the user who made the edit, and the explanation for that edit. This makes it a range of editing activities more difficult, like selecting which parts of an article are likely to require attention, or cleaning up after disruptive users (including copyright violators!), and it makes it more likely for errors corrected in an intervening edit to get repeated.
        The sort of basic accountability that revdel erases is essential for dealing with any moderately developed article, and I don't think it's reasonable for the community to be actively taking that away from itself because of a hypothetical danger than no-one legally competent enough to comment has claimed to exist. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • This feels like FUD more than anything. Every issue listed (which I mostly disagree with, but don't want to waste more space arguing them) applies to every form of redaction; should we stop hiding BLP issues per RD2 because it will make cleaning up after disruptive users more difficult? Should we stop hiding disruptive links per RD3 because selecting which parts of an article are likely to require attention will be somehow harder?
          None of the arguments you've just made have to do specifically with RD1/copyright revisions (in fact, you're specifically avoiding that issue), and since regardless of whether someone will sue us for it, we should take preventative steps to avoid it, you should either expand your concerns to all of Revision Deletion or bring copyright-specific concerns with the use of it. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I was simply pointing out some of the benefits of having article histories (which seemed to be dismissed by the previous comment). The WMF Legal document itself acknowledges them. Primefac, I don't understand your demands here. I came here to challenge an RD1 deletion that was a stark violation of our policies; it would have been equally unacceptable if that deletion had been done under any other non-oversightable revdel criterion (and this is already covered by the policy). People were endorsing the deletion because of an understanding that otherwise we risk getting into legal trouble, but no credible indication has been given that this is the case. I'm not buying the principle that we should go out of our way to avoid all conceivable vexatious lawsuits. If we did that, then our articles would never contain criticism of public figures because of the risk the article subjects could take us to court for libel. – Uanfala (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
            • That is the problem. You still call it "RD1 deletion that was a stark violation of our policies" when in fact others have demonstrated it was not a violation of policy. You raised the question, you didn't like the answer you received, you keep bludgeoning the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Uanfala The other thing you're missing here is that you, actually, are a downstream reuser of an unauthorized copy of some third party's work. Granted, you didn't modify the text in question, but the introduction of the copyvio content in the article turned it into an unauthorized derivative work. Every edit after the introduction of the copyvio is a fruit of a poisoned tree. Sure, we can all reason all day long that no reasonable owner, or judge, would ever treat the rest of the article as any material component to a copyright infringement case. Except there's precedent out there, for instance from the music industry. Part of any defense the WMF would have to mount if any copyright infringement case were to go to a court is that both the WMF but also the volunteer editors took all reasonable measures to address issues we are made aware of. RD1 is one of an arsenal of many small scale reasonable measure that we can point to to demonstrate that we take such issues seriously. And if that comes at the cost of someone not being able to see exactly what you did to the article by pruning the language section, I'm sorry, but that's a very small price to pay for everyone's benefit, including your own. And even if you don't care for it, you are not alone being shielded by these RD1s. All of Wikipedia is. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have an interesting perspective on this because I consult on copyright infringement cases. Wikipedia is much more thoughtful than most websites and it would be a bad business decision for a lawyer to go after a non-profit that makes an occasional good faith error. We should not spend so much angst speculating about the law, because we're not lawyers for WMF. WMF legal will let us know if they are getting takedown notices or if they sense a problem. If we need to change our process, WMF legal will give us advice. I move to close this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I intend to try to clarify policy at WT:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits after discussion ends here. I found a similar discussion in 2021 and one in 2020, so this has been a recurring issue. While the licensing piece is not in dispute here, I created WP:Attribution does not require blame as an essay for future reference. It is very straightforward, so I expect that WMF Legal's response will not affect it. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Uanfala Justlettersandnumbers, Legal got back to me on the 26th, I was busy then and only noticed just now. They say they agree with my interpretation, and cite the part of section 7 of the TOU, where it says "Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)". They explicitly tell me that it does not require that each contribution made is readable, so use of revdel and oversight does not cause attribution problem under Wikipedia's CC license and is compliant with the TOU. They note at the end that this is their perspective (which is that they agree with me), but it is not legal advice. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Moneytrees – even if their perspective is essentially identical to ours, it's good to have confirmation that we're in agreement. Now let's fix the ambiguous wording at RD criterion #1 ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WT:Revision deletion#Meaning of "attribution" in RD1 may be of interest. I created it as a sub-section, as I mentioned above. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Timwi

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 above section stuck out to me, as Battle for Dream Island has been salted and title blacklisted for several years- I was very surprised to see it had been recreated. For background, it's an animated children's show on Youtube that has unfortunately never gotten any sort of notable coverage, despite its popularity. As a result, it has been deleted and salted in several iterations over the years. Looking at the history of the article, I see something very strange; administrator Timwi restored the deleted article today after it had been deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 in 2013. The article had also been deleted in 2011, and the deleted edits in both cases were restored. The restoration was done with the rationale "Undeleting history with intent to clean up the article"; Timwi removed and rephrased some content and then proceeded to add references that were exclusively primary and non-reliable, user generated sources- a good deal was straight up unsourced. They then went to Acroterion's talk page and berated them for tagging the article for speedy deletion in 2013... "In future, if you feel that an article is missing something, please consider adding it instead of unceremoniously destroying other people’s work. You are the reason nobody I know bothers contributing to Wikipedia anymore because “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. Considering fostering a more productive environment."

Acroterion rightfully pointed out that the subject was clearly not notable at the time, they had tagged the article and had not deleted it, and that Timwi is expected to know better as an administrator. Timwi then apologized to Acroterion, but I still have some difficulty with their message: "...I’m trying to highlight that this was a case where, even if it fits a speedy-deletion criterion, the more sensible thing to do would have been to make the small change necessary to honor the work and effort someone put into writing it. I apologize for the overly personal tone of my prior message, but it captures my frustration. Literally all of my friends are in the “why bother, it gets deleted anyway” camp and that should worry us. We are losing valuable contributions on a global scale this way and this is not in the spirit of a wiki." Timwi then went back to the article and removed a notability template added by another editor, claiming "More notability noted. Next time you add this template, please elaborate on the Talk Page what kind of information you require" while citing cartooncrave.wordpress and RedBubble (a retail site selling fan merch), again unreliable sources that you'd hope an administrator would know are not ok to use. Non-admin Schazjmd, the user who added the notability template, then starts a discussion on the talk page, noting "...At that time, there were two refs to episodes on YouTube, which are primary sources and don't add to notability. The other refs were to Fandom, KnowYourMeme, and another YouTube video, none of which are reliable sources. Since then, a ref to a Wordpress blog about a non-notable award and a ref to a commercial site that sells BFDI-related merchandise have been added. Neither of those support notability either.

Schazjmd then kindly noted that she had added the notability tag in turn of a speedy deletion tag to let editors find sources, which has not happened yet- only original research had been added. I agree- had there not been further dispute around this article, I would have draftified it, and I believe that anyone active in New page patrol would have done similar. I found Timwi's response to be highly concerning, saying, "I’m very confused. You’re just saying “this and that is not notable” and “not a reliable source” without explaining anything. I read through the guidelines/policies (Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web)). We’re talking about a culturally significant production with millions of views, a sizeable fandom, fanart, and imitations/spiritual successors that indicate that it spawned an entire new genre. [...] It’s very difficult not to feel that you’re just hell-bent on destroying other people’s work and discouraging legitimate contribution to Wikipedia." I'm not really sure where to start with what's wrong with this statement- for one, it is really rude and unreasonable to say someone is "hell-bent on destroying other people’s work and discouraging legitimate contribution to Wikipedia" when they calmly opened a discussion to encourage legitimate contribution and said that they wouldn't be nominating an article for speedy deletion. Nevermind that Timwi is an admin- they have been one since December 2003- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timwi. I understand that some "legacy" admins are unfamiliar with current rules, but this seems like an egregious and unbecoming case. I believe further review of their actions is required, and that Timwi should moderate their behavior and be more careful when writing and sourcing articles. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 06:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) On a related note, I've nominated the related article for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island; despite being deleted apparently dozens of times this has never had a discussion at AfD so far as I can tell. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not knowing about WP:UGC, or where to look for it, isn't a great look, either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 10:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Timwi: it seems clear that either you have not kept pace with our notability and sourcing guidelines, or that you were never particularly familiar with them. I don't mean that last comment as an insult - in your own RfA self-nom back in 2003, you described yourself as someone who does minor copyediting and anti-vandalism work; maybe you never got into content creation/reviewing in a big way, I don't know. Administrators no longer have autopatrolled bundled with the toolset, but if you had that perm, I'd be yanking it now. The comments you have directed towards people recently have been seriously unbecoming of an admin; while it is good that you have apologised to Acroterion, I believe you also owe an apology to Schazjmd for your comments on the article talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• I was astonished at the deja vu quality of their first message on my talkpage. It was like revisiting 2007 all over again. I'm surprised "deletionist" didn't appear. I was further surprised to discover that they were a long-time administrator, and by their conduct at Battle for Dream Island, their notions of sourcing and notability, and their hazy notions of what constituted either on the talkpage. I, too, was thinking about opening a discussion here concerning Timwi's lack of clue, forgivable in a casual longtime user, but concerning in an administrator. That the article was salted increases my doubts about their judgment. I was holding off because I found their first appearance on my talkpage irritating and did not want to overreact, but their second attack aimed at Schazmd prompted me to leave my admonition on their talkjpage to see how they would respond before I came here [82]. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Trout this is an astonishing lack of familiarity from an admin of any tenure, and it's not like Timwi has been entirely inactive to notice the changes. RedBubble alone is a giant red flag, and not using blogs should be common sense. I wonder if there's a COI here since this seems awfully personalized, in addition to friend references. Star Mississippi 16:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is a serious problem and Timwi's conduct has been out of line in several significant ways. Their editing activity peaked in 2004 at about 15,500 edits and then plummeted. The last ten years, they have only made about 1000 edits in total. At this point, they seem utterly unprepared to function as an administrator. I suggest that they voluntarily relinquish the tools. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd actually support that, as a no-blame, no-shame action they could take. They took up the tools when Wikipedia was in its infancy, and did good work back then, which we should all thank them for. However, this recent debacle shows very clearly that they have not kept abreast of how things work here - if these actions had been taken by a new page patroller, I would have pulled the perm, but I can't because they're bundled with the admin rights. Timwi: I have no doubt whatsoever that your edits in this area have been in good fait, but there is an obvious consensus that you are seriously out of step with the community norms on content. Would you be willing to voluntarily request that your admin rights be revoked? We would still value your contributions as an editor. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• This edit here: [83] tells me all I need to know. Notability and sourcing be damned, we give a middle finger to the world requiring that! I concur, they need to resign the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Based on that diff, I agree with the recommendation that they relinquish the tools. I had hoped they'd reconsider after reviewing this thread. It's one thing to have that attitude as an editor, it's another to behave that way as an admin, having used the admin tools to reinstate the article and to be that defiant and that resistant to advice in the face of the community, to whom any admin must be responsive. Let's give them time to consider Girth Summit's message on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  also, his responses to my !vote. I explicitly warned and would not hesitate to block if he recreates it following consensus because he disagrees with consensus. It would be one thing if it was an "oops", but he's doubling down. Star Mississippi 23:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not ready to join the angry mob with pitchforks and firebrands, but it is certainly clear that this is not what we expect from an admin. To a certain extent, my history is similar to Timwi's; I got my mop a long time ago when the project was very different, and went through a phase of minimal activity for a bunch of years. I've had more than a few experiences since I got more involved again where I was surprised to discover that "we've always done it this way" no longer flies. So, at the very least, we need recognition that the project has changed and if they're going to continue to wield a mop they need to get back up to speed on policies and processes that have evolved over the years. If they're not willing to invest the time to do that, then I agree, continued adminship isn't a viable option. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Using the tools that way isn't acceptable, nor is the attitude about sources when it comes from an administrator. The tools are for serving, not convenience. I've been around since 2006, and yes a lot has changed, but if you aren't active enough to keep up with community expectations, you might consider handing in the tools. At the very least, you need to reverse your undeletion of the article out of process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not one to seek removal of the tools lightly. However, this is very concerning. I would suggest that Timwi give up the tools. And yeah, I got the bit in 2007. A lot has changed, and it is required to keep up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly active anymore, but I have a bad feeling about this series of incidents. If I saw this type of behavior pattern in a new user, I'd have some concerns. Forgive me if my slow COVID is clouding my judgment. Timwi, have you an off-Wiki connection with this subject or anyone associated with it? You seem unfamiliar with current Wikiculture about some things, so if you have such a connection, now is the time to disclose it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is reasonably popular (as web series go), and Timwi's views on inclusion and notability were much less radically outside-the-norm when he was primarily active than they are now. There's no reason to suspect a COI. —Cryptic 10:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• I had a look at Timwi's user log, and unsurprisingly it's very light on admin actions. He appears to have never blocked anyone, and the last time he protected a page was on Composition of the human body in 2011, with the reason given as "Persistent reverting of other people’s work." I thought that was a bit odd, so checked the edit history and sure enough, it was a content dispute that he was involved in, edit warring to keep in bar charts that he found useful but another editor didn't and then locking the page for a week. This flagrant breach of WP:INVOLVED was pointed out at the time on the talk page. Of course this was a very long time ago but it's concerning that even then there were questions over his adherence to policy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Logs only started being kept in their current form in late December 2004, after his editing peak. He's got a fair number of log actions linked from Category:Wikipedia obsolete log pages. (This was of course an even longer time ago.) —Cryptic 18:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Their other admin related logs don't look much better, e.g. the deletion of these redirects for reasons with no basis in speedy deletion policy, all of which were recreated within a couple of years. [84] [85] [86]. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• There are now about 10 admins voicing concerns with Timwi's actions. Timwi has not addressed any of these concerns. If he does not respond soon, I am going to be filing an Arbitration request. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you do, please *ping* everyone in this discussion. I really hate that we have gotten to this point, but poking around the discussion above, I see this undeletion out of process isn't the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I would just post it now, it'll have to happen unless they give up the tools. Regardless of the admin actions, the very fact of removing a notability tag by adding a blog and a commercial site is simply a WP:CIR issue for anyone but a new editor - and we can't have admins with competency issues. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 1 February 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.

Stonewalling from The Banner

User:The Banner has been - for lack of better words - trying hard to be a pain in the neck when it comes to my actions regarding the Apostle article and the redirects linking to it.
The conflict started after I made a page move from Apostle to Apostle (word) and retargetted Apostle, Apostle (Christian) and Apostles in Christianity to Apostle (disambiguation).
The Banner then contested my page moe on the ground of it creating too much links to a DAB. He/She then reverted the retargets I had made and asked my page move be undone, and also retargetted Apostles (the plural form).
We went into a conflict over Apostles, as The Banner was here refusing to discuss his/her changes and to go back to the WP:STATUSQUO (the target of the Apostles redirect had been changed more than one month ago). My reverts to go back to the status quo were met with reverts and warning in my talk page without further explanation apart from an accusation of editwarring and POV-pushing on my talk page when I asked for explanations. The Banner also accused me of reverting back to STATUSQUO in the name of editwarring to make [my] point. The user Bkonrad provided as argument for restoring the old target: This breaks way, way,way too many links. I reverted Bkonrad. My reasons for retargetting had already been given here and there (the latter invokes WP:PLURAL). The Banner reverted me for what The Banner called "messing up". I then opened a discussion at Talk:Apostles#Discussion so that The Banner could explain his/her position (e.g. explaining why he/she felt so many links were broken); instead, The Banner refused to elaborate further, prefering to make it clear he/she was making a WP:POINTy stonewalling and gave sibylline answers. It is only with other users joining the discussion that the target was reverted to its status quo. I note that one user in this discussion has claimed more than one month is not enough for a status quo, which I disagree with.
I must note that I spent in total around 6 hours de-disambiguating to satisfy The Banner's complaints about the page move and all the retargets of redirects, as I explained here.
Recently, I opened discussions at Talk:Apostles in Christianity#Retarget to Apostle (disambiguation)#Religion and Apostle (Christian)#Retarget to Apostle (disambiguation)#Religion with a rationale to propose a retarget. In both cases, The Banner opposed, saying: No valid argument. Do you have sources to back up your opinion?. When asked to elaborate, The Banner stated, from what I understand, that since I was using a hyperlink to Apostle#Christianity to prove my point (i.e. that there are numerous different meanings for the word "apostle" in Christianity) I had not backed up this claim. The user also accused me of making a personnal attack when I asked Are you saying you cannot read the content of the "Christianity" heading or that my argument has not convinced you?. I then paraphrased my argument again and told The Banner: If you do one more time this disdaining, patronising, stonewalling attitude, I am taking your case to ANI.. The Banner's next answer was again of the same attitude, but still I asked if indeed the user indented to keep giving answers which did not give any argument. The Banner responded again with the same attitude: My reasoning is in my original answer. That you do not like that answer is not my problem. And please tone down a bit.. This is what pushed me to open this ANM.
So, from what I see, the user has a grudge against me (I do not know why) and is purposefully stonewalling and making disruptive edits simply to disagree with me on this topic. I admit my tone is sometimes harsh, but in any case I never refuse to communicate, make almost everything to get my point accross, and get in arguments because I try to defend what I feel is best for Wikipedia; this is not the case here with The Banner who seems to enjoy being petty and disdaining. Veverve (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Veverve has a highly aggressive way of acting now he receives some pushback. This filing is an expert example of that. His discussion technique is something to the tune of "I want it this way, everything else is automatically wrong" and WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. That makes serious discussion impossible. The Banner talk 07:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This case is related to this request Talk:Apostle#Requested_move_29_January_2022 where an undiscussed move created 2066 links to disambiguation pages. Something he deemed necessary. The Banner talk 08:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Apostles has been the title of the Apostles in the New Testament article for years, then a redirect to the same page for almost a year, I would not call a few-weeks-long undiscussed and unnoticed retargeting to a dab page the STATUSQUO. And The Banner was not the only one nor the first to contest and revert the redirect. There are a number of other issues with this complain which make me question about the competence of the opener. First, a violation of the three-revert rule at Apostles, 4 reverts against two different users in less than 24 hours (and with an ongoing discussion about the redirect target). Then complaining about the 6 hours they needed to fix all the incoming links they had screwed up as it was done because of some user's whim while it was the first thing they should have done when they regargeted the redirect. And above all the case itself, i.e. a complain with another user because they disagree with them about their move, making the whole story a WP:WRONGVENUE case, except if not a potential WP:BOOMERANG. Cavarrone 08:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: To say I made a complain with another user because they disagree with them about their move is absolutely false and an attempt to diverge the discussion from my initial complaint. The Banner is attempting to justify his/her attitude on three different talk pages by painting my complaint as a kind of revenge against him/her, which to me is a reversal of the situation as The Banner clearly is the one holding a grudge against me and thwarting my work for it.

To state I fixed the incoming links for a numbers of hours due to the concern of the person I had a conflict with is a proof of good faith, I did not complain.

As for the 3RR, I must admit I let myself get carried away. Still, this does not justify The Banner's behaviour. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As a sidenote, to say I argue with WP:IDONTLIKETHAT seems to be again a lie to attempt to reverse the situation. I always argue with source and policies or by invoking maitainability whenever I can, and the many people I have interacted with on WP can, whatever the relationship I have with them, admit that. Veverve (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not holding a grudge against you, but it is sad to see what wrong ideas you have about me. I have requested that you tone down your behaviour. You clearly refuse that. The Banner talk 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You have refused to discuss and to consider my arguments on multiple instances. At the same time, you claim I have an improper behaviour; from what I get this behaviour of mine you oppose consists in me requesting you to collaborate instead of you answering mysterious one-line riddles and ignoring most of what I write. Your recent behaviours on the talk pages can, I think, be explained due to you being WP:POINTy or holding a grudge. Althought, I admit I do not read minds. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for unban from Lojbanist/KATMAKROFAN/Catgirllover4ever

This request was received at UTRS, and I am posting at the user's request:

This is Lojbanist/KATMAKROFAN/Catgirllover4ever. Most of my online presence is under the name “KMF” or “KMF Studios”, which is an abbreviation of one of my old Wikipedia usernames. It’s been a little over 3 years since I got myself (deservedly) sitebanned from the English Wikipedia, around Christmas of 2018. I would like to accept the “standard offer”. I have learned from my mistakes in the past; I was in my early teens at the time I was operating the KATMAKROFAN/Lojbanist account, and I am now a much more mature individual. I probably shouldn’t have acted the way I did back in 2017-18, which included flame-warring over the names of cleanup templates, edit-warring over icons in templates, inappropriate comments in edit summaries, abusing the unlink feature in Twinkle, and “vanishing under a cloud” to avoid sanctions. I have changed now, and I feel like I should be able to participate in Wikipedia after a few months off. I don’t really want to become an admin; I would rather be a rollbacker, template-editor, new page reviewer, and/or AFC reviewer (I’m still pretty good with MediaWiki template syntax, including parser functions, but regrettably, I do not know any Lua). I still consider myself a deletionist, and I kinda miss participating in XFD discussions like I did in the late-10s. In fact, I miss a lot of these KATMAKROFAN/Lojbanist days, when I was a volunteer helping to build an encyclopedia, and not some obscure Z-list DeviantArt microcelebrity. I promise not to repeat the actions that got me banned. I will always assume good faith and make no personal attacks. And I’ll try not to edit-war or revert-war, and strictly follow 3RR. BTW, I no longer have access to the Lojbanist global account; it got hacked by someone in a Slavic country shortly after the siteban, and is now globally locked as a compromised account. So I will have to use the Catgirllover4ever account (which I plan to rename to something else, probably Kammiesworld2013 to match my Wikia/Fandom account and most of my other accounts). This is the user formerly known as Lojbanist, signing off. Peace out.

Note: The discussion that led to the community ban was here: [87]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the standard offer is not something that can be "accepted" by you. It's a guideline that administrators use to evaluate someone's proposed unblocking, specifically to provide some uniformity in how requests are reviewed. No prejudice against or towards the actual content of the request otherwise.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note The Lojbanist account is currently globally locked, so that may complicate matters. The above allocution says all of the right things, and I'm inclined to allow a return to the fold per WP:ROPE and WP:SO, but I am unsure how the global lock complicates matters. --Jayron32 16:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading through the discussion that led to the original ban, the global lock seems to have been a purely technical decision based on the fact that Lobjanist's password was revealed (or they revealed it? not entirely clear what happened). It doesn't appear to have been a sanction, and indeed TonyBallioni notes towards the end of the discussion, after the global lock but before the ban, that Technically he’s free to create a new account under global policy, and he hasn’t formally been sanctioned here. N.B. pace Lobjanist's statement in their appeal, the global lock was applied on 24th December 2018 and the discussion on ANI was closed and Lobjanist blocked on 28th December. User:Catgirllover4ever isn't globally locked, so there would be nothing technically preventing them from editing from that account were it unblocked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • For the record, this is what caused the account to be locked: [88] ansh.666 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kaf121/sandbox

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 user has managed to name themselves User:Kaf121/sandbox, then create their draft there. I do not know if I can fix this, and if I can, I don't know how. Does this need to be a rename, then separately recreate the draft? valereee (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: As far as I can tell (in my admittedly sleep-deprived state), this user's name is Kaf121, and that is just a userspace sandbox. Am I missing something? --Blablubbs (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, the user is called Kaf121, they've created a page called User:Kaf121/sandbox. Unless I'm missing something, nothing seems out of the ordinary here. firefly ( t · c ) 16:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. I honestly went back and forth three times trying to figure this out. Sorry. I'm clearly an idiot. valereee (talk) 16:57, 1 February 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.

Mason Greenwood

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.

---

DobermanPincherDeirdre (talk · contribs) has continually added unsourced and defamatory material despite being warned twice by Escape Orbit (talk · contribs) User has turned the page into a battleground RossButsy (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

All information I have added has now been supported by a source. That is all. Thank you.DobermanPincherDeirdre (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Most of it seems to be source-supported - I can't see anything that is a major BLP issue. Having said that, this is going to blow up severely given the issues today so I have switched the protection to ECP. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why this rush to be early with the news? This is not a news site, so we should wait until proper reliable secondary sources write about this. News reports are (as I would have thought anyone who feels qualified to write an encyclopedia would know) primary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• The problem was that DobermanPincherDeirdre repeatedly added controversial material in advance of sourcing it, and also speculated about future events. If they have since demonstrated to have been correct, that is completely not the point. You don't add stuff like this to a BLP without excellent sourcing, and you certainly don't edit war to repeatedly put it back in when challenged. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:25, 30 January 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.

Four contradictions of cited sources

2603:9001:5609:BE3F:CC19:9544:671E:8ED9 (talk · contribs) has made four edits which contradict cited sources. In particular, '8ED9 has changed the dates that the Sun enters or leaves astrological signs for the dates the editor prefers, with no apparent understanding that we should not put words in the mouth of a source that the source did not say. I have corrected three of these and warned the user, but to avoid contravening the three-revert rule, I ask that someone else look at this edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on this I'd chalk it up to run of the mill number changing vandalism. Also 3rr applies on a per article basis, and while you shouldn't follow someone around referring their good faith edits based on disagreement, I don't think there's an issue reverting disruptive, unsourced number changing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider it vandalism. I guess the editor believes the dates are true, but doesn't understand how footnotes and citing sources work, and that if you attribute a statement to a source and the source didn't make that statement, it is a falsehood. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying "I know a guy who acts like one astrological sign and not another, so the date has to be wrong" makes it difficult to assume good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If this person genuinely believes that one's personality is based on one's zodiac sign, and knows a person he/she believes has a personality represented by a zodiac sign they were born one or two days off of, that would be good faith. Of course, this doesn't mean he/she can't be blocked for it. 2.55.141.111 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have happened again: [89]. CarringtonMist (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

In accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight rights of Callanecc are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 15:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to functionary team

Topic and interaction ban appeal

I am interested in appealing my topic ban that took place over a year ago. The conflict arose from a misunderstanding I had about subjects of articles being permitted to editing their own articles and a neglectful ignorance on my part of BLP. I have complied with the terms of the ban and I have used my knowledge to continue to improve Wikipedia almost every day since. Thank you to Fences&Windows for guidance in this matter. I would be happy to answer any questions anybody might have. Kire1975 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Additional info I was a member in good standing since 2008 before this incident. I also had another neutrality tag interaction without any problems three weeks ago here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are you looking to appeal the one way interaction ban as well? Those are two very different sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply - I am looking to appeal all bans. I was recently invited to participate the "The Wikipedia Library" but am prohibited from doing so because my account has bans on them. I deny having anything personal against the account or subject that I have bans on. I invite anyone interested to look to the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if we are talking about appealing the iban with User:Guy Macon, then I want to at least ping him to see if he has any objection. He would be the best source to tell us if there have been any edge issues or not. I get you don't want to say his name or put a template on his page, and I wouldn't hold that against you, but he does need to be pinged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Positive comment pending review of the topic ban, after which I may support. Not familiar enough at the moment, but just had reason to interact with Kire1975 over an article we both were working on (User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Deletion_of_David_Leisner). Found him to be aware and respectful of BLP. Rings true to the comment above about improving Wikipedia. Star Mississippi 00:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A year ago, Kire1975 was topic banned from the articles about one musical performer and his band and their music. During the conversation, Kire1975 engaged in many severe BLP violations that had to be redacted. I got pinged to that discussion because I had blocked another musician for a famous person username issue until they confirmed their identity, and Kire1975 incorrectly concluded that the situations were analogous. That motivated me to look more deeply into this fiasco at that time. That led me to conclude that Kire1975 had a deep and profound grudge against this musician and his band that led to repeated and severe BLP violations. The statement above does nothing to alleviate my concerns. I simply do not see how it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia or to Kire1975 to allow this editor to return to a topic area that led to inflammatory misconduct. There are well over 6.4 million other articles for Kire1975 to edit. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support after further consideration, and receiving additional information about the Wikipedia Library issue. Cullen328 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Reply: I deny that I have a "deep and profound grudge" against the musician Dwid whom I had never heard of before my interaction with them on their page. I deny any interest in contributing to those pages, many of whom I did not know exist until I was banned from them. I encourage Cullen328 to be specific and link to evidence demonstrating what "deep and profound grudge" means. It was your edit here that led to my confusion and as I said I know now that I should have waited for better information before responding the way I did to Dwid's provocations. For that I am sorry, but to just say I have a "deep and profound grudge" against this person whom I've never interacted with before or since because you say so is, with respect, simply unfair. Kire1975 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • • I cannot link to your repeated personal attacks against the musical performer because they needed to be redacted. I think that fact speaks for itself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Mixed Support (see followup) - I would need to see signs of additional negative BLP edits to feel that the TBAN should stand (I don't go with the "there's lots of other stuff to work on position - indeed there are, but editing restrictions come with major collateral impacts as well"). However, that Kire didn't include any reasoning on why we should remove the IBAN (not a regular part of any TBAN issues), and indeed they seem to be somewhat dismissive towards its presence, I'm not currently inclined to remove it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reply - My understanding of the IBAN is that I'm not allowed to discuss this person or the reasons that led to the issuance of it. As it is not referenced in the big red warning section on my user contributions page, it just did not occur to me to include it here. I forgot about it. I wasn't trying to hide it. I welcome you to seek out all the evidence in this matter and decide for yourself. All I can say is, with all sincerity, the reason I want this appeal now is so that I can participate in "The Wikipedia Library" and any of the other things that were collaterally impacted by this decision, not because I wish to begin re-engaging with that editor. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Followup Given Guy Macon's statement below, and the editor's statement above, I now support removal of both the TBAN and the IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Per WP:Banning policy, among the exceptions to an interaction ban is Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation), and asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, appealing the ban This appeal is therefore an exception. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support lifting iban and tban I'm inclined to lift both. The editor seems to "get it" and reinstating sanctions is free if they relapse. I'm sure they know that the sanction will be much harder next time. I pinged Guy Macon, who may or may not come here. Unless there have been a bunch of edge violations, I expect to hold to accepting the appeal. Yes, he screwed up bad, but I will personally indef him if he goes and does a bunch of BLP violations that have to be RevDel'ed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Response by Guy Macon Kire1975 has had zero interactions with me since the iBan, and I am unlikely to edit any page associated with that particular musician again. My main purpose for getting involved was to convince the musician to follow our rules when he sees an error in his BLP, which appears to have been successful. Thus I have no objection to lifting the one-way interaction ban. I have no opinion one way or the other on lifting the topic ban. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm generally a big fan of WP:AGF. I see no evidence that they've had any problems since their ban was enacted, and they sound like they understand what they did wrong and are sincere about doing the right thing going forward. That's pretty much all we can ask. So, I support the ban being lifted. The worst that could happen is they cause problems again, and that's easy to address, so there's very little downside. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning "major collateral impacts"

I don't have an opinion on this specific appeal (at least not yet), but I wanted to flag an issue that it's raised for broader discussion.

I for one was not aware that when an editor is sanctioned with a relatively narrow page-block or topic-ban, or an interaction ban with one particular user, this has "collateral impacts" such as disallowing the editor from being eligible for research resources such as the Wikipedia Library. When an administrator, or the community on a noticeboard, or ArbCom imposes such a sanction, they are typically focused on resolving the particular problem or dispute they are addressing, not on impacting the editor's broader Wikipedia rights or experience. If people were aware of the side-effects of imposing sanctions, it might impact the outcome of discussions; in particular, I think there would be a premium on editors' being asked to voluntarily stay away from topics or fellow-editors they've had problems with, where the editor can be expected to comply, rather than imposing formal sanctions.

I'm curious whether others were aware that imposing what seem to be relative narrow sanctions has this particular "collateral impact," and what other unexpected effects it also has. It might also be worth discussing, at some point, whether it is desirable for narrow sanctions to have such an impact. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware that No active blocks at Wikipedia Library was interpreted that narrowly. I always thought it meant not blocked from editing a specific language Wikipedia. It's disheartening that lesser in-house methods for managing behavior issues result in removing tools for content creation and sourcing, a penalty that might have no relation to the problem being addressed. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Access to the Library is definitely hinky. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Cartoons (long closed, zero canvas issue), NFitz recommended it as a tool I could use, but as an active en wiki admin, I couldn't access it because I was username blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia: Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/Archive_6#Access_issue. I wonder if this is a blocking admin issue, or whether whitelists might also work as Samwalton9 implemented for me. Star Mississippi 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, this is an excellent point. It does seem like an unwelcome wrinkle to the partial block option. I’m not comfortable with the idea that restricting an editor from a particular page or even a broad topic requires that their access to an entire set of editing resources be revoked. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware it went that deep, but that is something to keep in mind. I am a big believer in WP:ROPE if there is at least a 50% chance the editor will succeed in staying out of trouble. I think having sanctions hanging over someone has a negative effect on them, which is of course the goal, but if the goal has been served, it is time to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've lifted the partial block on Kire1975, which appears to be unnecessary now after a year and is causing problems with the Wikipedia Library. I do not oppose lifting the topic ban or any interaction bans. Fences&Windows 23:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• As a note, the Library is not the only issue in this vein. The WMF has a newish habit of preventing anyone from holding any position they generate (Board Member, MCDC member, all the various UCOC committees etc) if they aren't in complete good standing across every project. This actually led to a massive issue in the midst of the MCDC elections where a qualified candidate had to withdraw, so it's not a pure hypothetical there, either. I realise we aren't responsible for their actions, and I wouldn't weight it when giving a sanction, but I do weigh it when judging "leave the sanction there, just in case" Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seven months ago, as a sign of my good faith, I volunteered to a one-way interaction ban with a blocked editor who I had no reason to interact with. The iban was logged, and if it had occurred to me I would have asked for a partial block of the user talk page that I was no longer watching.

It turns out that, unbeknown to me, this created a policy violation. Back in 2015 I had created a WP:VALIDALT to correct some trivial reference errors on a page that is of a highly sexual nature. I discovered them on an unrelated page and decided to fix all references to that site anywhere on Wikipedia.

I didn't want my name in any way associated with that page. I never got around to making the edit because someone else beat me to it, and instead used the account for non-controversial typo fixing when stuck using an insecure computer.

It turns out that the iban made the validalt (as well as a WP:CLEANSTART should I ever want one) to be against the rules and I had to change the name of the validalt from User:Dalek Supreme X to User:Guy Macon Alternate Account, which I still use when on an insecure computer, but without the validalt restriction of not editing in the same areas as my main account.

If not for someone randomly fixing the reference error before I got to it there would now be a record of me being interested in an embarrassing and extremely kinky topic.

There is a person who I believe to be an employee of The Daily Mail who follows everything I do and posts various bullshit claims about me on Reddit and Wikipediocracy, and that would have have been exactly the sort of thing he gloms on to. (Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton/Archive.)

What bothers me is that there was zero hint that me agreeing to not interact with one editor would trigger all of these additional restrictions. In my opinion, we should have a guideline that say that someone like Kire1975 not being allowed to interact with me should not trigger unrelated restrictions such as not being allowed to access the Wikipedia Library, not being allowed to have a validalt that follows all the rules, or not being allowed to apply for various positions with the WMF. Because such a guideline would not be binding on the Wikipedia Library or the WMF, there should also be an information page that lists every unwanted side effect to agreeing to what seems like a minor restriction on something you were going to avoid anyway. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• A post by @Samwalton9 (WMF): at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library on January 28 here states they are exempting users from this criteria if they have trivial or very old blocks and are active elsewhere. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They advise emailing wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org Nosebagbear (talk)
• I'm banned from one userpage, and the library autorescinded my access. I appealed, and a human got back to me very promptly to restore my access. There was zero collateral damage.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the Product Manager on The Wikipedia Library team. When users have any kind of block on their account they won't be able to access TWL immediately. Instead they receive a message which says "It looks like you have an active block on your account. If you meet the other criteria you may still be permitted access to the library - please contact us." with a link to the contact form, which sends us an email. We then review the editor's blocks and can grant them an exemption against that criterion. Per the note on the About page, we'll exempt users who only have partial blocks, username blocks, and other block types which don't indicate an increased likelihood of misusing the library. In particular we'll generally decline requests from editors who have copyright violation blocks or are indefinitely blocked on multiple wikis.

All that to say, I don't think you need to worry too much about TWL in blocking decisions - there's a fairly clear (I hope) path to getting an exemption for partial/user/topic blocks. We've already granted exemptions to dozens of users who requested it (It turns out a lot of users have username blocks on projects they've never edited!) and will generally act on those requests within ~3 days.

If you still have concerns about this I'm happy to hear what we can do to make this a clearer process. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• • When I went through this my experience was exactly as Sam Walton says.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation, Samwalton9 (WMF). I rely heavily on Wikipedia Library and the idea of editors losing access to it for something like an interaction ban was troubling, so it's reassuring to know the library team grants those exemptions. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you Samwalton9 (WMF). The process you outlined seems reasonable to me, I'm glad there's a simple and quick way to make appeal. I think this can be closed now. 28bytes (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating My Conduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Global lock from orbit. (Unimplementable, so no action required.) Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Prior July 27 2021, I tackled possible unethical practices with a rather harsh approach, but since then I made a promise to myself to approach possible unethical practices with little to no approach, please see this, this for example, there are a plethora of others but I do not want to digress, of recent I note that when dealing with possible unethical practices in Nigeria related topics, aspersions of being uncivil are labeled against me, by the article creator, why? I do not know, as I have always maintained civility to be the best of my ability. Today I experienced such, look at this discussion, between myself and an editor named Danidamiobi who also predominantly edits in Nigeria related topics, Was I being uncivil? Have I erred in my choice of words? I’d appreciate it if my conduct was vetted, I have pleaded with them to withdraw the ad hominem but they haven’t, perhaps I’m in the wrong and a feedback pertaining my conduct in that discussion would be very much appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with your asking the way you did. They overreacted a bit but you stayed on topic. A heated discussion isn't the same as an incivil one, and we have so many problems with COI, we sometimes just have to ask. Granted, most people with a COI (a paid one in particular) are often going to deny, so we have to dig a little deeper, but you didn't accuse, you made observations that were factual. They seem extraordinarily "scared", which is odd. Note that I don't know your past, only commenting on that one discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thank you for the feedback Dennis, previously, I was rather confrontational about what looked like unethical editing in the past, this led to editors saying although I was doing a good job by nabbing spam and UPE, my approach was confrontational bordering on incivility, thus when I’m vetting an article, Nigeria related articles to be precise, editors tend to use words like uncivil when replying me, especially editors who knew about my confrontational approach in the past, The editors, even when they knew I wasn’t being uncivil, they still accused me of this, perhaps hoping it would deter me from doing a thorough vetting on/of their article, Since July 2021, I promised myself that I would continue to do my good work with little to no confrontation and still be as effective as ever which is precisely what I’ve been doing since then to the best of my ability. In fact when I asked them to show me a diff were I was “being uncivil” they are usually unable to do so, because it isn’t true, this isn’t the first time such a thing has occurred. Once again Dennis, thanks for the feedback. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone "incivil" is a common gaslighting tactic used to put others on the defensive. I completely understand your personal concerns, as admin, it's something I have to be aware of, as it is pretty easy for me to become "cranky", being a cranky old man. What I have found is helpful is to go work on solo projects, gnoming on uncontroversial stuff where I could do so alone. Cleaning up and sourcing lists, working on food articles (I still do that), and other things that don't have heavy traffic, just to enjoy the work without the interference. I still do that. It all helps, and the low stress editing is good for the soul, so worth pursuing for a month or two at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I propose a siteban for Celestina007 for using mobile diffs with impunity, still! El_C 11:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• On second thought, too lenient. Global lock from orbit just to be sure. El_C 11:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

LMAO 😂😂😂. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 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.

General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

This announcement is a general comment from the Arbitration Committee concerning situations in which ArbCom grants an appeal from a sanction. While the vast majority of appeals that ArbCom receives are of Checkuser blocks, it also reviews sanctions imposed by ArbCom itself, Oversight blocks, and situations involving matters unsuitable for public discussion.

By granting an appeal, ArbCom is expressing that, based on the information available to it, it believes that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Granting an appeal does not necessarily mean that the initial decision that resulted in the sanction was incorrect at the time, unless the appeal announcement specifically says so. The rationales for granting appeals are, in general, the same as those arising from on-wiki process, but for reasons of privacy or jurisdiction, the appeal is heard by ArbCom.

An editor whose appeal was accepted by ArbCom remains subject to all applicable policies, guidelines, and community expectations, the same as any other editor. If there is new misconduct after the successful appeal, the editor may be (re)sanctioned no differently than any other editor. It is not necessary for sanctioning administrators to consult ArbCom in such cases, but if a question or concern arises, they are free to do so.

ArbCom will continue to consult with the community, or to have appeals posted for review by the community, in appropriate cases. Such consultations are of particular use where community members are likely to have relevant information or experience that may be unavailable to the arbitrators.

For the arbitration committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM/AWB

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser has a request backlog of over 2 weeks. Admin assistance with clearing the backlog? Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• also noted above #WP:PERM_is_backlogged. Not merging sections due to time gap, but no objection if someone else does Star Mississippi 18:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would genuinely like to know if I'm the only regular patrolling admin of that page, because I seem to be the only one that deals with it unless someone posts here. And yes, I've intentionally not been dealing with requests for the last fortnight because of this curiosity. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would gather many other admins are completely unfamiliar with the criteria and processes for those permissions. Would be happy to learn, but while I'll jump in at AfD, UAA, I'm completely out of my depth here. Star Mississippi 23:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Can't speak for anyone else, but I pretty much only feel comfortable acting on PCR (to paraphrase TonyBallioni, the criteria are basically "has a pulse"), confirmed, and ECP (and responses to the latter two usually consist of "no"). I've handled rollback a few times, but it's a real pain to decline those, since the declinees usually proceed to object and I don't really feel like having to deal with that. NPR and AC I avoid as a not-really-content heavy admin, and the rest I just don't know community norms for (though I do grant extendedmover from time to time on request). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'll go back to my regular semi-patrolling of the page, but for the record I pretty much take the "pulse" view with regard to requests; if there's a reasonable reason for wanting access (i.e. they actually have a plan), and there's no obvious idiocy in their talk or recent contribs, chances are good I'll accept. Idiots get their access revoked pretty quickly (see Special:PermaLink/1069001303 for two revocations within as many days) so it's not like anyone needs to be perfect. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  When I saw the first bat call, I started addressing some of the requests. One of those AWB approvals had to be revoked, I'll make an effort to patrol PERM more often. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I deliberately stopped doing PERM requests, as I found my standards were consistently higher than most of the other admins there and I was consistently declining requests other people would have accepted, which I don't feel is fair on the editors in question. I'll still very occasionally pop up there, but generally only to flag up when I notice potential problems rather than to grant or decline requests myself. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A plea to be less bureaucratic about unblock requests

I'm working my way through a socking case now. I'm not going to name names because I want this to be about the process, not the individual people. The user in question is obviously pissed and disgruntled and frustrated. It's also obvious that they're guilty of socking. They made several attempts to get unblocked. They filed a couple of UTRS tickets, and were blown off with, "You need to file an appeal on your talk page". Then, they appealed on their talk page and were blown off with, "No, you need to do this on the talk page of your original account". And then, "We can't hear this appeal because you didn't use the right template". I'd be pissed and disgruntled and frustrated too.

I'm fine with blocking people if they're a net negative to the project. But let's please not turn this into the Department of Motor Vehicles where you get sent to the back of the line if you didn't fill out the correct form. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, not becoming a bureaucratic morass is a laudable goal, but at least some of what you're describing seems to me to be justified. If someone is blocked for socking, and then makes an unblock using a sock, they're still sockiing, and have obviously not gotten the message that socking is not allowed. It seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to tell that user that they must use their original account, and to discount any unblock request made via sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• {{Uw-sockblock}} does not tell the user to make the unblock request on their master account. Are such users ever instructed to do so? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I found it in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, under "Sockpuppetry blocks". DanCherek (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  All the time, [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], etc. SN54129 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, we also have {{SockBlock}}. That template used to instruct users to go though UTRS, but does not any more. The templates should either state to appeal on their master account, or link directly to §Sockpuppetry blocks, if this specific situation is a problem. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  It still says to go through UTRS. Whether the block templates say to appeal on the talk page or go through UTRS depends on whether they're given the notalk parameter. —Cryptic 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not to put words in Bison X's mouth, but I'm pretty sure the point of their question was whether we tell the users to request with their main account before we taunt them for trying with a different one. —Cryptic 17:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's pretty much what I'm saying, but with Ivanvector's comment below, maybe the reviewing instructions for admins should be clarified instead. Either way, folks aren't on the same page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone through a number of SPI cases where we unblocked an editor using a sockpuppet account instead of their "master" account, for a variety of reasons that have included they lost their password, they made a new account because they didn't want to use the old one any more, they didn't know socking wasn't allowed but they'd rather use this one instead of that one, and also "fuck it I'm busy". I basically say "you can't use all of these accounts, which single one do you want to use from now on?" and then I unblock that account. I am reasonably certain that the world has not ended, and editors that are treated with dignity are much less likely to reoffend than those that are dragged through our bureaucracy for the bureaucracy's sake. I do understand why we have that restriction, but for someone who is appealing on the talk page of the account they're currently using, it would follow the spirit of the policy and be far less bureaucratic to just see the unblock appeal through, and then either unblock and tell them to use the master, or just unblock the account of their choosing. From a CU perspective: the "master" account is almost never the account we're comparing a suspected sock to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• This "appeal a block through the main account and not a sock" thing has always struck me a bit mysterious, and the rationale given by Beyond My Ken seems to be somewhat thin - do we really think that anyone is going to notice or care about the "message"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Each of the following reasons is relevant here:

1. This requirement may reveal previously unsuspected accounts by the same user, which in case of further violations would help us deal with it better.
2. A user can't expect us to unblock them if they are actually violating policy while asking us to.
3. Typically, socking is not the original block reason. Requesting from a sock will frequently both help them avoid the original reason while getting unblocked, and make users less likely to make the connection if they resume their disruption after they were unblocked.

2.55.22.56 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• There are some problems with allowing a sock to ditch their own account and get unblocked under a shiny new one that only has one block for socking, namely that the old account still has all the sanctions and you are letting them "disappear" those sanctions, unless you unblock or do a short block with a link back to that old account, so future admin have something to go search, in the event they are considering a block or other sanction. I don't care which account they use, but I do care that they are clearly linked to the master account, for if they sock again, it will on the Master's SPI page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Forgetting socking for a moment, I want to address the "We can't hear this appeal because you didn't use the right template" thing. I would hope blocking admins always watch the page where they have placed a block — preferably watch it a little more actively than just having it on their watchlist — and go there and put anything obviously intended as an unblock request into the appropriate template for the user. No? Templates are awkward. They're difficult to use. Maybe not to you template-nerds, but to people like me. I have indeed by now made myself quite the master of the unblock template in particular, but it's taken me years of doubt and embarrassment. (An unfamiliar template thrown up like a roadblock can still baffle me.) Really, guys, please try to imagine being the kind of user who finds templates hard, and help the user you blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

Question regarding admin alternate accounts

If an admin operates an alternate account, are they obligated to note the connection somewhere? If I, for instance, have an editing dispute with the alternate account, and the admin later blocks me, how can I know that the admin has a COI in regard to me if they haven't made the connection between the accounts public? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think WP:ALTACCN still governs, and the answer is no, there's no requirement to do so. The privacy "exemption", such as it is, makes the notification question thorny at best. That said, the behavior you're describing would (and I think has) get the administrator desysopped in the blink of an eye if discovered. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, but how would I (in particular) "discover" it in order to report it? Hopefully I'll never be blocked again for the rest of my Wikicareer, but if I am, do I have to ask the blocking admin "Are you XXXX that I was in an editing dispute with"? It seems that we're totally relying on the rectitude and honesty of the admin involved, but, unfortunately, people have faults, even some admins -- as difficult as that is to believe. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that be a private request to Arbcom who has signed all the fun privacy waivers and could run CU if warranted?Slywriter (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know who we're talking about here, but I think most admins declare any alternative accounts, or they're obvious, like Bbb23alt. It would be highly unusual for an admin to have an account they don't declare for privacy reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• That's kind of what I thought. I was taken aback when I found out that the account was the alternate of an unspecified admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• My take would be that an admin alt is subject to the same rules as any other alt account, and WP:INVOLVED would also apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Right, but how does anyone know that INVOLVED has been violated when the connection between the admin and the alternate account is hidden? It just seems problematic to allow admins to run cloaked alternated accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• That's a fair point, but the community developed the alternate account policy and the involved admin policy, and neither of them requires public disclosure of alt accounts. That being said, if you have reason to suspect such a thing has actually happened, an email to the committee would certainly be the right place to take that concern. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORCAUSE lists eight admins who were desysopped for socking, plus another 5 who were both desysopped and blocked for socking. Assuming I counted right. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

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.

---

A huge backlog is there at WP:AIV. Please look into the matter as soon as possible. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Backlog appears to be cleared out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore Yes but at the time I posted the message, there was a huge backlog. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it was more a statement to let any passing admins know it's been cleared up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 4 February 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.

Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees released a statement on the ratification process for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines were written by volunteer-staff drafting committees following community consultations.

The revised guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. There is a list of changes made to the guidelines after the enforcement draft guidelines review. Comments about the guidelines can be shared on the Enforcement Guidelines talk page on Meta-wiki.

To help to understand the guidelines and process, the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team will be hosting Conversation Hours on 4 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC, and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Join the conversation hours to speak with the UCoC project team and drafting committee members about the updated guidelines and voting process.

The timeline is available on Meta-wiki. The voting period is March 7 to 21. All eligible voters will have an opportunity to support or oppose the adoption of the Enforcement guidelines, and share why. See the voting information page for more details.

Many participants from across the movement have provided valuable input in these ongoing conversations. The UCoC and MSG teams want to thank the Drafting Committee and the community members for their contributions to this process.

Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Wikimedia Foundation

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• The community hasn't been given the opportunity to ratify the text of the Universal Code of Conduct. I do feel that we should decline to ratify the enforcement guidelines for the time being, until we've considered properly what the UCoC actually says.—S Marshall T/C 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a proper centralized discussion ongoing for that at the moment on enwiki (ie. to consider for how the Universal Code of Conduct relates to our policies and culture, and whether we're going to support it or push back against aspects of it?) If not it might be a good idea to start that. EDIT: Reviewing it, one thing leaps out at me with glaring intensity - the UCoC forbids The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation. If I'm reading it right, this would directly override a long-running dispute on WP:CONSENSUS over whether providing an explanation for reverts is required or just suggested (to be clear, I lean towards "required", so I don't object to this in terms of its practical effects, but I still think it is worth highlighting this and discussing its implications; it makes me uneasy to have a long-running dispute overruled by executive fiat, even if it was likely unintentional.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • I have already raised the point that at as currently written, RBI is arguably contrary to the UCOC. The rules seem to require us to engage in discussion with vandals and trolls and I don't think we have the resources to comply.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• S Marshall, I'm not seeing that. Why do you think that reverting or removing troll and vandal additions might be considered either arbitrary or unmotivated? Not even random vandal content removals are unmotivated, it's just that the motivation isn't compatible with the aims of the project. Actually it's hard to imagine what an unmotivated edit could possibly be. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it's hard to envisage a fully "unmotivated" edit and there are therefore advantages to changing that word. My concern is that we have clever trolls with time on their hands. They will be able to suck up a lot of time and attention by portraying our use of RBI as "arbitrary".—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Disputes about Philippine elections

JKLlamera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the nth time, I will report this user because he reverted an edit without a valid explanation in 2010 Antipolo local elections, and without reading the whole content of Template:Infobox election, wherein in the before_election section, it says that the incumbent official before the election must be included there, not two officials. I have warned the user but we'll let's see if he still revert it or not. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JKLlamera reported by User:NewManila2000 (Result:). Please choose one noticeboard or the other.

Talk page communication: Talk:2010 Antipolo local elections is still a red link. Where is your discussion?

User talk communication: Templated warning, Templated warning, Templated warning. That's not discussing.

What we have here is, failure to communicate. You both need to stop communicating using edit summaries and try a discussing on the talk page before escalating it to the noticeboards. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bison X: I will refrain myself from communicating via edit summaries from now on. Yeah, I choose to report it here. I have opened a discussion in the talk page of the article. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe we can mark this closed now that a 2 way conversation has begun on the article talk page and if it goes sour or does not remedy the situation another remedy can be sought then. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the section header from 'Hello' to 'Disputes about Philippine elections'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There are 242 elapsed discussions at WP:CFD. I've had a go at relisting some of the older ones, but I couldn't relist Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 24#Category:Murder victims by nationality because XfDcloser failed to load. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup

Hey all

I've got the article National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup in my watchlist. There seems to be an ongoing edit war, or something close to it, and I think it might be going under the radar. Could someone take a look please? Ta x

doktorb _words^deeds 12:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I fully protected this page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Should BLP be protected?

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems to be receiving frequent vandalism. Thought it was already protected. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Frequent? Much less than once a day, generally reverted within minutes if not seconds. Am I missing something? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: It's supposed to be semi-protected against editing and full protected against moving, Until recently it had been protected for over a decade. The protection level was upped in January due to an edit war, but the protecting administrator (User:BusterD) seems to have set an expiry date, hence it now has no protection at all. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jpgordon has now restored the indefinite semi on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and another admin has semiprotected the redirect at WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 5 February 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.

Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

As part of its ongoing discretionary sanctions modernization effort, the Arbitration Committee has resolved through a series of motions that:

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Senkaku islands"

The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Waldorf education"

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Scientology"

The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Landmark worldwide"

1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Article probation revocation"

Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Transcendental Meditation movement"

Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.

Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Obsolete probation-like sanctions"

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

Please request user "RDKKR" to provide attribution

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

Someone please request user RDKKR to provide attribution when translating from another wiki. The user is translating lots of article from bnwiki without providing any attribution. I requested the user but the user completing ignored it (probably because i'm not admin).

Also, some of user articles has copyvio problem. I think "User:RDKKR" is copy-pasting from internet or from Sengupta, Subodh Chandra and Bose, Anjali, Sansad Bangali Charitabhidhan (Biographical dictionary), Vol I. E.g. see [99], [100]. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I found an additional copyvio in Snehamoy Dutt. MER-C 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

MER-C, thanks. But the user still doing it (translating article without providing attribution). I requested twice but it seems the user is ignoring it. Yesterday, i added attributions to bunch of article translated by the user but i can't keep doing it. Can we address this issue please? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. MER-C 18:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to inform the user about this discussion and see how they react.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Per MER-C's link above, they're on a mobile device. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've dropped all the article (bar the two that are PROD/AfD) back to draft. I wonder if a partial block from mainspace would attract the editor's attention if they can't read their talkpage? Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:LBL

User @4nn1l2: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayşegül Coşkun called me a liar and said:"The nominator is just lying and is abusing language barrier." I want the user to check this slander--Persia ☘ 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This user indeed has difficulties with the concept of assuming good faith. No opinion about the subject of the AfD nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A) The user is abusing language barrier claiming that no reliable sources in Persian have covered the subject of the article, while there are myriads of such sources including but not limited to Imna, IranArt, MusicMa, EghtesadOnline, Etemad, Rooziato, Jam-e-Jam, Ensaf news, etc. And these are just Persian/Farsi sources. There are many Turkish sources as well, and here you can see the evaluation of them by a native speaker of Turkish. Among them is the highly-respected Hürriyet. One can say that these are not as high-quality as The New York Times or The Guardian, but that's Iran, and Iran has never had and probably will never have publications as high-quality as NYT. So if you are serious about Wikipedia:Systemic bias, you should accept Iranian sources too. B) The user is importing wikidrama from fawiki into enwiki. Hope you don't let that happen. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do I say the user is abusing language barrier? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beseh-Rahbari for example and the very strange statement that This organization is also one of the thousands of government organizations that are created for money laundering and other purposes. You may sell such statements to innocent English speakers who have no clue about Persian language and Iran in general, but you hardly can do so to another native speaker of Farsi. He just got one important article deleted on enwiki. I doubt that he can do the same at fawiki. See fa:بعثه رهبری, please. ‎ 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Is backdoor canvassing acceptable on enwiki? I hope not. See this link, please. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Slander and slander again! The validity or invalidity of sources in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayşegül Coşkun can be discussed!--Persia ☘ 06:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  No matter how many times you shout "slander", it's not going to help you much if you don't provide arguments. In the nomination page you said A credible source has not addressed this person and his works have not received much attention from the media and sources. [emphasis mine]. Either you have difficulty identifying reliable sources, or you are just outright lying. I have provided dozens of relibale Turkish sources at the AfD, and two native speakers of Turkish and two Westerners have been persuaded to !vote keep. Are you familiar with Hürriyet? Please, instead of posting comments at AN, go read that article. If you are not going to accept the highly-respected Hürriyet as a reliable source, I'm afraid we can't persuade you regardless of how much we try. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Both of you -- WP:AN is not the place to litigate the content of an article. Carrying out your argument here is not going to persuade admins one way or another. In addition, throwing around terms like "liar" and "slander" is not conducive to a civil discussion of any sort. At this point, you are both best to just let uninvolved admins review the situation rather than attempting to continue waging a verbal war over this AFD.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing numerous "Shooting of" articles to "Killing of" in a bulk move

Hi, I wanted to ask an admin to take a look at this ongoing move request (Here). Generally, an article's name is discussed one at a time and then moved (or not) depending on the consensus. One of the articles included in this bulk move, Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, has been highly contentious and in my opinion should be discussed by itself. Are bulk moves a thing? I haven't seen it before. I'll notify the editor who started the move discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: Yes, it is a valid procedure to request multiple page moves in bulk: see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Mz7 (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

COI and legal threats at Matthew Parish

I've applied page protection to an article as a result of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Matthew Parish. I'd appreciate another pair of admin eyes on the case as edit summaries have included legal threats. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

For the curious: the blocked IP address traces to a Serbian cable ISP called SBBNET. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting Hemiauchenia's COI and BLP concerns about Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair, which contains POV in Wikipedia's voice such as "had bizarrely convicted one of the English lawyers involved". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bamber Gascoigne

As Bamber Gascoigne (talk · contribs) used Wikipedia (but hasn't done so for some time), should we follow the regular process for deceased Wikipedians? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User page protected. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

IP Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1200:48EB:7C11:D5B6:20FE:864C has left two messages on my talk page. The first one of the day was a threat. Based on history, likely the same person editing from User:2A01:36D:1200:4D41:D9E6:E7D4:9D38:6C3C, User:87.97.21.203, User:91.82.169.34 and others. Asher Heimermann (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not block evasion if you've been unblocked? --2A01:36D:1200:48EB:7C11:D5B6:20FE:864C (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be the same editor. NinjaRobotPirate has blocked the /48 range recently. I'll reblock the range but (Redacted). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also commenting to point to User talk:2A01:36D:1200:4D41:D9E6:E7D4:9D38:6C3C where the most recent block was by HighInBC and unblock requests were handled by Yamla, Tide rolls, Daniel Case, and SQL. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quonia (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool: rollout slightly delayed

As stated in the latest Administrators' Newsletter, the rollout of the Reply Tool as an 'opt-out- feature to every single desktop user on English Wikipedia was initially intended for 7th February 2022, However, after discussions at WP:VPP, its rollout has been held back for a short while so that as many users as possible can be made aware of this feature, and for brief explanatory notes to be provided on Help pages and for volunteers at other help fora to be made aware of it.

This new section about the new Reply Tool has now been added to Help:Talk pages. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Page Numbers

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.

---

Moved to WP:VPI#Page Numbers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 February 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.

Full blocking over a partial block

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202673

Hey y'all, apologies if this has been raised before—it appears if a user is partially blocked (e.g. 1 year from draftspace), and an admin fully blocks "over the top" of this (e.g. 1 week), once the full block expires in a week all blocks are removed. This seems to be because a change from a partial block to a full block is just that—a change and not a "new block". I realised this whilst blocking 76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a moment ago.

So, I have two questions:

• Would it make sense for a block to "revert" to the previous partial block once a full block has expired?
• And if so, would we need a RfC to get consensus to ask WMF if this is possible?

If this has already been discussed and my searching fell short, please feel free to {{trout}} and point me to it Many thanks! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think you're after phab:T194697 and phab:T202673 - there has been no action on either since 2020 it seems. I agree that the current behaviour is... unintuitive, but fixing it is probably non-trivial. That said, a bump to the phab tasks probably wouldn't go amiss. :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Firefly: It almost certainly would be a non-trivial thing to "fix" technically... maybe an adminbot could reinstate the partial block after the full block expired? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime not a bad idea, although consensus for a blocking bot may be hard to get, even if it were only patching MediaWiki deficiencies. Perhaps something for VPIL? I'd probably support such a bot FWIW firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  For the reasons expressed well below I wonder if consensus would be hard to get. I would support such a bot regardless. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• If true, it sounds like a technical limitation rather than one the community needs to (re)visit; I think we accept admin discretion to allow, in this case, two parallel blocks but also prefer that a subsequent admin action (in this case, the full block) does not overturn the previous one (the PB). We trust our admins to use both tools as and when required, and yet this overturns a previous admin action without discussion,which is strongly advised against. And more, it then cannot be reinstated per WP:WHEEL. An odd loophole to say the least. SN54129 13:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• It's basically a variant of the long-term semiprotect/short-term ECP bump issue. It is not viewed as wheel-warring to reimplement the semi-protect after all protections lapse, and nor would it be here if someone remembered. Obviously it not lapsing would be highly preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• As noted above, phab:T202673 / phab:T194697 is the back-end fix for this, we don't need community consensus to unblock those, as they don't change any workflows. If that function ever becomes available, we may choose to make new policies/procedures/guidance on their use. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• With IPs you can usually add a new block by a different name - explicitly blocking the /32 would work as a separate block. The /31 would probably work here as well. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Restrict user page moves

We have a filter or technical restriction (not sure which) which prevents new users from editing other users' user pages. Can we get one that prevents moving other users' user pages, perhaps restricting user page moves to pagemovers and admins? Quite a lot of this type of vandalism showed up in my watchlist overnight. Personally I can't think of any good reason that any user needs to move another user's user page, other than things which already require advanced permissions anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a new user need to have the ability to move other user pages any more than they need edit them. There's no encyclopedic value in their being able to. SN54129 14:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

New users may move their userpage to draftspace if they created an article, but as this does not effect moving your own userpage that should be fine. For more experienced users, such as AfC reviewers, moving a submitted draft to draftspace is a use case. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Some not clever sockpuppeteers might give themselves away by moving subpages of their previous account. Also, users vandalising user space are not vandalising the encyclopedia. (Yes, my userpage is unlocked). —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: can you provide an example logid or diff? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not bother the users affected more than necessary, but check the contributions and filter logs for Jumbe and Bobbish the radish. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: thanks, we do have Special:AbuseFilter/803 which I thought may need a tweak, however your example users above are not "new users". It should be possible to make another similar filter that blocks even more users from moving "base userpages"/"base usertalk pages" perhaps. This would be basically a blanket move protection across that namespace, so it should have an RfC related to the Wikipedia:Protection policy (along the lines of what is in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_pages). If you are seeing this tpe of problem with "new users" please give me an example for further review. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe worth noting the accounts were probably also compromised. Page moves also use a different namespace check to that found in 803. We have a (deleted) edit filter 123 (hist · log) which shows a reasonable sample of moves. Other moves can be found in Special:Log/move. I've always assumed that admins who haven't added protection are using it as a honeypot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I would say that the accounts were almost certainly compromised, Jumbee had their password on their user talk page. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And the other account had their password on their talk page too. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This looks targeted at specific admins, and should better be answered by something targeted (if the admins want, they could move protect their userpages), not a broad measure with possibly unintended consequences. —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a way to make an editfilter exempt off a pseudo-userright? AfC reviewers do this a lot, moving userpages to draft status, and obviously there are a number who are not PMs or admins. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: if you mean something like '$USERNAME_OF_ACTOR IS NOT IN "freeform text" of some other page, no. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this happen often? If not, then maybe it's a good way of catching bad guys by letting them move other's userpages, as it shows up a massive red flag for WP:NOTHERE. If they can't do the move, then it could make their activity harder to spot. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Need assistant

It would be great if someone assist here (as i am not sure what should i do next). Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, at first glance, and if nothing else, their team meetings seem good fun, if slightly salad-based  :) SN54129 20:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান, and the admins, I take COI editing very seriously myself. As I described the situation, if it counts as COI, I will disclose it. (Technically I already did, but with a template and everything). And regarding payments, no, I have not been paid by the org. Regards. Tame (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamingimpala: on a more serious note, the point about a conflict of interest is not whether you have been paid—or receiving any other remuneration—but whether you have any kind of connection whatsoever withn the organisation. Hope thatb clarifies our sometimes obscure terminology! SN54129 20:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm disclosing a COI on the article's talk page with a template. Tame (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান, @Serial Number 54129, We cool? Or is there something else to be done? Ready to do whatever wiki obscure terminology requires. Regards. Tame (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Here is another example: on 1 January 2022, at 10:23 someone uploaded File:Fadew-Inc-Logo.png and 14 minutes later you added that here (article created by you & later you translated that into 4 other languages that you probably don't speak). I am suspecting you are not disclosing lots of this type of connections. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান, Every page which were connected to the wikidata item page often has a commons category, and I always keep them on my watchlist, so if files are uploaded, I get emails, I add them to wiki. Sometimes they might seem too sus for a coincident. Regards. Tame (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Commons category wasn't connected to wikidata until 15 January. What you said above isn't true. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to the logo, it was a comment in general. Tame (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান, PS: And I create a lot of articles cross wikis which I personally like. Tame (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, although not a polygot, I do know the basics of multiple languages. Regards. Tame (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

from this to https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog-details/631411 (Redacted) interesting. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We need the ARS

No, not that ARS. I'm talking Admin Rescue Squadron. At this point Timwi is all but desysopped. Which is a shame. I'm not defending their actions, just lamenting the fact that we can't afford to be losing admins, and yet here we are.

It would be useful if there was some process by which we could find underperforming admins and get them some mentoring and hand-holding before things hit the fan. "Hi, I notice you're an admin, but aren't very active. Is there anything I can do to help you get back into the swing of things?" The emphasis being on friendly support and (re)education, rather than accusation and punishment. By the time they do something inappropriate and get dragged to some noticeboard, it's too late. They've already been backed into a corner and getting defensive. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that quite often in these cases (see also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama) these are legacy admins who have hardly used the tools for years and then sudenly pop up and do something daft with them. Given that our desysop for inactivity rules are so lax, this will inevitably keep happening. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Cases of legacy admins who are largely inactive is exactly what I was thinking of. I'm sure I'm living in a fantasy world, but I envision the next step after the ice breaker I quoted above being something like, "I see the last time you were really active as an admin was <insert year>. Perhaps I could give you a quick rundown on some of the policies which have changed since then?" -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that would be welcomed by these folks. The got the tools early on, they only use them sparingly, and often for their own convenince, and they aren't interested in becoming "active" admin or even socializing to the degree that it would require. These people tend to keep to themselves in their little world, which is why they don't get noticed until way after they started using the tools improperly. Nothing against trying, I suppose, but I wouldn't expect too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  If that is the case, then should there not be a "spring cleaning" of sorts of the inactive/seldom active admin list? Even from a security perspective it's not a great idea to have a bunch of people who have permissions they don't use, and offwiki removing such unused (and therefore unnecessary) permissions would be pretty standard in a decent security audit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why is it a shame? There’s a difference between an admin who who still does stuff but perhaps not enough to really be up to speed on things and occasionally screws up as a result (not this case) and an admin who has checked out for years, decades and occasionally swings back in to wreak havoc because they are fundamentally at variance with WP norms. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is a shame that we lost the opportunity to rejuvenate and reeducate somebody who had checked out for years. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  All the hand-wringing over at the Arbcom page comes across as very strange to me. What’s being lost here? What benefit has there been to WP in living memory for this user having the tools? None. If that were an analogous run-of-the mill banning discussion there would be an open and shut ‘net negative’ conclusion. But somehow because it’s about someone losing the tools it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. I don’t get it. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I recall Uninvited Company a couple of years ago updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators and went to the talk pages of several admins who were making only token edits, to try to get them to either re-engage with the project or go to WP:BN, but didn't get much of a response. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I was not previously aware of that project, thanks for the link. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Are you really losing admins when the admins in question haven't done any admin work in years? Desysopping them won't reduce the amount of admin work being done by the ones who are actually active. Silverseren^C 21:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• @RoySmith: I share your fantasy. I'm sure there's a way to identify those at risk. There should not be so many as to make approaching them onerous or overwhelming. During my hiatus, I got intermittent queries about remaining, and one day I returned. I think I've been more productive since my return than I had been during the time of my mom's illness. The goal is to rekindle in them the fire that once burned in their hearts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• What we need is an RfA process that you don't need to be superhuman to pass. Reyk _YO! 22:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  This. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've come and go several times depending on my life at the time. I wouldn't dream of doing anything without checking what the current standards were. Secretlondon (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I know that the idea that we're under-adminstrated has become an accepted fact in recent years (strange that other Wikis seem to do with many less admins per editor than we do, but we're the Wiki that has too few admins), but I really would like to see some evidence that "we cant afford to be losing admins" as a general statement. And, as someone above points out, why can't we afford to lose an admin with so few admin actions per years as the one in question has made? Bringing legacy admins back up to speed is a fine idea, as long as the time and effort put into is is going to pay off with an active admin, and the legacy admin doesn't simply fall back into the background.
  On the other hand, I agree that RfA is fundamentally broken in numerous ways. Perhaps we need a system where anyone who asks to be an admin can be immediately granted a bit good for 6 months by bureaucrats or a vote among admins only, and after 6 months that status as an admin has to be approved by the community as a whole. If they misbehave during the 6 month period, the bit is immediately taken away by the 'crats, other admins acting collectively, or ArbCom. Just a thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Or 3 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  • While that is an interesting idea, I can hear the screams now about how the only gateway to be admin is to be buddies with the admin first, and to a large degree, that would be true. Old boys club. Maybe changing it to a straight vote and all comments on the talk page? I dunno. I do know this, from what I see, RFA isn't as broken as it was in 2012 when I ran, in my opinion. I know many good editors that would make great admin, and I've asked. They just aren't interested. It isn't a prestigious job. At least one or two days a week, I wish I wasn't one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    Both limited adminship and an initial (probationary) adminship failed to pass at WP:RFA2021 though the close indicated that there might be a forumulation of intial (probationary) adminship that could have consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    That doesn't surprise me. The Wikipdia community has evolved into a very conservative (small "c") one which clearly doesn't like change. About the only time major changes are made is when the WMF steps in, and then it usuallh happens with less community input than is ideal, and is instituted over vociferous community complaints. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Beyond My Ken: My proposal that Barkeep mentioned is (IMNSHO) a very good idea, and it got majority support. I am very busy IRL but I think that it deserves to be lightly workshopped and re-introduced as an independent VP proposal, ideally with multiple initial endorsers. Let me know if you'd be interested in pursuing such a thing. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• What even motivates someone to become or stay as an admin? The job looks quite demanding; there are probably much easier ways of volunteering one's time. CurryCity (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • And I hear the pay ain't so great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Although these days, I did at least get this stupid actually quite comfortable t-shirt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    I'm still waiting for mine! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• We are definitely going to need more admins, if not now then in the not too distant future as the number of active admins keeps declining. But it's a poor reflection on the state of RfA that "people who've barely edited in a decade" is one of the most promising sources of active admins, just because they got through RfA when it was easier. Currently active experienced non-admins who work in relevant areas would surely be a far better source. Hut 8.5 13:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  If we can't get fresh blood, reactivating dinosaurs may be the next best option, but it is at best a temporary fix (I'd like to see a chart of the average account age of admins over time compared to that of active users. I guess despite our desysopping of inactives, the average account age still goes up by more than ten months every year). —Kusma (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would be very much out of admin commission had the community at the time not been insanely forgiving, both for stupid renewals and, later, even stupider mistakes. That said, the basic maxim of INVOLVED hasn't really changed since 2005 so at least, mercifully, I didn't stumble there. El_C 13:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• I happen to be driving by today, so I've had a read of the ArbCom case and here's how it looks to me... If Timwi had responded along the lines of "I'm out of touch with policy and admin expectations, but I'll catch up on them and will be more careful" then I think there would be no threat of desysop. And I, for one, would be fine with that. But his reaction appears to be along the lines of "I knew the rules, but I chose to defy them to make a point". I might be misunderstading what he meant, but if that is the gist of it, then I am very much not fine with it and a desysop is needed consideration of possible desysop is appropriate. (And if I do misunderstand, I hope he will clarify while there's still time.) It's all very well saying we can't afford to lose admins, but are we so desperate that we must retain admins who openly reject policy and community standards? I don't think so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC) (Modified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC))
• At this point I believe we should just let it fail. The community will make the changes needed when the wheels come off; but until that day, they won't. When the insufficient-admins-crisis lands we'll dust off the ideas that Barkeep49 helped us reach and put them into effect.—S Marshall T/C 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  It will fail too slowly for people to really notice. And then they'll get used to three month AfD backlogs. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have term limits and then a simple retention election (similar to how some judges are elected/kept in the US). This way if someone hasn't been active for years, they'd simply lose their mop or not get retained. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: This is closely related to the proposal that received majority support (but did not pass) at the RfC that Barkeep mentioned above. I extend to you the invitation I made to Beyond My Ken above. --JBL (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I floted that idea ten years ago, back in 2012: [101]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

When the project was young nobody thought about what happens after 7 or 10 years when an admin becomes out of touch with the slow evolution of community norms. I think it best to have another RfC to implement an admin term limit. This solves two problems: (1) low activity admins slowly becoming incompetent at the job, and (2) admins who feel impervious because they have a lifetime appointment. If everyone who is concerned about the loss of admins votes support at RfA, more people might pass. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Having read through the various pages involved (except for the now re-deleted page), this incident makes it quite clear that we do not need an admin rescue squadron. At this time, it appears the ARC case will result merely in a firm warning. Whether this is the right or wrong outcome, it seems pretty indisputable that any regular editor who displayed the lack of familiarity with WP:GNG and WP:RS involved in these events would have their RFA rejected by the community almost immediately. How many support votes would be given with a rationale that they could have the tools if they promise not to use them and also promise to familiarise themselves with our policies and guidelines at a later point? I don't raise this to berate any individual positions; I believe I understand where the different viewpoints originate, and they are from good places. However, this process and the discussions involved show in stark relief the substantial gulf that exists between admins and non-admins. CMD (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Timwi appears to be off the hook. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Admin release notes?

Do we currently have any place that lists policy changes that admins need to be aware of? In the software world, they call these Release notes. I know about WP:ANEWS, but it's not quite what I had in mind because it's too verbose. As an example, the current issue only contains one item ("A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed") which might be relevant to future me if I took a couple years off and wanted to get back up to speed, and I'm not even sure that would be required reading. The previous issue is a bit beefier; it tells me that WP:Administrative action review was created. It also tells me that I no longer have autopatrolled, but that's less critical since not knowing it really isn't going to get me into any trouble. The other problem with ANEWS is that it only goes back to 2017. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a page. It may exist, but this page probably isn't well linked. Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list is the closest thing I could find, as it lists policies that admins should be aware of. However, this page is not anywhere near close to what you were looking for.

Creating this page is likely to be complicated, especially if it is desired to have the page backfilled with changes. I say this because to ensure the list is comprehensive enough will lead to a long list. Although concise summaries of changes can be made, for long term inactive admins this list may not be comprehensive enough. As such for admins who have been inactive in using their tools for a long time, I would probably suggest that they re-review the relevant policies and guidelines before performing actions.

This list, however difficult to create and backfill, I see as being a benefit. By presenting a concise list of changes to policies the barrier to re-entering being an admin from a period of inactivity is lowered. At the moment inactive admins probably need to re-review all relevant policies before performing actions, which may deter inactive admins from coming back to activity. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of deletion template

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

---

An article written almost exclusively by a single editor was recently tagged for deletion here. Four hours later, that sole author removed the deletion template in this edit, without any resolution of the issues raised in the deletion template. I'm not familiar with how the deletion process works, but this seems inappropriate, at least, and disruptive in substance. The same editor has IMO been introducing lots of POV and primary sourced Marxist content in several economics-related articles, but that is a matter for another day. What should be done about the AfD? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Any editor, even the article creator, can remove a WP:PROD nomination (unlike an WP:AfD tag) and doing so is not inappropriate or disruptive. In this case, the prod was removed by an IP editor. You can nominate the article for AfD but nobody can propose deletion by PROD again. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

I'd like to state that I read the text of the template before I removed it. It said very explicitly that ". You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."

I wrote why I objected to the deletion in my edit summary. I took the improvent of SPECIFICO into account and think it helped the article forward. I would greatly appreciate if the one IP adress that seems fixated on removing the page would instead contribute to the development of the page, to further knowledge for all.

Thank you for your time.

Pauloroboto (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the removal is perfectly valid. There's nothing actionable here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If any editor in her sole discretion is permitted to remove the template, then that seems correct. Just to wrap this up, there was minimal improvement to the article in the single edit between the template and its removal, and It's hard to believe that the editor who removed it would assess that the issue raised in the template was entirely or even substantially addressed by my single deletion of UNDUE content. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to have improved the article to remove a PROD. However the next step is just to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. There's no issues with there being a contested PROD, so AfD is definitely the next step. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue sigs! El_C 06:35, 11 February 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.

Uncommunicative editor

E.A.FRIM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is mostly adding links to commonly known words along with a bunch of unnecessary italics and bolding, against the relevant MOS. I left an explanation on their talk page, followed by template warnings, but no replies. I remember there being an odd sock farm that would do something similar; jump between articles adding useless links and other "cosmetic changes" at an almost bot like rate, ignoring all talk page messages and only responding once they were blocked. Could be something similar. – ².O.^Boxing 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am minded to block for a couple of days under WP:ENGAGE. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds appropriate. They seem to be editing daily and their edits aren't marked with the IOS tag, so it should grab their attention. – ².O.^Boxing 17:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, User:Bbb23 has issued an indefinite block under WP:NOTHERE, so I guess we're done. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Unjustified Revision Delete

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 November 2019, ST47 deleted most of the comments in the Manchester High School (Virginia) talk page with no explanation. Viewing https://web.archive.org/web/20171102074937/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_High_School_(Virginia) in the Wayback Machine shows comments making up 11 of the 19 deleted edits, none of which come close to fitting WP:REVDEL criteria. The 19 edits included six years of discussion that had stopped almost four years prior, and "RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material".

While the other six comments may well have reached REVDEL worthy status, I can't see any way this could justify deleting the other 11 edits. Hence, I request this REVDEL be subject to review. 27.33.119.160 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your interest is here, with over two year old edits that you have already seen elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Other IP, the reasons for revision deletion are kept in the revision deletion log, not the talk page history [102]. In this case they were deleted for "Disclosure of non-public identifying or personal information". 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 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.

NPOV discussion on Peter A. McCullough

This page seems to have become grounds for a nasty edit war recently. A user has noted that and put a POV warning in that page, which then lead to a pretty heated argument in the talk page. This is a topic in and on itself already, but there's also the issue that the user Firefangledfeathers, that was apparently involved in the edit war, decided to be the arbiter of that discussion and closed it. I decided to discuss it with said user in his/her talk page, but it was to no avail. The article is still quite controversial as of now so I think some administrator intervention is needed, it would also be good to keep the discussions going instead of arbitrarily closing them out of dislike of others opinions. 156.215.54.243 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, but this report is a nothingburger. The "edit war" was a user insiting on making unsourced edits and, more importantly, changing quotes from sources so that they no longer match the source material. Also, I assume OP is referring to this talk page section, which was indeed closed by FirefangledFeathers, but they have their dates wrong; that close was made on January 12th, several weeks *before* the recent changes, and ionvolved a completely different editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The article's under WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBAP2 DS, and thus so is the talk page. We've been dealing with a lot of people who've been trying to push some talking points from his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast pretty much since that episode started. From what I've been seeing (note that I am involved, against my better judgment) a lot of the editors pushing for minimising the (cited) misinformation claims are drive-bys that don't bother to attempt to defend their position. A group which appears to include this IP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion and would be happy to answer questions or provide info. I share Writ Keeper and Jéské Couriano's view about what's been going on at that article. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Arguably, we could justify EC protection on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  (uninvolved) I think EC protection is warranted. ––FormalDude talk 00:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I added the EC protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  You forgot to log it, Ymblanter. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I did not think of arbitration enforcement (we can ec protect any article if semi-protection has proven inefficient), but I can log it indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I get confused by that as well, since EC is much more common and we can use it on articles that don't fall under Arb restrictions now. But I see that they are still logged, I assume it is because it still falls under AE type of action, being an article that clearly does (BLP). My guess is that it makes it easy to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but shouldn't this be logged as WP:COVIDDS rather than WP:ARBBLP? My own approach is that a bio needs to basically fail any other DS coverage, and also be special in some way, for me to log its protection as ARBBLP. I think my last one was Gina Carano, but again, I don't think it really matters. Anyway, for just straight BLP-whatever (from pc to ECP), I usually just choose the WP:BLP option in the protection drop-down menu. It's easier, plus, I already spam WP:AEL so heavily, so... El_C 23:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I'm 2 days late to the conversation. GG. Carry on. El_C 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it could go either way, but in order of importance, I think BLP trumps COVID in the potential damage and the particular circumstances. Either would probably be fine, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's about importance as much as it is about finding the right fit. I usually log AE actions of COVID-focused bios as, well, WP:COVIDDS. Just as earlier today I logged a bio involving a prominent Indian ultranationalist as WP:ARBIND (AEL diff), and so on and so forth. But, again, so long as it's logged, somewhere, I don't think it matters all that much. El_C 11:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Dennis, not trying to be a dick (it just comes naturally to me!) — I actually think you've been doing a fine job at WP:AE, so kudos and keep up the good work! El_C 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

For intractable differences of opinions and conduct both on- and off-wiki, the Committee resolves that HazelBasil (talk · contribs) and SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) are placed under an indefinite interaction ban, pursuant to the standard exceptions. This also precludes SquareInARoundHole from editing the Ashley Gjøvik article.

In addition, for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

remove redirect from EnerNOC to Enel X

EnerNOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m Pamela D'Auria from Enel X, I’m contacting you to discuss an issue regarding Enel X and EnerNOC here on Wikipedia. Initially there was an EnerNOC page created in August 2007 and changed shortly after (October) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC. You can watch this here:

15:35, 13 August 2007‎ Dkhwang talk contribs‎  1,541 bytes  1,541‎  ←Created page with '{{Infobox_Company | company_name = EnerNOC, Inc. | company_logo = 150px|ENOC logo| company_type = Public ...'
17:18, 3 October 2007 diff hist  0‎  m Talk:Enel X ‎ moved Talk:Enernoc to Talk:EnerNOC: appropriate company naming convention
17:18, 3 October 2007 diff hist   21‎  N Enernoc ‎ moved Enernoc to EnerNOC: appropriate company naming convention

The page is still accessible through the Wayback Machine, the version is dated 24 December 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20170308065752/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC. The issue then arose in March 2020, when a redirect was created without any reason from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enel_X. This was done despite the fact that they are not the same company. EnerNOC is indeed only one of the acquisitions made by the Enel Group. Below you can find some sources confirming this:

• https://corporate.enelx.com/en/stories/2017/08/enernoc-global-leader-in-smart-energy-management
• https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/t5p4ccjwclzx6w_no9yj4g2
• https://theenergyst.com/italian-utility-enel-buys-dsr-aggregator-enernoc/
• https://www.enelx.com/content/dam/enel-x-na/press-releases/2017/ENOC_News_2017_8_7_General_Releases_0.pdf

Subsequently the page was distorted, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enel_X&diff=944737638&oldid=930238714

• 16:47, 9 March 2020‎ 151.44.194.251 talk‎ 14,740 bytes 5,646‎ various updates and corrections to eliminate warnings undo Tag: COI template removed

I look forward to your kind reply to resolve this issue. Thank you --Dauripam (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt my memory is good enough to shed much light on this beyond what I left in edit summaries three years ago, but I'm not sure if EnerNOC and EnelX are independently notable to the point that there ought to be two separate pages (which I assume is what is being requested here?) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the argument is that these are two different company and presumably there should be two different pages. The best course of action would be probably to write Draft:EnerNOC and submit it for AfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:@Ymblanter: Essentially, Enel X and EnerNOC are two completely separate entities and have nothing to do with each other. More specifically, Enel X acquired EnerNOC in 2017 and this is confirmed by the sources provided, here are some examples: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/t5p4ccjwclzx6w_no9yj4g2, https://theenergyst.com/italian-utility-enel-buys-dsr-aggregator-enernoc/. It should be noted that the current Enel X is not only the result of this acquisition, but also of several other operations carried out by the company. For this reason, it is limiting to consider Enel X as the result of a historical evolution of EnerNOC, as this does not correspond to reality. Therefore the point is not to be independently notable to be two separate pages, since the independence of Enel X and EnerNOC is already an established fact. In conclusion, the two companies cannot be presented as a single page because this would be a mistake. Thank you.--Dauripam (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:@Ymblanter: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.80.174 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Botched XfD closure

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#Recording artists as rename all [5 categories] using XfDcloser, but the result wasn't processed automatically. Please add the 5 nominated categories to WP:CFDW, so that a bot can handle the request. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Category:Lists of artists by record label to Category:Lists of recording artists by label
• Category:Lists of current artists by record label to Category:Lists of current recording artists by label
• Category:Artists by Japanese record label to Category:Recording artists by Japanese label
• Category:Artists by Philippine record label to Category:Recording artists by Philippine label
• Category:Artists by South Korean record label to Category:Recording artists by South Korean label

   Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @LaundryPizza03: XFDcloser is currently not really useful for CFDs unless the outcome is Keep or No consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

Question about page protection

Hello, I'm not sure where to put this question but it seems like it would go unnoticed on a policy talk page. But I just deleted Dauren Mussa, a page whose log says that it was indefinitely protected from creation from anyone but administrators. I've run into this a few times lately. A page is protected but somehow a new page is created or moved there by someone who should not be able to do so. Does the protection somehow get deleted with the page? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick check at the logs reveals that the page had been created at Draft:Dauren Mussa, then moved by a non-admin. 2.55.22.226 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The above is partially correct. Draft:Dauren Mussa was moved to Mussa Dauren. Subsequently, the protection here was nullified when ONUnicorn (who is an admin) moved the most recent (now deleted) version of the article from Mussa Dauren to this title. At any rate, I've resalted. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It was created at the backwards version of the name. I came across it in the speedy queue and thought it would be better if it was at the correct name, even deleted so all the history would be in one place, so I moved it. I did not think it qualified for G4 as it was not "substantially identical to the deleted version". I had not finished evaluating the other speedy tag (G11) when I had to leave, so I did not delete it. I did salt the alternate title. I didn't realize that in moving it I had somehow unprotected it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't sweat it; it's basically another variation of the long-term semiprotect/short-term ECP bump (see thread directly below). One action done, followed by the other, and the first one is negated by the second one. We just need to take care to re-protect after deletion, or re-protect after a move etc. Lectonar (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the draft was created by a user subsequently blocked as a confirmed sock; it was moved from the draftspace by a user subsequently blocked as a suspected sock of the same user. 2.55.20.180 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Lectonar below (and a test of his theory), it does seem that the create protection is removed once something is recreated at the protected title, and that it needs to be reprotected if said page is deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I see it, if you protect the page before you delete it, the protection is nullified by the deletion. Once it is deleted, and you go to "protect page", the only protect option left is create-protection at whatever level you desire. The protection seems to die with the deletion. Lectonar (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the explanations. I typically protect up to extended confirmed so that a more experienced editor has the possibility to create a better version of previously deleted articles but I've found some new editors get around this protection by asking AFC reviewers or other editors to move articles for them. I don't think many editors, even very experienced ones, think to check the status of the page that a draft or article is moved TO before moving it to see if it has any kind of protection on it. I know that I rarely do but then I don't receive requests from new editors to move pages for them. I think reviewers should be properly suspicious of requests to move pages from editors who possess the ability to do it themselves but who aren't extended confirmed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup

Hi.

3798 is the magic number. Last week the above article was protected because editors, one of which is an IP kept adding and removing content with my Watchlist showing a constant change between plus and minus 3798. Well the protection has ended and the magic number is back via an IP account.

I'm not an admin so my powers are limited. Just a heads up about warring faction doktorb _words^deeds 06:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Delmar Burke School

The blocking of an IP that has been adding a lot of Wikipedia-style content has been excessive and needs review please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:21E7:A4CA:EB07:8D84 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:AAB to appeal the block- which is for a specific page only. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Unclosed Jacobin discussion

There is a discussion in the archive in which there seemed to be consensus to overturn the RfC closure but no one has yet done anything about it. Please do something about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have closed the AN discussion as clear consensus to overturn the RfC close and allow for a reclose. I'll leave it to others to perform that reclose, and it may be listed at WP:CR if no one initially takes it up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reclosed the original discussion. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Umm... we have a problem with Special:PasswordReset

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109909

I big "hello" to my fellow colleagues and editors this fine Saturday! I hope everyone who reads this discussion is doing well, staying safe, keeping healthy, and are enjoying their weekend so far! :-)

TL;DR - All IP address blocks (whether applied to an individual IP address or range), regardless of the block settings applied (I found this issue with an IP range block with account creation still allowed), currently result in access to Special:PasswordReset being denied to non-logged in users that are from within that blocked IP address or range.

Long version - I'm here to bring a very interesting issue to the attention of my fellow knights at the round table here. I was poking around on IRC for a bit while taking a break from patrolling logs and updating some AbuseFilter code, and I saw that an anonymous editor was currently in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel waiting for help from someone and with getting their password reset to their Wikipedia account.

The user stated that their IP address was currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, that they were trying to use Special:PasswordReset to recover the password to their account so that they could log in to edit, and were being disallowed from accessing the page and that the error stated that it was due to their current IP block. Writ Keeper had just started to respond to them when I did as well. This spiked my curiosity; as far as I remembered from technical knowledge and experience with helping editors in the past with similar situations, only IP address or range blocks that were set as hard blocks (no account creation, and no editing from existing accounts unless they are IP block exempt) would have access to the account recovery page restricted by users current under that range. I looked at the IP address that they were using to connect to IRC, and nothing came back at all; no range blocks - nothing. I wanted to keep digging and figure out what was going on....

After I had the user visit whatismyip.com and respond to us with their public IPv6 address, I went and looked for any current IP or range blocks that were affecting it. This is where things got much more interesting (and perhaps even concerning to me)... Their IPv6 address was currently affected by a range block. However, not only was it not a hard block that disallowed editing by existing accounts without IPBE, it didn't even have the account creation restriction set. It was a completely soft block that was placed only to disallow editing by anonymous users; it didn't restrict them from creating accounts. "Umm... what?!! am I seriously seeing what I think I'm seeing?", I asked myself...

From there, I told myself, "Okay, this is unlikely the problem, but why not?... Let's just temporarily unblock the IP range, have the user try accessing the special page again, and - if anything, I'll know for sure that this isn't the problem." I went and unblocked the IP address range and with an explanation that it was temporary, and in order to have a user who's requesting assistance test something to see if we might have an issue." I had the user try accessing the special page and enter username into the field. The user responded just a few moments later that it was now working. He could now access Special:PasswordReset and recover his account. I went back and re-instated the original block and set back to both its original parameters and duration.

So... It goes without saying... we obviously have a problem here. I do not believe that we should be restricting users from accessing Special:PasswordReset if their IP address or range is currently blocked, and where both account creation and the editing by logged-in accounts are set to be disallowed (a hard IP address block). In situations where less-restrictive blocks are currently applied, users should not be restricted from being able to recover their account so that they can log in and edit. In this situation, neither flag was set, and the user couldn't recover their account until I temporarily lifted the block for them.

Yeah.... I think we should discuss this, and if the community agrees that this is not how thing should be... we should facilitate filing a phab ticket to have this changed. What do my fellow Wikipedians and editors think about this situation? Personally, I think its laughably asinine and should definitely not be how it's currently set, but I'd like to hear from others and get a basis of community thoughts before I decide where things should go next. :-)

I give my sincere appreciation and "thanks" in advance for your time, input, thoughts, and ideas as to what next steps (if any) should be taken in order to have the status quo changed, and if so, to what level or restriction. This is definitely not the issue that I was expecting would cause the user to not be able to get into their account... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be phab:T109909, which ironically happened under the exact same circumstances. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Good to see this receiving some attention three years after I had the problem with it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This issue should seriously get more attention and have a (slightly) higher priority than what's been given. To me, this is a bug, and one that prevents users from being able to recover their account and log in so that they can edit and no longer be affected by the current block... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of text for "All IP rangeblocks currently prevent access to Special:PasswordReset". :)

The "block the user from sending e-mails" option is normally used for this purpose: Enabling it on an IP block should prevent password resets. It wasn't enabled, however, so I'd say it's a bug. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ToBeFree - HA! Yeah, you got me there... I added a TL;DR section to the top of my initial discussion so that users don't feel obligated to read through my wall of text. I added a lot of details due to the (perhaps bad) assumption that I had that this is an issue that may not have been reported before ("the more details, the better" is what is usually said for these situations). I also shortened the section title due to it being annoyingly long (sorry everyone...). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Heh, no worries from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)